RE: Implications of not having free will
January 7, 2015 at 8:21 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm by Spacedog.)
(January 7, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I might disagree, if only because I think the language here is a bit equivocal. *You* can *choose* to quite smoking, because you understand the pros and cons, and perhaps you feel compelled to quit, and you possess reasons that carry more force than immediate urges. Sure, you're not in absolute control of the results, because there are endless mitigating factors that you may not react to in a way that you'll find pleasing in retrospect, but just knowing this can be the empowering influence that tips the scales in favour of your ideal. I guess that's my problem with the language "I cannot choose." That in of itself can be debilitating, and render your "will," that is, your conscious desire, weakened.
And to say the future is predetermined can have the same effect. I rather like to think it's blind necessity that drives me on.
What I'm trying to say is that in a deterministic universe the future must be predetermined; which means that while I do choose based on the information I have about smoking, that choice is the only one I could have made.
This generally remains the same if the universe is not fully deterministic but we still don't have free will.
It's sort of like the paradox of arguing that a judge should not punish someone because they had no choice in committing a crime, when by the same logic the judge had no choice in punishing them.
See what I'm getting at?
(January 7, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Blackout Wrote: We could feel compelled, trough observation of people's behaviour, to predict if they could be [or not] potential criminals and for said reason segregate them right away
Isn't there a film about that?
(January 7, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(January 7, 2015 at 5:34 pm)Blackout Wrote: The most serious issue by far is that criminals couldn't be convicted because their guilt was predetermined by variables they couldn't control - Committing crimes becomes a chain of reactions [naturalistic] that the subject doesn't control. This is why in criminal law we assume free will exists at least as a fiction, otherwise it would compromise the entire system.
I've always found this concept to be somewhat confusing; so the criminal's actions were predetermined and uncontrollable, but somehow our putting them on trial and in prison for breaking the law isn't?
If you're going to make the first claim I think you're pretty safe in just throwing your hands up and giving up on the whole scenario as beyond your control.
