What do we do while deciding if free will exists?

[henryp]

I don't know how to do your fancy quoting stuff, so I just replied in bold.

I've been putting some thought, and actually doing some reading on the idea of free will.  It's existence is one thing.  I'm leaning towards it not being a thing, and probably consciousness being an illusion as well.  But it's mostly guesswork for now, which is all that's relevant.

The problem is the implications of that uncertainty. 

I think the first thing you need to do is precisely define "free will."  Before you attempt that, I recommend, at a minimum, reading the following encyclopedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

These discussions typically begin with someone assuming that the meaning is clear and that everyone agrees on it.  That is wrong, and it leads to much wasted time and verbiage.

Okey dokie.  Everything we are is a product of our genetics and the product of those genetics reaction to environment.  In the same way a computer program is just code and input.  

That's what I'd view an absence of free will as.  I don't know exactly what to define free will would be based on what I just said.  And from what I've read, nobody does, because it sounds like the laws of physics as we know them don't allow for anything else yet.

This is the context of free will, or maybe better an absence of free will that I'm discussing.  Although, that was probably gleanable in the context of the post.

How one would behave in a world where people are responsible for their actions, and one where they aren't are totally different.

There is no necessary difference between how one would act in a world where people are responsible for their actions and one in which they are not.  And you should explain, very clearly, how this relates to the question of whether people have "free will" or not, whatever that phrase means, which needs to be clearly defined for us to have a productive discussion.

Bob the Viking mistakenly believes the sea has some say in what it does, and that he can curry favor with it by sacrificing his finest goat.  Jim the Accountant knows the sea is just the sea, and so keeps his finest goat and makes lovely cheese.  There's nothing saying Jim couldn't sacrifice his goat anyways, but it'd be illogical.  The general idea of doing what is logical is what I'm curious about. 

In a world where they are, we're free to judge and despise them.  Feel superiority, etc.. And it's all fine, because we chose to be who we are, and they chose to be who they are.  

In it's absence, however, that's the equivalent of yelling at the weather.  We don't believe a tornado is a jerk.  Instead we'd focus on getting a desirable outcome.  Things would be dealt with in a very logical way, as we attempted to dissuade/modify behaviors to get them to fall in line with whatever it is we want.

You seem to be presuming two separate things with that.  First, that we know the truth, whatever it might be.  There is no reason to presume that.  If we have "free will," we may or may not know it, and if we don't have "free will," we may or may not know it.  Second, you are presuming that we would either freely choose to behave differently, or, perhaps,  that we would be "caused" to behave differently (if you suppose this second thing, you will want to explain "cause" to us).  You have not given us any reason to suppose that that would be the case.  If we have no responsibility for our actions, that does not necessitate us not judging or despising others or feeling superior to others.

I'm not presuming that we know the truth.  I'm identifying the two possible states of reality.   There's free will or there's not.  And then I attempted to logically follow what the implications would be if we knew which state.  The point of all this is that we are in the 3rd state of not knowing, and faced with the decision of how to proceed.  While my brain is comfortable with a course of action for the first two states, it doesn't know how it should logically proceed in the 3rd state.

As for part II, I think fully knowing free will was a thing, one would choose to behave one way, and knowing there was no free will, we'd behave however it is we behave. 

Another Analogy:  
We have an equation 1 + X = Y.
With free will, X = 3.  'Logically" we should conclude Y = 4.  But humans can still choose any number for Y they want, because free to do whatever.
Without Free Will, X = 4.  'Logically' the brain should output Y=5.  But the brain might have terrible logic, and spit out 7.  Always 7.

I'm interested in the 'logical' answer.  Which I understand involves plenty of unknowns and suppositions and whatnot.  But again, that's why I made the thread, to get others input on what would be logical, and what they even view 'logical' to mean.

You seem to want a very confined set of parameters for the discussion, but I'm happy to intake anything anyone has to offer with any parameters they like, because the parameters are almost all guesswork anyways.

Or perhaps judging/despising/feeling superiority is the answer that evolution came up with that is more effective at getting the desired results than becoming aware of free will being an illusion, and acting accordingly based on that understanding?

Key point:  
When you have a concept that defines how you should live, and you don't know the true nature of that concept, how do you go forward?  Does it matter to people that their belief/non-belief in free will has a decent chance of being a fallacy upon which so much of their live's decisions are built? 

I have never known anyone to behave substantially differently, based on whether the person claims to believe in "free will" or not.  The wise ones look both ways before crossing a street, and the fools do not.  Claiming a belief in "free will" or not is irrelevant.

Neither have I.  The thought never really crossed my mind in a serious way until a few weeks ago.  That being said, we definitely treat things we view as having free will different than things we do not view as having free will.  I've never seen a toaster in County Jail for burning someone's hand.  And Bob the Viking and Jim the Accountant both deal very differently with the sea based on their thoughts on it having free will.  

But humans seem to be pretty slow in getting around to these kinds of things.  Look how long it took for Atheism to start catching on.  I think the idea that free will might not be a thing isn't on 99.99% of people's radar, and many who's radar it's on are likely still tangling with the implications.  On top of which, the pro-free will idea might be getting some support from an evolutionary disposition to believe we have free will.  Again, this is all just rambling stuff, and I made the thread to hear others ramble as well.  In fact, that's why I'm on these boards altogether.  To hear other people's ramblings, 'cause this stuff be complicated!

As for how to treat criminals, the practically-minded people focus on rehabilitation for those who will eventually be released from prison, regardless of whether they believe in "free will" or not.  But those who are angry and want vengeance often do not consider the practical import of how criminals are treated.

There is a sense of justice in punishment that I think you ignore there.   The idea that choosing to do wrong warrants punishment.  Not only as dissuasion, but as whatever type of Karma like system they've got going on.  

I'm not sure what my conclusion would be in the non-free will state.  It'd certainly involve rehabilitation.  Punishment as dissuasion would probably be necessary as well.  But the Karma idea would probably go by the wayside.  Or maybe we keep it, because that's the best route.  Hell, maybe the best way to go all around, is to just act like there is free will even if there isn't.

---

I'm very surprised people act like this isn't a practical issue, when we've already seen it applied repeatedly in society.  I've always felt the idea that being gay was genetic rather than a choice was what put them over the top in terms of gaining a consensus of support. ...

I disagree.  If it is genetic, then one might want to use medication to cure the genetic disorder (if, that is, one views homosexuality as a disorder).

In my case, whether my neighbor is gay or not has no significance to my life, so I do not concern myself with the question.  It seems to me that the issue is a question of whether one wants to control other people's behavior or not, in cases where their behavior is irrelevant to one's life.  Whether other people are caused to be gay, or choose to be gay, seems to me to be quite irrelevant to the matter.

Irrelevant to you.  I was talking about the societal response to the movement.  I thought the 'push' over the hump was 'being born gay' because a large part of the opposition was framing it as choosing to do something wrong.  When the 'choice' was removed from the equation, people didn't view it as negatively.  This of course is my anecdotal interpretation of the nation's discourse on the subject.

In the same way, I do not care if my immediate neighbor is black or white (or something else), though I am pretty sure that that is not merely a matter of the individual choosing.  And in the same way, I do not care if my immediate neighbor is a stamp collector or not, though I am pretty sure that that is a matter of the individual choosing (in the ordinary dictionary sense of the word "choosing," not necessarily in the sense in which you are likely to use it in this thread).  Neither the color of my neighbor's skin, nor whether he or she is a stamp collector, is of any importance to me, and so I take no action regarding these matters.

We have the luxury of being enlightened 21st century folk!  Lucky us.