Implications of not having free will

[Spacedog]

The real question is whether or not the accepted knowledge of no free will would change anything.

If we don't have it the the answer is that it definitely won't

[Dystopia]

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.

Interesting perspective - But still leaves the problem of lack of reasoning to consider someone guilty - The whole criminal system stands by the principle of guilt, if you are not guilty you can't serve time, at the most you can be sent to a mental institution (which can be worse than jail)... The argument of uncontrollability is good but it loses its consistence when I could use it to justify doing any act of cruelty or violence (me, or any other individual or collective group of people/institutions) - And it would be seen as inevitable... Deterministic propositions have led to inefficient and unfair criminal systems like in the XVIII/XIX century - Crimes like negligent ones weren't really considered crimes because there was no brain activity directed towards guilty intentions, and therefore we couldn't convict a negligent, no matter how serious crime... Nowadays we have considered [I studied it like this] the existence of naturalistic sciences in a parallelism with Human's culture, philosophical and social side - And both determine how criminal law deals with issues, namely when it comes to guilt - In this scenario negligence is already punishable, as well as crimes by omission.

[Spacedog]

For all we know, quantum measurements are truly random, but an unknown or even undiscoverable systematic in terms of hidden variables could be behind it which lets physics be deterministic again despite the appearance.

I've thought about this a lot actually, I like the idea that the quantum world is really just the tip of an invisible iceberg

I disagree that the macroscopic averaging out of quantum noise makes these effects irrelevant. Noise plays an important role in neural networks and can influence the outcomes.

Could you provide any links to specific studies showing quantum noise effecting neural networks? I'll have a search on google scholar anyhow.

Either way surely this could only result in an occasional misfire, not anything equitable to free will? Or do you propose some quantum-biological system evolved to allow free will?

That reminds me of an article I read in the New Scientist about migratory birds using entanglement to navigate the electromagnetic field. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20...K3IHSusWSo

I don't see how true randomness would rescue free will though.

But before I go on about that, first a question: how do you define free will, I'm not sure I know what the word means

The ability to, at a single point in time, choose between more than one action.

[Alex K]

Depends on what we call choosing, doesn't it? I'll look for something on the noise if I don't forget, otherwise remind me .

[Spacedog]

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?

---

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?

---

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.

[JuliaL]

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?

Even if we're in a block universe, I can visualize a subset locus of space-time neural events which thinks itself free morphing into a locus where it infringes, is caught and convicted. As long as the overall system is sufficiently complex and chaotic, we won't be able to predict enough to confidently make the statement that the criminal could not have done otherwise.

If we somehow learn enough about the universe to show the exact causal relationships between the criminal, the crime and the conviction, we'll know so much more than we do now, that we'll be able to break the determinism and achieve unfettered free will.

[Mudhammam]

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?

Yeah, and I think I would agree. Do you think it can be seen as suggestive, as theists would probably argue, that properties of mind, or our concepts such as "truth" and "morality," have a metaphysical basis that is more fundamental in the grand scheme of things, i.e. the structure of reality, the fabric of the cosmos, the cement of the universe? Or is that, as some say (I think rightly), a meaningless question?

I have an essay by the great William James called the Dilemma of Determinism that I will probably get around to reading in a month or so. I expect he will offer some challenging remarks, and if so, I'll be sure to offer 'em up for the fun of playing devil's advocate. :-P

[The Grand Nudger]

I think the approach of no free will could be dangerous for another reason - 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,

We already do this -even though- we accept free will. Personally, even if we didn't - even if we could predict a persons behavior...I still wouldn't be in favor of segregating them. I'm content to wait for the crime to happen before punishing someone for it regardless of whether or not they have a choice in committing it.

Perhaps we've studied different schools, but when I studied criminal law, a deterministic proposition/approach was rejected in the beginning because criminal law wouldn't allow someone to be punished if the subject isn't able to determine his or hers behaviour according to the law - Fully making the choice of committing a crime, when she/he could have refused to engage in said act

Punitive/rehabilitative. Criminal law can allow for either of these approaches (and already does). I agree that the first (yours) would not "work" if there were no free will. Doesn't seem to me like it works anyway, regardless of whether or not there is free will.

[Spacedog]

Do you think it can be seen as suggestive, as theists would probably argue, that properties of mind, or our concepts such as "truth" and "morality," have a metaphysical basis that is more fundamental in the grand scheme of things, i.e. the structure of reality, the fabric of the cosmos, the cement of the universe? Or is that, as some say (I think rightly), a meaningless question?

I apologise for being slow, I'm going to have to try and clarify your question...
Do you mean - do I think that a deterministic universe suggests that products of the human mind are more fundamentally real than physical objects?

If that was the question, I wouldn't say that products of the mind like morality were more fundamental than the more obvious aspects of reality that you can pick up and hold in your hand; I would say they were equally as real because they are part of the same system.

This does of course then lead me to have to accept that a man who has conversations with his left shoe is experiencing no less real a form of reality than myself... hmmmm. I guess Stephen Hawking's goldfish bowl analogy could be relevant here:

"A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure's sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish's picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?"

I won't go on until you reassure me that I'm answering the right question anyhow!

---

Depends on what we call choosing, doesn't it?

Would you disagree that cause and effect would be maintained even if we could go one of two or more ways at a single point in time?

[bennyboy]

Balderdash. You can still attribute guilt, just not moral desert. Then the thing which changes is only the rationale we use to justify punishing them, which is still available via the rationales of rehabilitation, deterrence, and protecting society.

This.

I wouldn't call it "punishment" any more, though. It needs a euphemism: "correctional input" or something.