Free will/evil/punishment

[bennyboy]

Free will is not an illusion simply because human beings are subject to the laws of physics. Everything, including these discussions, including threats of punishment, including actual consequences inevitable or merely imposed by society, shapes our wills, by and through which we are free to act so long as the boundaries of a 'self'---however defined---are not coerced into action contrary to the will.

This sounds like a kind of Dennett compatibilism.  Am I gettnig you right?

[bennyboy]

If there's no free will, you don't have to do anything except sit back and watch the show.

Only if your fate allows such a recourse.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, at least for me.  It seems to me that if one's fate (by which I assume you mean determined outcome of a deterministic universe) has brought one into contact with the belief that free will is an illusion, then that person's behavior should be expected to change, if the idea is strongly believed.

However, I do not know of anyone who doesn't act as though they have free will.

[Mudhammam]

Free will is not an illusion simply because human beings are subject to the laws of physics. Everything, including these discussions, including threats of punishment, including actual consequences inevitable or merely imposed by society, shapes our wills, by and through which we are free to act so long as the boundaries of a 'self'---however defined---are not coerced into action contrary to the will.

This sounds like a kind of Dennett compatibilism.  Am I gettnig you right?

More or less, yeah.

[Aroura]

Nice, the forum ate my post.

[bennyboy]

This sounds like a kind of Dennett compatibilism.  Am I gettnig you right?

More or less, yeah.

It's kind of a weird semantic, still, isn't it?  I mean, you're free to express yourself, but you are a product of your environment at every stage of your development.  So basically, free will is just an absence of external influences-- but then what is one making a decision about? Isn't the sight of a donut sitting next to a chocolate bar or whatever essentially an external influence? Also, would hormones or hunger be considered internal or external influences?

[Aroura]

you just seem to like to put words i other people's mouths.  Vague people, true, but you use these vague people in your argument about how illogical and unyielding of thought determinists are, and I don't find that a very agreeable tactic.
 
Here you are doing it again.

Hypocrite much?  Have I at any point said that determinists are illogical and unyielding?  No.  Now you are putting words in MY mouth.  I said that people who claim determinism tend not to act as though they actually believe in determinism-- i.e. they continue to act as though they have free will.  Do you dispute this?

So, pretty please, can we please stop attacking me, and start discussing ideas about free will?

I'd LOVE to discuss it, but you do seem intent on shutting down one side of the argument before it even gets off the ground.

If you had actually said that "people who claim determinism tend not to act as though they actually believe in determinism-- i.e. they continue to act as though they have free will." I would have totally agreed with you. After all, even if people realize or believe they have no free will, they are biologically determined (haha) to act as if they do, at least for the most part.

But despite your protest, that is not what you said.  What you actually said was:

Oh, there are plenty here who claim to be fully certain that free will either doesn't exist, or is simply a name for a kind of determinist brain function.

And

This is my problem with the free will discussions here-- they are too cherry-picking.
1) Free will is an illusion, so nobody could have done other than they did.
2) That guy's a child rapist. Cut off his dick, execute him, fucking make him pay.

I've seen the same people make both arguments but in different threads, and to me, this seems like they don't really believe what they've said about free will.

Saying they don't really believe it (Like you know what they believe or don't believe, jerk thing to say BTW) is not the same as saying they don't behave as if they do. And you know it.  Plus, every determinist I've seen on this forums is the opposite anyway, arguing that punishment is silly if you believe in determinism.

You do this every time a free-will argument comes up (and I'v seen this from you over years of forum posts on 2 forums BB, this isn't new), this passive-aggressive argument ad hominem.  Because you are calling these determinists you ascribe these supposed posts to liars.  

You don't want a discussion, that much is clear right from your very first post.  So I'll oblige you and stop "attacking" you.  

Please feel free to continue your.....discussion. 

(Sorry, Nothing against you personally, honestly.  Normally I like you fine, but this was a douche move on your part, IMO, and I feel you needed calling out on it)

[Aroura]

Or maybe I'm just a hormone robot, and I can't control myself from being a bitch right now, sorry.

[bennyboy]

I've seen the same people make both arguments but in different threads, and to me, this seems like they don't really believe what they've said about free will.

Saying they don't really believe it (Like you know what they believe or don't believe, jerk thing to say BTW) is not the same as saying they don't behave as if they do.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. To me, the word "seems" is equivalent to saying "behave as though." That's because I don't think being highly judgmental of the behavior of others (kill him, punish him, etc.) accords well with the idea that nobody, including a criminal, has the capacity to do other than he has done. I don't really know people's internal dialogue, ideas, or beliefs. However, based on the incompatibility of the ideas of determinism with ideas about harsh punitive justice (which require free will to make any sense), I think it's reasonably doubt whether the idea of behavioral determinism is really more than just something people talk about in philosophy forums.

I hope my position is clearer now.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Free will is not an illusion simply because human beings are subject to the laws of physics. Everything, including these discussions, including threats of punishment, including actual consequences inevitable or merely imposed by society, shapes our wills, by and through which we are free to act so long as the boundaries of a 'self'---however defined---are not coerced into action contrary to the will.

This is my guess as well, although you've worded it much better than I could have done ... but I'm not educated enough in these matters to back it up with brute fact.

Only if your fate allows such a recourse.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, at least for me.  It seems to me that if one's fate (by which I assume you mean determined outcome of a deterministic universe) has brought one into contact with the belief that free will is an illusion, then that person's behavior should be expected to change, if the idea is strongly believed.

However, I do not know of anyone who doesn't act as though they have free will.

I may well be the victim of my own illusion, but I cannot escape my perceptions in the matter. If as you say I am right here, I can only reply that I wish it weren't so.

[Aroura]

Saying they don't really believe it (Like you know what they believe or don't believe, jerk thing to say BTW) is not the same as saying they don't behave as if they do.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  To me, the word "seems" is equivalent to saying "behave as though."  That's because I don't think being highly judgmental of the behavior of others (kill him, punish him, etc.) accords well with the idea that nobody, including a criminal, has the capacity to do other than he has done.  I don't really know people's internal dialogue, ideas, or beliefs.  However, based on the incompatibility of the ideas of determinism with ideas about harsh punitive justice (which require free will to make any sense), I think it's reasonably doubt whether the idea of behavioral determinism is really more than just something people talk about in philosophy forums.

I hope my position is clearer now.

I appologize for complete overraction, and being a jerk to you.

And I agree, the position of punishment does not accord well with determinism, and those who claim to be determinists need to think it through a bit further if they still advocate for punishment, including the death penalty.

To be clear, I do not advocate punishment.  I think it makes no sense even if there is some kind of compatabalist "will", because it is so constrained it hardly counts as free. So really the argument about free-will, constrained will, etc is almost moot. As has been repeated, we can't remove the veil even when we realize it's there.  But it does, I think, help people realize some issues with our current justice system, like what the OP asked.  Does punishment work?  Does it help society in ANY way?  If not, then why do we keep doing it? How can we better deal with criminal behavior?  These are the important questions that lie behind the questions of free will and determinism, I think.

Punishment, revenge, and justice are archaic relics of religious history, IMO. 
I am a huge advocate of rehabilitation, early detection and prevention, and prison as a last resort, because it is generally bad for society to let untreated murderers, rapisist, and so forth to run around continuing to harm others.

Anyway, again sorry, I'll try and not derail the thread with my hormones again.