Why free will probably does not exist, and why we should stop treating people -

[Aroura]

Admit...lol?  OFC we lock them up to punish them, but if we lock them up to rehabilitate them....we're still locking them up.  That's the beauty of it.  Prisons are useful regardless.  They're useful for treating a person as though they had free will, and equally useful for the same reasons if we didn't.  

We'd have to use incarceration as a first resort for any violent crime regardless of whether or not free will exists, and perhaps moreso if we just run with the idea that it doesn't.  After all, how could we then argue, with a straight face, that it was just that once, that he'll be able to "control himself" later?  We couldn't.  Off to the cell they go until they've been reconditioned/refurbished/reprogrammed/recycled....whatever......  

As clarification, I think that the tools we have can be used for rehabilitation, but I wouldn;t go so far as to say we have all the necessary tools for that switch.  -and yes, I think we could make that switch, but..for absurd reasons, simply do not.  

Incarceration is not discarding someone, if you want to make the analogy hold.  Executing them and reusing them to make functional machines would be discarding them.  Though, if criminals are malfunctioning machines...and we want to make the analogy hold, what's the problem...just to play devils advocate?  What -makes- it seem entirely backwards?

But locking them up does not rehabilitate them.

I also said, incarceration ALONE. Alone, as a first resort, it only breaks people further.  There are many places in the world that have very good rehabilitation programs.  The US is not one of them.  Again, incarceration =/= rehabilitation.  Why do you keep saying it does?
Also, there are programs for violence that do not include incarceration.  But we incarcerate people even for non-violent acts.  More than half of our prisoners in the US are non-violent criminals.  What is the point of that??

Ultimately, the point is, if we realize people do not chose to commit crimes, they do not chose to be evil, then we can focus on rehabilitation instead of the idea of punishment.  It completely neuters the entire idea of punishment.  Gay people fought very hard about the idea that they are born that way (though not true, more accurately they are made that way both at birth and over their lives), that being gay is not a choice.  The point was to eliminate the idea of their choosing it.  And when that idea became more widely accepted is when they really started making social progress.  If we could realize that criminal behavior is no more a choice than your skin color or your sexuality, maybe people would be more willing to focus on humane treatment like PREVENTION and rehabilitation, instead of just tossing them in jail or killing them.

You seem to have reached that conclusion, that we need better prevention and rehab, without coming to it through determinism.  But the fact is most people cannot get there alone.  Look at the numbers of Christians who wield the word choice as a sword.  When we take that away from them, a good portion do become more compassionate.  A few stick to it, but they continue to insist either being gay is a choice, or those that accept the science, then fall on the argument that having gay SEX is the choice, so since they are choosing to sin, they are still bad...blah blah.  

I think helping people realize that free will is illusory, but that all others still have feelings, so it matters if you reprogram, torture, or throw away, then society would be better.

[The Grand Nudger]

But locking them up does not rehabilitate them.

I also said, incarceration ALONE. Alone, as a first resort, it only breaks people further.  There are many places in the world that have very good rehabilitation programs.  The US is not one of them.  Again, incarceration =/= rehabilitation.  Why do you keep saying it does?

I'd have to have said it once in order to keep saying it....but.....uh...?

Also, there are programs for violence that do not include incarceration. But we incarcerate people even for non-violent acts.  More than half of our prisoners in the US are non-violent criminals.  What is the point of that??

Depends on the crime.  While I'm not, myself, a fan of incarceration for non-violent offense, it's not as though the justification can't be made when..for example..it;s a drug addicts money that keeps a violent cartel running, or a prostitutes labor that keeps a shitty pimp in business.  

Ultimately, the point is, if we realize people do not chose to commit crimes,

Hold on, hit the brakes...who said we didn't choose to commit crimes?  I'm pretty sure we do, freely willed or otherwise.  I know I do.  I mean, I'm sure we can find examples of overwhelming compulsion on whatever we imagine our decision-making apparatus to be...but..whether or not I smoke a joint today......well...probably not one of those examples.

they do not chose to be evil,

-this is starting to snowball into unrelated concepts.  Evil isn't illegal.  You can be an evil fuck and that won't make you a criminal.  

then we can focus on rehabilitation instead of the idea of punishment.

Or on discarding them and starting over, or on some clockwork orange bit of tomfoolery...yeah, sure.  Course, we could rehabilitate even if we did have free will, and it's a little bit easier to make the argument for rehabilitation as such if the "rehabilitated" person has some measure of control over what they do.  If they can somehow choose not to, for example, beat the fuck out of someone.  If we don;t have to pretend to reinvent the wheel for no apparent reason -just- to get a little better at the way we treat our inmates.  

It completely neuters the entire idea of punishment.  Gay people fought very hard about the idea that they are born that way (though not true, more accurately they are made that way both at birth and over their lives), that being gay is not a choice.  The point was to eliminate the idea of their choosing it.  And when that idea became more widely accepted is when they really started making social progress.  If we could realize that criminal behavior is no more a choice than your skin color or your sexuality, maybe people would be more willing to focus on humane treatment like PREVENTION and rehabilitation, instead of just tossing them in jail or killing them.

I don't know, criminality seems to be a little bit more of a choice than the skin color you were born with...or whether or not you like dick....regardless of whether or not we have free wills.  

You seem to have reached that conclusion, that we need better prevention and rehab, without coming to it through determinism.  But the fact is most people cannot get there alone.  Look at the numbers of Christians who wield the word choice as a sword.  When we take that away from them, a good portion do become more compassionate.  A few stick to it, but they continue to insist either being gay is a choice, or those that accept the science, then fall on the argument that having gay SEX is the choice, so since they are choosing to sin, they are still bad...blah blah.  

I think helping people realize that free will is illusory, but that all others still have feelings, so it matters if you reprogram, torture, or throw away, then society would be better.

Well, I'm not all that interested in taking things away simply because somebody, somewhere, misuses it.  All thi feeling stuff sounds less than rational (or does it), and reprogramming and torture toe an awfully fine line. I;m personally of the opinion that rehabilitation works regardless of whether or not we have free wills, and it;s a good idea regardless of whether or not we have free wills, as is incarceration. It's not exactly, imo, a "pick one" sort of issue, nor do I think that treating people as though they didn't have free wills (or...more stangely, choices) would necessarily lead to what you and I think is a swell idea.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

Absolutely. Having no free will in a deterministic world doesn't mean that people don't have feelings. In fact, it means that we should be more concerned with other people's feelings. Although, ironically, one may think of the idea of concern for others feelings, as biological machines instead of independent (of the laws of nature, which makes no sense), as a free act in itself; you may see it as you're choosing to think that and make a change. I think of it more in Richard Dawkins sense of a "meme", as I have read in secondary sources which mention this idea from his book "the selfish gene", wherein thoughts are like viruses which spread through each person's mind. When you look at it this way, you can see that once you've been overtaken with the thought, then it becomes a part of your brain. Hence, I am telling you about it right now. 

As I said, that doesn't negate the fact that I have feelings. I do, and so do others, and that is why it's important to take the feelings of others into account. Since we live in a world where essentially no one is responsible for their actions, this gives one an almost motherly sense of appreciation for another human being. I do, ironically, find some human beings insufferable, but I do none the less realize the importance of respecting the nature of humanity, which is fundamentally deterministic. This, I agree wholeheartedly with in what Aroura said, regarding the prison system. I cannot under state how badly I feel that our prison system is draconian, barbaric and sadistic. Incarcerating non violent offenders makes no sense, treating prisoners like shit does not condition them for going back into society. In fact, I've heard many ex-prisoners, or prisoners say directly that prison makes you a "better criminal". Of this topic, I could probably make the subject of an entire blog post, but I will keep this frank.

This is a video from the norway prison system which I think is relevant here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_2DtpnPus

[brewer]

OP: My take, free will exists on a sliding scale and the amount is contingent upon set and setting.

Unless you believe in god, then you and your free will are just screwed.

Edit: BTW, I'm a bowel of petunias.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

OP: My take, free will exists on a sliding scale and the amount is contingent upon set and setting.

Unless you believe in god, then you and your free will are just screwed.

Edit: BTW, I'm a bowel of petunias.

I really don't like fatalistic statements, such as "who cares, we're all going to die anyways". It's the most sophomoric thing, I actually feel stress when I hear people making banal existential statements. But no, I don't understand what you mean by free will being a sliding scale, dependent on the "set and setting". If you mean that perhaps some people are more conscious than others, then there may be some biological grounds for you to make that argument (if not entirely conjectural). Because if you look at the development of the human brain, there's different parts of the human brain; the most recent of which is the cerebral cortex, responsible for all the fancy shmancy stuff that we humans can do that monkeys can't. So, in a way you might say that we're more highly conscious than a monkey, because we can recognize ourselves in a mirror and have a concept of our own death. 

I'm quite certain that has nothing to do with determinism though, because the idea that we're all bound by the laws of nature and aren't behaving independently of them, isn't contradicted by the fact that someone can be more or less conscious. It is all one in the same.

[bennyboy]

I tried to will myself to read the OP text wall, but I couldn't. Does this mean I lack free will?

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

I tried to will myself to read the OP text wall, but I couldn't.  Does this mean I lack free will?

Blocked.

[brewer]

OP: My take, free will exists on a sliding scale and the amount is contingent upon set and setting.

Unless you believe in god, then you and your free will are just screwed.

Edit: BTW, I'm a bowel of petunias.

I really don't like fatalistic statements, such as "who cares, we're all going to die anyways". It's the most sophomoric thing, I actually feel stress when I hear people making banal existential statements. But no, I don't understand what you mean by free will being a sliding scale, dependent on the "set and setting". If you mean that perhaps some people are more conscious than others, then there may be some biological grounds for you to make that argument (if not entirely conjectural). Because if you look at the development of the human brain, there's different parts of the human brain; the most recent of which is the cerebral cortex, responsible for all the fancy shmancy stuff that we humans can do that monkeys can't. So, in a way you might say that we're more highly conscious than a monkey, because we can recognize ourselves in a mirror and have a concept of our own death. 

I'm quite certain that has nothing to do with determinism though, because the idea that we're all bound by the laws of nature and aren't behaving independently of them, isn't contradicted by the fact that someone can be more or less conscious. It is all one in the same.

You need to find some of the other "free will" threads here. I've been there, done that. Now I'm a bowel of petunias.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

I made a good decision adding you to my ignore list earlier.

[brewer]

I made a good decision adding you to my ignore list earlier.

Then stop responding.