What are the benefits of understanding our free will?

[dimreepr]

This thought struck me while reading the recent traffic on the subject, so instead of dragging that one off topic, here we are in my default forum (if anyone can think of a better place, feel free to let rip 😉)

I mean that philosophically, it seems little more than a semantic exercise; but if we pulled it off politically, then it could liberate millions of prisoner's because we'd understand just how culpable they were and society would be satisfied with a far lower bar, as regards justice.

But what could it mean scientifically other than just knowing?

  

[dimreepr]

Bump, into the rabbit hole...

[Sensei]

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Bump,

The way you express your thoughts on the forum is cumbersome for people (too ambiguous), so don't have too high expectations for people to join and participate.. Any discussion with you is full of "what did you mean?" instead of a real discussion.. It is annoying and cumbersome..

Learn how to be non-ambiguous, and you will have more successful discussions..

On 11/9/2023 at 3:35 PM, dimreepr said:

I mean that philosophically, it seems little more than a semantic exercise; but if we pulled it off politically, then it could liberate millions of prisoner's because we'd understand just how culpable they were and society would be satisfied with a far lower bar, as regards justice.

..what I see in this world is just: increase the time served in prison, increase the time served in prison..

I don't recall any politicians claiming that reducing prison time is desirable.

Unless you meant "prisoners of free will" or "prisoners of determinism".. ?

Of course, for society, the fewer people in prisons, the better, because these people simply waste everyone's time (except investors who bought shares in private prisons on the stock market, guards and prison management).

 

On 11/9/2023 at 3:35 PM, dimreepr said:

(if anyone can think of a better place, feel free to let rip 😉)

Philosophical discussion belongs in the dustbin..

 

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

The way you express your thoughts on the forum is cumbersome for people (too ambiguous), so don't have too high expectations for people to join and participate..

Any discussion with you is full of "what did you mean?" instead of a real discussion.. It is annoying and cumbersome..

<snip>

Philosophical discussion belongs in the dustbin..

Well, aren't you just full of sugar.

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

The way you express your thoughts on the forum is cumbersome for people (too ambiguous)

I think the topic title is relatively biguous, please provide a more concise way to ask...

Besides, in my experience ambiguity generally gets higher numbers, and can lead to a more enjoyable and informative discussion, just a thought.

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

..what I see in this world is just: increase the time served in prison, increase the time served in prison..

I don't recall any politicians claiming that reducing prison time is desirable.

Unless you meant "prisoners of free will" or "prisoners of determinism".. ?

Of course, for society, the fewer people in prisons, the better, because these people simply waste everyone's time (except investors who bought shares in private prisons on the stock market, guards and prison management).

You're always welcome to ask me to clarify, because you've missed my point entirely.

If philosophy can determine just how much free will we actually have (I think it may not be as much as I think (50%ish), and I'm bloody sure it's not as much as you think (90%+)) and can persuade our populous, IOW politicians, of that knowledge; then prison's could become obsolete, because most people would have a better understanding of what justice actually means...

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

Philosophical discussion belongs in the dustbin

That's a rubbish heckle... 🧐

[Sensei]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If philosophy can determine [..]

"philosophy can determine" something? Do you read what you write before you click the "Submit" button.. ?

 

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Besides, in my experience ambiguity generally gets higher numbers, and can lead to a more enjoyable and informative discussion, just a thought.

De-railed threads about nothing, just a thought..

 

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're always welcome to ask me to clarify, because you've missed my point entirely.

Didn't I just say:

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

The way you express your thoughts on the forum is cumbersome for people (too ambiguous)

 

ps. There are no participants in the discussion because people don't want to waste their time..

 

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If philosophy can determine just how much free will we actually have (I think it may not be as much as I think (50%ish), and I'm bloody sure it's not as much as you think (90%+)) and can persuade our populous, IOW politicians, of that knowledge; then prison's could become obsolete, because most people would have a better understanding of what justice actually means...

..actually this sentence makes no logical sense....

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"philosophy can determine" something? Do you read what you write before you click the "Submit" button.. ?

Which word has tripped you up?

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

De-railed threads about nothing, just a thought.

 

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Didn't I just say:

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

The way you express your thoughts on the forum is cumbersome for people (too ambiguous)

 

You did, and then you failed to understand the word justice; it's not my job to understand for you...

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

ps. There are no participants in the discussion because people don't want to waste their time..

Maybe true, yet here you are wasting mine; I'm not holding a gun to your head, feel free to go forth with multiplication on your mind. 😣

32 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"philosophy can determine" something?

Yes, philosophy determined a way to think without bias; can't think of the word...

40 minutes ago, Sensei said:

actually this sentence makes no logical sense....

I would ask for clarification, but what's the point, if you don't understand a simple question (topic title)...

[TheVat]

Hi, Dim.

In terms of justice systems, it seems we rely on the idea that people have some free will.  When someone commits a crime, and is determined to be of sound mind, then it is held that they could have chosen to do otherwise.  In a determinist view, however, they were fated to transgress (however society was equally fated to devise a criminal justice system and punish them).  Indeed, from a deterministic perspective, all beliefs in free will and moral responsibility were predetermined, and any future retooling of that social consensus will also be predetermined.  One could argue as a determinist that society should embrace immediately the view that there are no real choices and set about eliminating all choices as illusory nonsense.  Which would sort of end life as we know it.  Prisons would be gone, but so would the most minimal assurance of public safety, and democracy, and probably a vast array of other social structures that presume human moral choice.

That's not gonna happen, so we remain with a belief in real moral choice, and the institutions that follow from that.  But if you are asking about gray areas, about degrees of belief in free will, then there is certainly wiggle room.  E.g. we now identify mental illnesses that deprive people of the capacity to make moral choices, and can move in the direction of therapy rather than incarceration.

 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

the view that there are no real choices and set about eliminating all choices as illusory nonsense.  Which would sort of end life as we know it.  Prisons would be gone, but so would the most minimal assurance of public safety, and democracy, and probably a vast array of other social structures that presume human moral choice.

Unless a consequentialist view is taken whereby we accept that most decisions occur prior to any conscious awareness of them while continuing to enforce penal codes if it improves society as a whole. The existence of the consequence likely also alters the factors involved when making the decision itself, as neural plasticity and learning don’t exactly go away just bc decisions happen in the brain sooner than previously thought. 

The forecast of future consequences still can play a role in which decisions are made, even if we accept those occur due to biochemistry in specific locations. 

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, philosophy determined a way to think without bias; can't think of the word...

..the founders of philosophy were slave owners.. they raped the women and men which they just bought in the slave market.. occasionally killing them for fun..

Did they have free will and use it to rape them, or were they determined to rape them?

(in between of thinking about "philosophy")

Edited November 12, 2023 by Sensei

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If philosophy can determine just how much free will we actually have (I think it may not be as much as I think (50%ish), and I'm bloody sure it's not as much as you think (90%+)) and can persuade our populous

I put our free will at 100%.  By that I mean the future is not predetermined.  I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

[Peterkin]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:35 AM, dimreepr said:

then it could liberate millions of prisoner's because we'd understand just how culpable they were and society would be satisfied with a far lower bar, as regards justice.

Prison sentences have very little to do with degree of culpability. They're a product of legislative decisions and the practice of law in a given society, which in turn are products of the culture and mood of the society. Justice systems as they exist today are all predicated on the presumption of free will: that an adult is responsible for all of his or her actions. More liberal-leaning systems allow for diminished capacity in certain conditions, or extenuating circumstances. The length of sentences don't always match the crime, let alone the freedom of the perpetrator's will.

Scientifically, I don't see this as a subject that lends itself to investigation or experimentation - except possibly for developing enhanced interrogation methods.

[J.C.MacSwell]

59 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I put our free will at 100%.  By that I mean the future is not predetermined.  I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

You seem to have convinced yourself. How have you managed to do that?

[Bufofrog]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

IOW politicians, of that knowledge; then prison's could become obsolete, because most people would have a better understanding of what justice actually means...

What are you talking about?  Why in the world would prisons become obsolete?

 

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seem to have convinced yourself. How have you managed to do that?

I (like every other sane person) feel 100% that I make my own decisions for one.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

I (like every other sane person) feel 100% that I make my own decisions for one.  

So a predetermined sense of free will for all sane individuals?

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So a predetermined sense of free will for all sane individuals?

Sure.  Maybe Yahweh just started the universe last Wednesday programed all our past memories and the future is all set in stone.  I guess without evidence you can make any claim you want.  However, I feel 100% that I am making freewill decisions and that's more than enough for me.  IOW with the absence of evidence I gotta go with my gut. 

[Halc]

15 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Maybe Yahweh just started the universe last Wednesday programed all our past memories and the future is all set in stone.

You got it all wrong Bufofrog. What kind of fool is going to believe that?

Everybody knows it was last Tuesday, not Wednesday.

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I put our free will at 100%.  By that I mean the future is not predetermined.  I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

I really don't see how you can say that. Take the example of a Grizzly Bear, starving hungry, that comes across an unprotected fawn. Can it choose to kill or leave the fawn, anything physically possible? Of course not. The freedom is there in theory. But to do anything other than kill and eat the fawn is not possible, for a starving Grizzly Bear. 

The same applies to a human. Can you choose to do anything physically possible? No. Not with the brain you've ended up with, and the experiences stored in it. While there is some bit of choice available, it's limited by your hardware and what's been uploaded. 

[Bufofrog]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I really don't see how you can say that. Take the example of a Grizzly Bear, starving hungry, that comes across an unprotected fawn. Can it choose to kill or leave the fawn, anything physically possible? Of course not.

I would say, "of course".  I can't imagine why he wouldn't eat the fawn and it would be pretty stupid not to eat the fawn but of course he has the choice.

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I would say, "of course".  I can't imagine why he wouldn't eat the fawn and it would be pretty stupid not to eat the fawn but of course he has the choice.

To have a choice, you have to have a brain that is capable of making that choice. It's false to argue that another bear could make a different choice. With ther brain and life experience of the bear, there is no choice. 

You have to ignore the brain of the bear, and the overpowering craving for food, to theorise that there is a choice available. In other words, ignore the reality.

Like so many other things, I think choice is shades of grey, not black or white. The starving bear example makes it a bit clearer. Maybe one starving bear in a million might be able to resist the natural impulse to eat the fawn. One way to argue is to say that they all therefore have a choice. The other way to look at it is that none of them have a choice, given the way their brains are. 999,999 are compelled to kill it. The other one, for whatever reason, is compelled to leave it, again, because of the way that it's brain is at the time. 

Of course, five minutes later, your brain might be compelled to make the opposite choice. But do you have a choice, given the state of your brain at the instant you make a decision?

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

Like so many other things, I think choice is shades of grey, not black or white. The starving bear example makes it a bit clearer. Maybe one starving bear in a million might be able to resist the natural impulse to eat the fawn. One way to argue is to say that they all therefore have a choice. The other way to look at it is that none of them have a choice, given the way their brains are.

How do you think this impacts the Second Amendment right to arm bears?

[geordief]

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

How do you think this impacts the Second Amendment right to arm bears?

You just couldn't resist ,could you?

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

To have a choice, you have to have a brain that is capable of making that choice. It's false to argue that another bear could make a different choice. With ther brain and life experience of the bear, there is no choice.

That has nothing to do with free will vs a predetermined future.

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I put our free will at 100%.  By that I mean the future is not predetermined.  I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

..or you were predestined to say such words..

Philosophical discussions can be shortened to the statement "I know that I know nothing"..

If one needs brain exercises, one should start creating algorithms, i.e. solving solvable problems, rather than wasting (precious human life) time on unsolvable ones..

 

[Bufofrog]

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

..or you were predestined to say such words..

Philosophical discussions can be shortened to the statement "I know that I know nothing"..

If one needs brain exercises, one should start creating algorithms, i.e. solving solvable problems, rather than wasting (precious human life) time on unsolvable ones..

I more or less agree with that.  I find philosophical discussions tedious and boring.  I think I have reached my limit on this particular thread.  

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

In terms of justice systems, it seems we rely on the idea that people have some free will. 

I agree that some people have some free will, my point is rooted in the saying "it takes a village to raise a child", as in one's biases influences the "free choice" along with all sorts of other factors, such as diet.

Not everyone are capable of recognising this and developing a personal moral compass free of friends, family etc... 

If we understand where free will, which is the point of this topic, actually exists in the human condition, then that knowledge when accepted by society, would automatically lead to a more refined understanding of justice and how to more appropriately deal with the perpetrator.

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

 Prisons would be gone, but so would the most minimal assurance of public safety, and democracy, and probably a vast array of other social structures that presume human moral choice.

 Prisons as we know them today would be gone, replaced by secure holiday (for want of a better word) camp's.