Free will or not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 08:45 AM)Dom Wrote:  That's exactly right. But it's just a thought exercise. The reality is that we have to separate criminals from the opportunity to act out criminal inclinations. The reality doesn't change.

That is true; the reality of the threat of a criminal does not change. But the current system of "justice" would be obliterated.

It already ought to be... but the concept you seem to act like the justice system works upon isn't even accurate. It's really formed in a way not to care about responsibility or fixing, but it's design is based more on putting a person in a place away from others where they can't further do the harm they've shown they're capable of.

But the Scientific/philosphical is there free will vs the theological is there free will debates aren't one in the same thing, because one is a matter of the religious mindset of a person.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
13-02-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 08:55 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 08:48 AM)Free Wrote:  That is true; the reality of the threat of a criminal does not change. But the current system of "justice" would be obliterated.

No, just how we think about it would change. The reality and results would not be affected at all. We can trash a lot of the negative emotions - retribution, revenge, punishment, blame etc etc. The need to apprehend the criminal and remove him from society continues, and the severity of the danger the person poses will still need to dictate the type of action we need to take. The system works ok, although of course we all have suggestions of how to do it better.

Since free will would not exist, no one we currently deem as a criminal could ever be held responsible for their actions. This is an indisputable fact.

Therefore, "punishment" of anyone who is not responsible for their actions would most definitely be considered a "miscarriage of justice" under the current system.

Yes, we would still need to put the criminals away, but not for any punishment, but rather for the point of reformation. So therefore, without punishment, how then could we deny them the very same daily luxuries we take for granted?

Could we say, "Lights out at 8:00 PM?" Could we say, "Eat what we feed you and shut up?" "You cannot watch television?" "You can only be let out of your cell for 1 hour a day?"

That sounds like "punishment" to me.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 08:41 AM)Dom Wrote:  So, now he has an encyclopedia type thing and hence he doesn't have to know shit but can find out?

Yeah, under those standards... pretty much.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 09:17 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 08:37 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As paradoxical as it may be, I would say the only limits to omnipotence is the free will that is activated by that infinite power. If he wanted to know the answer, he would have the choice to know; however, it's not forced upon him like infinite knowledge is.

Strictly speaking, it's not paradoxical. I can understand the notion of having access to something and then just not using it.

That being said, why something would want to make decisions in the dark is beyond me. Actually, not entirely. Humans do that all the time to avoid uncomfortable truths, but that makes me wonder about the nature of such an omnipotent being.
  • Is God avoiding some uncomfortable truth? If so, what and why?
  • If not, why doesn't God want to know ahead of time? Is this an experiment?
  • Does this ultimately make God responsible for any "unintended" consequences?
  • If God could know the answer to any experiment instead of running it, why run it? Just the excitement of it (purely selfish reasons)?
  • If an experiment is run solely to please God, does that mean any "unintended" consequences happened as a side effect of God doing something for purely selfish reasons?
  • Why does God sometimes choose to see the future and not other times?
Ultimately, this reminds me of the question "what was God doing for infinity years by himself before creating creation?". The question doesn't disprove God pre se, but there isn't really an answer that isn't absurd and/or a giant hand wave.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
13-02-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 09:02 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 08:55 AM)Dom Wrote:  No, just how we think about it would change. The reality and results would not be affected at all. We can trash a lot of the negative emotions - retribution, revenge, punishment, blame etc etc. The need to apprehend the criminal and remove him from society continues, and the severity of the danger the person poses will still need to dictate the type of action we need to take. The system works ok, although of course we all have suggestions of how to do it better.

Since free will would not exist, no one we currently deem as a criminal could ever be held responsible for their actions. This is an indisputable fact.

Therefore, "punishment" of anyone who is not responsible for their actions would most definitely be considered a "miscarriage of justice" under the current system.

Yes, we would still need to put the criminals away, but not for any punishment, but rather for the point of reformation. So therefore, without punishment, how then could we deny them the very same daily luxuries we take for granted?

Could we say, "Lights out at 8:00 PM?" Could we say, "Eat what we feed you and shut up?" "You cannot watch television?" "You can only be let out of your cell for 1 hour a day?"

That sounds like "punishment" to me.

Reformation will only be possible for those who commit crimes because of alterations to the brain processesses made in this life (nurture) , others can't be reformed unless you want to start operating on brains or administer forced meds.

Permanent solutions will have to be found for people who cannot be reformed. They need to be housed separately from the rest of us, and they need to be given opportunity to make money and buy things to better their life, same as the rest of us. And justice has nothing to do with it since there is no free will.

But, this totally diverges from the free will topic.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 10:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 09:02 AM)Free Wrote:  Since free will would not exist, no one we currently deem as a criminal could ever be held responsible for their actions. This is an indisputable fact.

Therefore, "punishment" of anyone who is not responsible for their actions would most definitely be considered a "miscarriage of justice" under the current system.

Yes, we would still need to put the criminals away, but not for any punishment, but rather for the point of reformation. So therefore, without punishment, how then could we deny them the very same daily luxuries we take for granted?

Could we say, "Lights out at 8:00 PM?" Could we say, "Eat what we feed you and shut up?" "You cannot watch television?" "You can only be let out of your cell for 1 hour a day?"

That sounds like "punishment" to me.

Reformation will only be possible for those who commit crimes because of alterations to the brain processesses made in this life (nurture) , others can't be reformed unless you want to start operating on brains or administer forced meds.

Agreed.

Quote:Permanent solutions will have to be found for people who cannot be reformed. They need to be housed separately from the rest of us, and they need to be given opportunity to make money and buy things to better their life, same as the rest of us. And justice has nothing to do with it since there is no free will.

Somewhat agree. Violent behavior may need to result in seclusion, with a job that does not interact with others.

Quote:But, this totally diverges from the free will topic.

I think it's relevant, since the OP is looking for answers.

If we go deeper into the question of Free Will or No Free Will, we perhaps should examine what would be considered the most basic attribute that exists within all sentient life.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the single most basic attribute of all sentient life is "self preservation." We are compelled to preserve our existence by all means possible, but we can also be compelled to extinguish our existence due to one reason only:

Pain.

From the very basic need to preserve ourselves, we only do two things to sustain our preservation:

1. Increase our pleasure.

2. Decrease our pain.


Self preservation is an unavoidable selfish act, but it can be countered by making a free will choice to end self preservation due to a high extent of pain, be it physical, or emotional.

Every last thing we do is a selfish act. We cannot ever perform a "selfless act." It is impossible for any sentient life to do anything that is not in its own best interests.

Therefore, we go through life either decreasing our pain, or finding ways to increase our pleasure. Whether we take our own lives via suicide to decrease the pain, or give a million dollars to charity to make ourselves feel the pleasure, all we do is simply one or both of those two things.

Therefore, we do have choices based upon the current environment. We can choose to override our sense of self preservation and die, or we can chose to live our lives via increasing our pleasures and decreasing our pains.

If an infinite an eternal universe is a reality- which I think it is- then everything is random, and the free will to make the choices I have noted above exists.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Free will or not?
(12-02-2015 02:54 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  A better question would be that if he knows all, then why tempt Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge? Did he want to condemn all of humanity?

well according to Emmanual 5:12 which I just made up god said humanity is to sin in order for me to entertain himself which is the sole reason he created this universe Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 11:09 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 10:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  Reformation will only be possible for those who commit crimes because of alterations to the brain processesses made in this life (nurture) , others can't be reformed unless you want to start operating on brains or administer forced meds.

Agreed.

Quote:Permanent solutions will have to be found for people who cannot be reformed. They need to be housed separately from the rest of us, and they need to be given opportunity to make money and buy things to better their life, same as the rest of us. And justice has nothing to do with it since there is no free will.

Somewhat agree. Violent behavior may need to result in seclusion, with a job that does not interact with others.

Quote:But, this totally diverges from the free will topic.

I think it's relevant, since the OP is looking for answers.

If we go deeper into the question of Free Will or No Free Will, we perhaps should examine what would be considered the most basic attribute that exists within all sentient life.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the single most basic attribute of all sentient life is "self preservation." We are compelled to preserve our existence by all means possible, but we can also be compelled to extinguish our existence due to one reason only:

Pain.

From the very basic need to preserve ourselves, we only do two things to sustain our preservation:

1. Increase our pleasure.

2. Decrease our pain.


Self preservation is an unavoidable selfish act, but it can be countered by making a free will choice to end self preservation due to a high extent of pain, be it physical, or emotional.

Every last thing we do is a selfish act. We cannot ever perform a "selfless act." It is impossible for any sentient life to do anything that is not in its own best interests.

Therefore, we go through life either decreasing our pain, or finding ways to increase our pleasure. Whether we take our own lives via suicide to decrease the pain, or give a million dollars to charity to make ourselves feel the pleasure, all we do is simply one or both of those two things.

Therefore, we do have choices based upon the current environment. We can choose to override our sense of self preservation and die, or we can chose to live our lives via increasing our pleasures and decreasing our pains.

If an infinite an eternal universe is a reality- which I think it is- then everything is random, and the free will to make the choices I have noted above exists.

You are a random bundle of attributes. These attributes determine what you will do in any given situation. The situations are random. While there are innumerable possibilities, you still have no free will.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
13-02-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 11:09 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 10:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  Reformation will only be possible for those who commit crimes because of alterations to the brain processesses made in this life (nurture) , others can't be reformed unless you want to start operating on brains or administer forced meds.

Agreed.

Quote:Permanent solutions will have to be found for people who cannot be reformed. They need to be housed separately from the rest of us, and they need to be given opportunity to make money and buy things to better their life, same as the rest of us. And justice has nothing to do with it since there is no free will.

Somewhat agree. Violent behavior may need to result in seclusion, with a job that does not interact with others.

Quote:But, this totally diverges from the free will topic.

I think it's relevant, since the OP is looking for answers.

If we go deeper into the question of Free Will or No Free Will, we perhaps should examine what would be considered the most basic attribute that exists within all sentient life.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the single most basic attribute of all sentient life is "self preservation." We are compelled to preserve our existence by all means possible, but we can also be compelled to extinguish our existence due to one reason only:

Pain.

From the very basic need to preserve ourselves, we only do two things to sustain our preservation:

1. Increase our pleasure.

2. Decrease our pain.


Self preservation is an unavoidable selfish act, but it can be countered by making a free will choice to end self preservation due to a high extent of pain, be it physical, or emotional.

Every last thing we do is a selfish act. We cannot ever perform a "selfless act." It is impossible for any sentient life to do anything that is not in its own best interests.

Therefore, we go through life either decreasing our pain, or finding ways to increase our pleasure. Whether we take our own lives via suicide to decrease the pain, or give a million dollars to charity to make ourselves feel the pleasure, all we do is simply one or both of those two things.

Therefore, we do have choices based upon the current environment. We can choose to override our sense of self preservation and die, or we can chose to live our lives via increasing our pleasures and decreasing our pains.

If an infinite an eternal universe is a reality- which I think it is- then everything is random, and the free will to make the choices I have noted above exists.

And about self preservation - there is also the opposing instinct for survival of the species. When these two instincts collide - that's where you are most likely to run into trouble.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: Free will or not?
(13-02-2015 09:17 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 08:37 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As paradoxical as it may be, I would say the only limits to omnipotence is the free will that is activated by that infinite power. If he wanted to know the answer, he would have the choice to know; however, it's not forced upon him like infinite knowledge is.

Strictly speaking, it's not paradoxical. I can understand the notion of having access to something and then just not using it.

That being said, why something would want to make decisions in the dark is beyond me. Actually, not entirely. Humans do that all the time to avoid uncomfortable truths, but that makes me wonder about the nature of such an omnipotent being.
  • Is God avoiding some uncomfortable truth? If so, what and why?
  • If not, why doesn't God want to know ahead of time? Is this an experiment?
  • Does this ultimately make God responsible for any "unintended" consequences?
  • If God could know the answer to any experiment instead of running it, why run it? Just the excitement of it (purely selfish reasons)?
  • If an experiment is run solely to please God, does that mean any "unintended" consequences happened as a side effect of God doing something for purely selfish reasons?
  • Why does God sometimes choose to see the future and not other times?
Ultimately, this reminds me of the question "what was God doing for infinity years by himself before creating creation?". The question doesn't disprove God pre se, but there isn't really an answer that isn't absurd and/or a giant hand wave.

The concept of omniscience is so abstract, I don't think it can even be remotely possible, it just creates more questions than it answers. (Christian concepts are really good at that) Omniscience has to be tied to ominpresence, how would you get information about everything? Let's start stacking the turtles!

At what scale does omniscience work? At the galactic scale? At the planetary scale? At the human scale? At the atomic scale?
We know at the atomic scale observing something is an act that changes the position and/or momentum of atomic particles, the very act of observation destroys predictability, it destroys the ability to know the key elements of information that provide predictability.
At this point, science falsifies this concept, it's turtles all the way down.

[Image: Turtles-All-The-Way-Down1.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: