[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 56 KB, 640x275, 26283.strip.sunday.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3726148 [Reply] [Original]

So recently i've been considering the implications of determinism on concepts generally percieved as free will, and how it basically concludes no punishment bar rehabiliation is reasonable.


And i saw how the /sci/ website had the lectures of Daniel Dennet on the exact issue. Why isn't this discussed more? It seems like a very easy argument to explain while being proper foundations for a response to crime.

It could easily help millions understand a peaceful stance on morality and benefiting all of society.

Any serious scientist, would instantly recognize decions and thoughts are not independant of determinism, so why do we persist with such primitive types of punishments and prejudice?

>> No.3726159

Because it's more philosophy than science.
Also, you're wrong.

>> No.3726158

Because it's cheaper and easier the way it's done, and in the US, extremely profitable.

>> No.3726166

>so why do we persist with such primitive types of punishments and prejudice?

Because that's the way our brain is geared.

Next question.

>> No.3726168

>So recently i've been considering the implications of determinism on concepts generally percieved as free will, and how it basically concludes no punishment bar rehabiliation is reasonable.

It also means that I'm predetermined to favour the death penalty, and your whining won't stop me. Nor will my snarky response change your mind. And so on, ad nauseum.

>> No.3726180

>>3726159

>Because it's more philosophy than science.

The idea that we are completely determined by genetics and experiences can be emperically tested.

>Also, you're wrong.

How?

>It also means that I'm predetermined to favour the death penalty, and your whining won't stop me.

Yes, but it means i can't reasonable get angry at you for it.

>> No.3726183

Copypasting an older post of mine, please forgive but it's related :
Isn't determinism more something of a stance on the possibility of knowledge ? What it seems to me it's saying is that given some conditions, the entirety of the universe is understandable (therefore, as a byproduct, predictable); it says that we don't know, and can't decide arbitrarily of, the limits of possible knowledge, more than it insists on the impossibility of free choice or whatever. There's always something, potentially everything, to understand about and see as a cause of anything.

>> No.3726194

>>3726148
I link to that Dan Dennett video every time it comes up.

>> No.3726204

>>3726148
The concept free will and determinism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Just because physical laws determine when neurons fire, doesn't mean you don't make choices.
Which is where punishment for crimes comes in. If the world is filled with rational agents, acting like automata, you can prevent them from exhibiting bad behaviour, by adding a large negative incentive to it (= punishment).
People who support punishment as a revenge are idiots (= americunts). People who support punishment as negative incentive, and as an oppertunity to rehabilite are win-tier.

>> No.3726209

>>3726183

>What it seems to me it's saying is that given some conditions, the entirety of the universe is understandable

No, determinism essentially means cause and effect, it was once believed that implicated everything can be predicted, but today we know otherwise.
Concepts such as chaos theory show how we can know the variables involved, but we cannot predict them.

Although it could be plausible that human behaviour could be predicted if we could quantify genes and experiences.

>> No.3726211

Neither have been logically or scientifically proven. I'm disappointed in Dennet because while he's ironed out a lot of the technical details concerning how consciousness arose through evolution he now indulges in this kind of speculation, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising but he doesn't even do it properly, I don't think he has ever once in his career entertain ideas other than determinism or free will in this issue.

>> No.3726215

>Just because physical laws determine when neurons fire, doesn't mean you don't make choices.

Just because you make choices doesn't mean you have free will, as you have just admitted every choice is determined by genetics and experiences.

>you can prevent them from exhibiting bad behaviour, by adding a large negative incentive to it

If that were the case, the death penalty, incapacitation and other punishments would deter crime. They don't however. But if the only difference between the criminal and the vituous is caused by their genetics and or experiences we should simply rehabilitate them individually so they understand why the crime is not beneficial.

>> No.3726218

>>3726148
> no punishment bar rehabiliation is reasonable.
Show me a rehabilitated serial killer and I'll show you a liar.

>> No.3726223

>>3726211

>Neither have been logically or scientifically proven

It's really silly stance to say we make decisions independant of genetics and experiences. The only real other variable you can claim is some supernatural explanation, and even still, that doesn't undermine this concept of punishment.

There has been no observation ever of a non-determined system. Every obervation ever suggests that we are completely determined by genetics and experiences. It doesn't conclude it to be true beyond doubt, but it certainly doesn't require me to provide the burden of proof.

>> No.3726225

>>3726218

>Show me a rehabilitated serial killer and I'll show you a liar.

It has never been tried, and even if it was we are probably not adequately equiped to attempt. But it sure makes more sense than whipping it out of him.

>> No.3726227

>>3726215
Your argument is that determinism implies that you have no free will, because there is a deterministic process that leads to every choice. I say that that's irrelevant, as you can still make whichever choice you want. Due to chaos theory, it is known that we can never predict human behaviour just by looking at the state of a brain. Therefore, the only correct formalism to reason about the mind is an abstraction of the brain. This abstraction must include free will.
> the death penalty, incapacitation and other punishments would deter crime
There are groups of people to whom punishment is a decisive deterrant. Even to those who aren't rational agents, it makes sense to keep their 'life strategy' non-rewarding.

>> No.3726237

>I say that that's irrelevant, as you can still make whichever choice you want.

No you can't make any choice you want, you are limited to your genetics and experiences.
You aren't going to decide to fly, a man in Nigeria isn't simply going to choose to write a paper on astrophysics, and an abused and traumatized child isn't going to simply choose the most ethical action.

Every decision you make is determined, even if it can't be predicted.

Just because you can decide to buy ice cream or not does not implicate you have free will, it is a common trap.

>> No.3726238

>>3726225
Even if they WERE rehabilitated should they deserve to be out and about enjoying the world that they took from other people?

If you kill someone close to me I would probably slit your throat while you made your way to the court room.

When you kill someone you take the world away from them, and also for many of their families. In my opinion, you just gave up all the rights you had to being treated as a human being.

>> No.3726241

people like the OP have no idea about how free will works

you cannot just say, "oh well I'll rob a bank because you know, there's no such thing as free will!"

punishment is needed for society to work.

>> No.3726248

>>3726237
>You aren't going to decide to fly, a man in Nigeria isn't simply going to choose to write a paper on astrophysics, and an abused and traumatized child isn't going to simply choose the most ethical action.
This is a horrible example. My ability to fly has nothing to do with me having free will. Whether a man in Nigeria writes a paper about astrophysics doesn't depend on him having free will, but about him being knowledgable on astrophysics. And about the child, the child is, for every decision, able to decide whether he wants to do what is ethical. The fact that he may or may not do it, is a proof of free will, not of the lack thereof.

>Just because low-level physical processes fire a neuron that makes you buy an ice cream or not does not implicate you don't have free will, it is a common trap.
Everything we know is a model. Chemistry is merely a model. A theory of the mind is merely a model. Such a model only makes sense if it includes free will.

>> No.3726249
File: 24 KB, 242x172, finland_computer_dismay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>death penalty and vigilantism
Can we get this /new/faggotry out of /sci/ and back to /b/ or something, please?

>> No.3726251

>>3726238

>Even if they WERE rehabilitated should they deserve to be out and about enjoying the world that they took from other people?

If their decison is determined by variables outside their control it is quite unreasonable to extract revenge on them.
Same concept as it being unreasonable to punish someone for biological reasons.

>>3726241

>punishment is needed for society to work.

Rehabiliation is a method of punishment silly, and this is precisely the point to my argument.
Punishment is necessary for society to work, this is why we need an adequate method.

>you cannot just say, "oh well I'll rob a bank because you know, there's no such thing as free will!"

Just because there is no free will doesn't mean you can't be responsible for your actions. You just need to be punished accordingly, if you were to rob a bank you would require rehabilitation in order for social cohesion.

>> No.3726254

>>3726248

>The fact that he may or may not do it, is a proof of free will, not of the lack thereof.

As you just explained to me, this is proof that their decisions are LIMITED to their knowledge. Because there is no free will, only input from genetics and experiences.

>Such a model only makes sense if it includes free will.

You must be trolling, the idea of having free will contradicts science especially chemistry (refer to OP picture)

>> No.3726255

>>3726251
Taken them out of society for the safety of other people is not revenge.

By the way, being born a male or a female doesn't make you a risk to other human beings. Being a killer does. Stop being so naive, it's disgusting.

>> No.3726256

>>3726251
>Just because there is no free will doesn't mean you can't be responsible for your actions.
That is exactly what it means. Free will doesn't mean what you think it means.
The brain may be deterministic, but the mind still has free will.

>> No.3726257

>>3726255
Taking* even. By the way, it is literally impossible to truly rehabilitate someone. If being a killer is in the genes, like you say, anything short of biological modification will not work.

>> No.3726260

>>3726254
>free will contradicts science especially chemistry
>Implying all the knowledge of chemistry can help you determine the outgoing signals of a brain, given the incoming signals.
Lrn2chaos theory.
To turn it around, different outputs still have an chemical explanation as to how it happened.

>> No.3726263

>>3726257
Being a killer isn't in the genes.
Being aggressive, or not empathic might be, but being a killer definitely isn't.

>> No.3726266

>>3726263
Agreed. Therefore the best solution regarding murderers is to take them out of society since they made the choice to kill people.

>> No.3726268

>>3726266
I agree. But only in such a way that if it turns out that the person didn't kill after all, he can be given back all his rights. So no death penalty.

>> No.3726270

>>3726255

>Taken them out of society for the safety of other people is not revenge.

When by 'taking them out' you mean sliting their throat, yes it does. You can't simply act out of whatever you think is beneficial to society, this would make you no better than Hitler.

>>3726256

>The brain may be deterministic, but the mind still has free will.

I think you have the definitions wrong, free will implies we make decisions without constraints. But if we are limited in our knowledge of the consequences and circumstances, yet alone limited to our genetics and experiences we simply contradict the concept of free will.

>> No.3726278

>>3726260

Even in indeterminism there is still no argument for free will the individual had no power over it and was subject to genes and personal circumstance

>> No.3726280

>>3726266
>made the choice to kill people
I'd support this.
But only if it pertains to EVERYONE.
Politicians vote for war? Life imprisonment.
Police uses deadly force? Life imprisonment.
Soldier kills an enemy? Life imprisonment.
Judge orders the death penalty? Life imprisonment.

>> No.3726282

>>3726257
>it is literally impossible to truly rehabilitate someone. If being a killer is in the genes

Genetics and experiences. Just because you may be more genetically likely to be violent does not mean you cannot be given more help yet alone allowing them to be aware of their disadvantage.
And it especially doesn't mean it is impossible to fix people who are simply products of parenting or malnourishment.

>>3726260
>Lrn2chaos theory.

I first brought up chaos theory, chaos theory simply means we cannot predict outcomes even though they are completely determined.

>> No.3726284

>>3726263
However it is due to the personal experience which these decision were based off and where beyond that persons control

>> No.3726287

>>3726225
>Show me a rehabilitated serial killer

Well, lets just wait 21 years until they let Breivik out, and then we´ll see.

>> No.3726289

>>3726280

thats retarded, universal morality is stupid and so is emmaneul kant,

>> No.3726295

>>3726266

>Therefore the best solution regarding murderers is to take them out of society since they made the choice to kill people.

No, its not the best solution, allow me to explain why.
It doesn't aim at the factors which caused them to be anti-social in the first place. It simply covers up the crime, it doesn't prevent it.

This is why rehabilitation is the best solution, we can directly prevent crime.

>> No.3726297

>>3726282
Therefore, any model of the mind cannot be deterministic. Since the concept free will applies to the same abstraction level as that of the mind, the statement 'people have free will' is correct.

>> No.3726302

>>3726295
Rehabilitation doesn't prevent crime.
Note the 're' in rehabilitation.
You mean education.

>> No.3726304
File: 10 KB, 251x244, 1281427351690.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3726280
>>3726280
>>3726280

>> No.3726305

>>3726297

no it isn't as people have no control over the 'randomness' causing thi and therefore aren't responsible

>> No.3726309

>>3726295
>It doesn't aim at the factors which caused them to be anti-social in the first place. It simply covers up the crime, it doesn't prevent it.
So show me your magical device which will prevent kids from having shitty childhoods, being born with aggressive genes, etc.

Do that and then we can talk about preventing crime.

>> No.3726311
File: 1 KB, 64x64, garfield-john.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3726289
I'm just saying. If people really feel the death penalty and killing people is so fucking worth it, then they should be ready to make the sacrifice so people can be killed, right?

The thing is, people voting for death penalty always think that it only happens to other people. "I can vote for people to be killed, because it will never happen to me." And they always, ALWAYS, forget that falsely accused people regularly get imprisoned for decades and sentenced to death.

Sure, I'd support the death penalty too, IF you can make certain that NOT ONE innocent person gets so sentenced.

But you can't, can you?

>> No.3726312

>>3726305
>no it isn't as people have no control over the 'randomness' causing thi and therefore aren't responsible
>no control
>therefore not responsible
wtfamireading.jpg
Just accept that the model that incorporates free will is superior.

>> No.3726322

>>3726148
Free will on the quantum and particle level doesn't exist. You are the sum of your chemical reactions, neural impulses, and inputs, along with a very complicated equation that is consciousness. This is what most people mean when they say we don't have free will.

But we don't know what that equation is exactly, because we aren't privy to the entire dataset that is the arrangement of molecules and particles in your mind, nor every input you've ever had. And getting such a thing isn't reasonably possible.

So in the sense that we can't predict what you will do, you have free will. This is what most people mean when they say we have it. Your experiences and particular neural arrangement are unique, and it's that uniqueness that causes free will. You may be an automaton of physics, but your program is yours to run.
But we can influence what you do, and part of that is inflicting punishments for misbehavior and making those punishments known. If we kept it a secret that we put people in jail for crimes it would have no effect. But because there are penalties and you do have the freedom to choose them, punishments are acceptable.

>> No.3726323

>>3726302

Education is the core part of my proposed rehabilitation.

>>3726309

>So show me your magical device which will prevent kids from having shitty childhoods, being born with aggressive genes, etc.

Well there are many methods we can take such as parental licensing and compulsery education, but we need to put our system of rehabilitation in first.
If we know someone is genetically more likely to act violently we can act to his individual needs, and if he knows he is more likely he will need more education into preventing himself.

>>3726312

Always one or two trolls, go away

>> No.3726324

>>3726322
Thank you, I thought I was the only one that understood.

>> No.3726326

>>3726312

just accept free will is a lie, even if you're going to hold them responsible
but ignore the grammatical errors

>> No.3726335

>Your experiences and particular neural arrangement are unique, and it's that uniqueness that causes free will

You are determined by the genetic and experience arrangement.
You do not control your genetics or experiences.
You do not control your decisions, you are limited to the arrangement you are delt.

Therefore it is not reasonable to use retributive punishments for social cohesion.


>You may be an automaton of physics, but your program is yours to run.

But if your program is simply a determined response to the input, you would make the exact same decisions as the said serial killer if you were givin his circumstances (input).
So we need a method which works out these anomalies in decisions and thought, and your concept of punishment simple is not an adequate response.

>> No.3726339

>>3726322

you changed the definition of free will to freedom of choice wtf, I'd understand it if you were saying that because they are ownership of there freedom of choice they are responsible but this does not mean they have free will

>> No.3726345

>>3726326
People mixing up levels of abstraction.
Do you accept the law of thermodynamics?
If so, do you reject quantum mechanics?
I hope you don't. The law of thermodynamics is a statistical law. It operates flawlessly on abstract models of reality, where the objects are larger then a couple of particles.
The same holds for free will. Of course the interaction of particles in your brain is determined by physical processes, but on the level of a whole brain this is about as irrelevant as quantum mechanics is to a table.

>> No.3726347

>>3726339
Yes it does. Thatisthepoint.jpg

>> No.3726352

>>3726323
still waiting for the magical device

>> No.3726353

>>3726339
>"Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints."
>Free will is (..) ability (..) to make choices (..).

>> No.3726357

>>3726347

Freedom of choice when you are limited to your genetics and experiences is not free will, not even close.

That is the point.

Re-read OP's posts until you understand.

>> No.3726364

>>3726347

free will=/= freedom of choice

>> No.3726365

>>3726357
Right, because of my genetics I am not a bird, and to not have freedom of choice to fly. Fucking gravity, keeping the man down.

>> No.3726380

>>3726365

No because genetic disadvantages like mental diseases reduce ones ability to reason. It's proven science that people with schizophrenia have less potential to reason, thats why it is a judicial defence.

You choices are limited to the genetics and experiences you receive. If you are never taught about astrophysics you won't write a paper on it, the same way you won't make proper choices on morality if you aren't educated about it.

If they aren't in control of the factors which cause their decisions, why should they be held accountable for it?

>> No.3726403

>>3726223
>There has been no observation ever of a non-determined system. Every obervation ever suggests that we are completely determined by genetics and experiences. It doesn't conclude it to be true beyond doubt, but it certainly doesn't require me to provide the burden of proof.
Quantum mechanics. While it's not definitely true-random, it's a distinct possibility.

>> No.3726408

>>3726256
More specifically, the mind might be deterministic, but the mind may still have free will.

>> No.3726421

>>3726408
even if it was random there is still no free will only randomness changing the cause and effect process

>>3726408
prove it, where does this magical property come from

>> No.3726427

>>3726421
I think you mis-linked.

I said that the mind may be both deterministic and have free will. That is, I believe that free will is compatible with determinism.

>> No.3726429

>>3726403

>Quantum mechanics. While it's not definitely true-random, it's a distinct possibility.
It has not be proven to be non-determined, although i agree, it is the best possibility.

>More specifically, the mind might be deterministic, but the mind may still have free will.

The only way you can argue the point is with a supernatural explanation, or by using incorrect defintions. Pick one.

>> No.3726435

>>3726429
What does "make a choice" mean? With determinism, by your argument, you can't have choices. However, by your same argument, quantum indeterminancy doesn't get you choices either. And I cannot comprehend of an alternative, and moreover I claim that there is no alternative.

So, we're left with largely a definitional argument. I believe as commonly understood there is a definition of free will which is compatible with determinism. I subscribe to something similar to Dan Dennett.

>> No.3726448

>>3726429
To continue, I think that supernatural explanations offer nothing to this question. I don't care how the mind works for this argument. It could be merely the byproduct of physics, or could it be a Christian soul/spirit - whatever. Your behavior is observable. Either it's predictable in a deterministic fashion, or it's not. If it's not, that's what we call "true random", ex: maybe quantum indeterminancy is "true random". The soul really doesn't matter.

>> No.3726458

>I believe as commonly understood there is a definition of free will which is compatible with determinism

Are you talking about something such as autonomy?


The way i see it, every decision/thought/action is casued by the genetics and experiences you recieve.

It isn't fair to hate or to want to extract revenge on a person who is simply a product of factors he had no control over.
He may have had a choice, but is is extremely limited to his own individual inputs.

A mans decisions are not 'free will', altough he is still a free agent. In order to respond to crime effectively we need to stop blaming the people for their actions, and start blaming the conditions which caused them.

Because if you were under those conditions the exact circumstances would cause you to become the same person. So why should we 'punish' these unfortable people, when we need to 'help' them.

im going to bed, hopefully i made an impression.

>> No.3726459

>>3726435

i'll assume the process of choice

>>3726448
still doesn't give evidence of free will even if you bring god into the picture
also indeterminism =/= free will

>> No.3726522

>>3726459
>also indeterminism =/= free will
I agree. I said that quite clearly.

We're agreeing for the most part, except we're using different definitions of free will. As a best guess, free will is the property of a decision making entity which predicts possible futures and does action based on these predictions to get desired outcomes. What's your definition of free will?

>> No.3726549

>>3726458
In any sane conversation, you need to identify your goals, and then identify plans that will achieve your goals. The goals are normative, aka moral. The plan depends on questions of empirical facts.

I want to be in a world where I am materially well off, happy, and "free" to make my own "choices" concerning as many aspects of my life as reasonable, such as who I sleep with, with limits drawn when I start harming other people. I also want this for all other people. Those are my desired normative goals.

Then we have to discuss how to get to those ends. Punishing people is an effective means to those ends. Moreover, they are a moral means to those ends, within my moral framework.

If you have an alternative plan that does as well as the current to curbing crime, I'll listen.