• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The unsolved problem of "free will"

JoeEllison said:
So then you agree with my "unfounded assumption"? Instead of going on the attack, you could have asked for clarification, and we could have spent the last 20 minutes on something fruitful. By "self-contained", I simply meant that the brain does everything that the brain does without any outside assistance. Usually, someone makes the unfounded assertion that there's some sort of "soul" or other agency outside of the brain that is carrying part of the workload. :D
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree with your unfounded assumption, as stated. But if your intention, by that statement, was to exclude a "soul" as having influence, then we are in agreement on that matter.
 
I must answer Mr. Mercutio but first can someone elighten me on a mechanical issue? How does one import the block quotes, in slightly different background color, from another's posts?
 
(quote)Quoted material here.
(/quote)

But use brackets instead of parentheses. [ ]
 
All I see when I click that link is "The Tutorials" of JREF. Sorry, I just don't get the meaning.
 
"The current legal system is based on a prescientific understanding of behavior. Do not look to it for "truth". It is easy enough to recognize the effects of consequences on behavior, and to choose to reward and punish behaviors in the best interest of the long term survival of a given culture. There is no need for "mens rea" to enter into it. A recognition of determinism does not mean that we let the criminal off with "his environment made him do it." Rather, if we recognize that his behavior is determined in part by the consequences of his actions, appropriate contingencies must be applied to reduce that undersirable behavior."

So if a person walks into a room holding a letter opener, trips and kills her cousin sitting in a chair, that behavior is to be treated the same as if she tries to kill him?

Prescientific or not, the system makes distinctions based on conscious intent.
 
cooper1958nc said:
So if a person walks into a room holding a letter opener, trips and kills her cousin sitting in a chair, that behavior is to be treated the same as if she tries to kill him?
Click to expand...

Man, you didn't understand a single thing he said did you?
 
cooper1958nc said:
So if a person walks into a room holding a letter opener, trips and kills her cousin sitting in a chair, that behavior is to be treated the same as if she tries to kill him?

Prescientific or not, the system makes distinctions based on conscious intent.
Click to expand...
No one can look into another persons thoughts. At least, not yet.

This is the reason that "intent" has to be proven through other means. This fact doesn't affect anything at all regarding "free will" other than this is assumed in most systems of law, and rightly so.
 
Tutorial: Pertaining to teaching - instruction.

Why was that easier then looking it up yourself?

*Sigh* Makes me wonder why people bother with tutorials if people are just going to ask you to get the same information they could have gotten for themselves if it wasn't just "easier for everybody."

You know, apart from the poor schlob who has to spend the time doing the Googling anyone else could have done just as well.
 
cyborg said:
Tutorial: Pertaining to teaching - instruction.

Why was that easier then looking it up yourself?

*Sigh* Makes me wonder why people bother with tutorials if people are just going to ask you to get the same information they could have gotten for themselves if it wasn't just "easier for everybody."

You know, apart from the poor schlob who has to spend the time doing the Googling anyone else could have done just as well.
Click to expand...
Still don't understand your point, if any, regarding the OP of this thread. Please clarify, thanks.
 
cooper1958nc said:
So if a person walks into a room holding a letter opener, trips and kills her cousin sitting in a chair, that behavior is to be treated the same as if she tries to kill him?
Click to expand...
No, because in the latter case, the brain processed the 1) knowledge that a punishment wound ensue, and 2) a desire to murder, and chose to carry out murder. Here, things like jail are not punishments, but deterrents. Because most brains, faced with the scenerio, would not choose to murder in light of 1), but probably would murder if condition 1 did not exist.

It's pragmatic, not a judgment.

I think most people who murder are pretty broken people. For the most part I sympathize with them and their family (albeit not as much as for the victim and their families). Nonetheless, I wouldn't argue that the laws be change re murder. Not because I want to punish the murderer, but because we need to deter the moderately malfunctioning people (people who would murder if there wasn't a law against it), and a way to remove from society the people who murder despite the presence of law.

IOW, lack of free will in no way means that brains do not react differently to different inputs, in this case the existance and magnitude of punitive measures for murder.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Not understood. I look forward to a relevant post. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Damn this is simple DD:

Poster asks how to quote.
Poster responds on how to quote.
Poster directs to tutorials on using the forum in general.

You sure do make simple things complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom