Free will, morality and crime

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
UR: I really don't agree with your last post. every person is responisble for it's actions, because he, through the vast array of neural connections he IS, decided to do so. by committing the crime, he's hurt other people's happiness, and therefore, must be taught a lesson, so he won't do it again.

A person could be a latter-day Robin Hood, in which case, should he be acquited of robberies and stealings?

More importantly, however, are you going to punish a robot because it robs a bank?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Probabilities do not create free will. If you had free will with them then surely the probability distribution of micro-systems would change to reflect the will, rather than the random?

Its like a quantum dice that free wills itself to turn up 6 every time. It is defying the laws of probability.

Perhaps trying to reason free-will could be something undoable like picturing four dimension. Our mind may not have been developed for it?

[Capt Dizle]

Pretty silly thread. You would have to be out of touch to think that we do not have free will.

But if you would take the position of predetermination you have to also accept the concept of God or some controlling enitity.

Unless you think there is some wrinkle of science as of yet undiscovered that controls exactly which of the thousands of squirming sperm actually gets to the egg. In which case I wonder why there is more than one.

[Capt Dizle]

Insofar as the 50% chance of 20 years or 100% chance of 10, have you ever heard the term "plea bargin".

Respectfully, the vast majority take the 10.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You would have to be out of touch to think that we do not have free will.

What is the proof for freedom of will?

[Capt Dizle]

Sid, if a hunchbacked wrinkled woman with white gray hair and boobs that droop to her waist limps into a saloon, slams her cane on the bar and demands a shot of whiskey, no barkeep will demand proof of age. You know why? Some things are self evident and only a fool questions them.

On the other hand, predestination demands proof because it is counterintuitive.

Now if you prefer to live in the world of hypothetical thought, in the midst of intellectual elitist nabobs then fine, enjoy it.

Silly boy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some things are self evident and only a fool questions them.

That is SOOOO not proof of anything.

I'm sorry, but things that are evident don't mesh with my idea of 'proof'.

On the other hand, predestination demands proof because it is counterintuitive.

Then wouldn't evolution demand proof because it is counterintuitive (every culture has developed the story of a God who created the world) when it should be the God-stories that demand proof?

Sorry, BOTH sides demand proof if I'm to commit to either side.

[Capt Dizle]

Lead, follow or go sit on your damn fence Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should I do either? It isn't a question of leading or following. Doing either without proof is a collosal waste of time.

Are you simply admitting (in a roundabout way) that you have no proof for your beliefs?

[Proteus_MST]

Although I believe in a free will I have to admit that there are some experiments which at least cast some doubt on a "Free will".

There are for example some experiments with hypnosis.
The Probationer was hypnotized to to something ridiculous, for example opening an umbrella within a room, if the experimentator performs some action, for example snapping his fingers.
The probationer wasn´t told about the real intention of the experiment, instead he was told a cover story, for example that he is taking part in an experiment to prove the relaxative effects of hypnosis.

Then during debriefing the experimentator would snap his fingers and the Probationer would open his umbrella, as it was implanted during hypnosis.

Asked by the Experimentator why they opnening his umbrella most Persons would tell very reasonable stories, for example that they are checking, if the umbrella still functions or that they thought it would rain (within a room )

I think the conclusions of the researchers was, that the brain álways tries to convince you that the actions you perform are a result of your own decisions, even if it may not be true.

I think there was also another experiment where the activity of the brain where scanned and which revealed, that the brain centers neccessary for performing an action get active before the person deliberately chooses to perform the action.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Calc II


and what percentage of population take these extremly risky behaviors?

Crime-Statistics and especially Statistics about Executions are treated as a state secret by china, therefore I don´t know the numbers

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I think there was also another experiment where the activity of the brain where scanned and which revealed, that the brain centers neccessary for performing an action get active before the person deliberately chooses to perform the action.

I read about that, but the implications are not at all clear.

[Az]

A person could be a latter-day Robin Hood, in which case, should he be acquited of robberies and stealings?

More importantly, however, are you going to punish a robot because it robs a bank?

to the first question: it depends on the action, the enviroment, etc. I assume you've read my utilitarian thread, so you know what are my positions on the issue.

to the second question: punishment is a way of reprogramming. The human brain will get negative stimulus to committing such action, and would assumbly stop. this is not that simple of course, since the human brain is (as I've already said) a vast array of connections.

If a way existed to neurally reprogram humans that would stop that behavior without or harming the individual otherwise, I'd be for it. I would even agree to harm the individual a bit, as long as it is in the borders of utility. say.... he'll dance a bit worse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
to the second question: punishment is a way of reprogramming. The human brain will get negative stimulus to committing such action, and would assumbly stop. this is not that simple of course, since the human brain is (as I've already said) a vast array of connections.

That's not the point. The point is if a person has no control of what he does - like a puppet - why should he be responsible? Back to the robot example, why would you jail the robot instead of whoever made him to rob the bank? See, you may be dealing with the symptom, but you are not solving the problem.

If you have a better way of "reprogramming," so to speak, I might agree with you. Right now, sending a person to jail causes him to suffer, and why make somebody suffer for what he has no choice?

[Ramo]

What is your definition of freewill?

My definition is that the actions of a person with free will are dependent upon only his physical state. In other words, there are no super-natural influences this person's actions. I believe SD has a similar definition.