Free Will and Determinism

[Luke Skywalker]

OCD disclaimer: Many of you have probably already heard this argument before. And I do not want to ruin anybody's day by depressing them. Really, I don't find any of this to be pessimistic or gloomy when you realize that it's all just hyper-analytical, and doesn't really "matter" in a practical sense.


If you are an atheist, which, I don't know...a small minority of the people on SDN might be, you probably believe in determinism at some sort of level. That is, that the Universe is governed by predetermined, unchanging laws.

And even if you are a Christian, it's difficult to deny the inherent, logical impossibility of true Free Will. Your character is determined by two things and only two things; Nature and Nurture, correct? Nature being your genes and/or how The Lord made you, and Nurture very broadly referring to your upbringing, your life experiences, your environment, etc.

Both Nature and Nurture are inherently beyond your control. You may argue that you can change your environment or rise above it, but what determines whether or not you will succeed? Why do some people overcome a bad upbringing while others do not? Because some have greater will/intelligence/ethics, and such is determined by...oh, wait. Your nature and nurture up to that point. This holds true regardless of what you think your Nature stems from. You are who you are ultimately because of factors beyond your control. There has to be a causation to your character, and this causation cannot be yourself, because then where does that come from?

Of course, there's always the fact that your thoughts and decisions are really just electrical impulses and chemical reactions in your brain that are determined by set physical laws.

So then this would lead to the question of culpability. How far does the "I am just the way I am" or "he was raised by bad parents; cut him some slack!" argument go? The law and society is lenient towards mentally deficient people and the criminally insane, but has no sympathy for someone who was raised by bad parents or had bad genes. Why?

Obviously, we need to draw a line in the sand, no matter how arbitrary, in which you are blamed for your own faults regardless of their root causes, for the sake of having any sort of sane society. And you can argue, and I would agree, that this doesn't really matter per say, in the sense that even if "Free Will" is not free when you hyper-analyze it superliterally, we still feel that it is free, because we are the ones making the choices, and that is all that matters. Just for something to talk about.

[Dass.Kapital]

So...to your comment,

How far does the "I am just the way I am" or "he was raised by bad parents; cut him some slack!" argument go? The law and society is lenient towards mentally deficient people and the criminally insane, but has no sympathy for someone who was raised by bad parents or had bad genes. Why?

In the first instance...there is the shown information/state of 'Diminished responsibility....due to the lack of mental capacity'.

In the second, possible abnormal brain chemistry, again leading to a diminishing of mental capacity.

hence, the one small/point of Human's being able to 'Learn'.

Hence, there is an internal and hence, slightly independent feed back set up thanks to our brains (Minds).

We take information in and think about it/process it. Something separate from our nurturing, though I am unsure as to how connected still to the 'nature' side of things. By which I assume you mean genetic (Which leads back into your quoted space).

Just some thoughts after a looong night.

Much cheers to you and yours.

[kc8tbe]

If you are an atheist, which, I don't know...a small minority of the people on SDN might be, you probably believe in determinism at some sort of level. That is, that the Universe is governed by predetermined, unchanging laws.

Of course, there's always the fact that your thoughts and decisions are really just electrical impulses and chemical reactions in your brain that are determined by set physical laws.

Let's not conflate materialism with determinism. Yes, the known Universe is made of matter and energy and goverened by a consistent set of physical laws. There are no supernatural, metaphysical, mumbo-jumbo forces at work. That said, if the past century of physics has taught us anything it should be that aforementioned physical laws are highly probablistic at the quantum scale and make prediction of the future with a high degree of certainty very difficult at the macroscopic level. (And yes, I am an atheist.)

There has to be a causation to your character, and this causation cannot be yourself, because then where does that come from?

This reeks of the theistic "prime mover" argument. Multiple factors determine your character over an extended period of time, and one very big factor is your own behavior. Just because an event occurred early in the causual chain leading up to your present self doesn't necessarily make it more influential. For example, even though I spent the first two years of my life crapping my pants I don't do that as an adult.

The law and society is lenient towards mentally deficient people and the criminally insane, but has no sympathy for someone who was raised by bad parents or had bad genes. Why?

The is a complicated question, but the most basic answer is that we haven't really had the ability to examine people's genes until recently. In the future, genetics may be used to argue that someone is more or less culpable for a crime, but this will be a double-edged sword. Sure, you could argue that someone genetically predisposed to psychopathy is less culpable for a crime, but at the same time you could argue that he or she is more likely to commit future crimes and should therefore be sequestered from society.

To get back to your overarching thesis, consider this scenario: A civil engineer designs a building that later collapses, killing hundreds of people. The cause of the collapse is ruled to be a design flaw. The engineer argues that the laws of physics, which existed long before him or the building's design, are ultimately responsible for the collapse and therefore he should not be culpable for the resultant deaths. Would you let the engineer off the hook based on this argument?

[Enola Straight]

I always figured it was ultimately a matter of...theoretical metaphysics...regarding how the future unfolds: Does each point in the present give rise to an immeasurable number of possible future timelines? Or is there only ONE timeline, with a future as set in stone as the past is?

Quantum Mechanics...specifically the Many Worlds Theorem...seems to indicate multiple timelines.

[Simon_Jester]

I always figured it was ultimately a matter of...theoretical metaphysics...regarding how the future unfolds: Does each point in the present give rise to an immeasurable number of possible future timelines? Or is there only ONE timeline, with a future as set in stone as the past is?

Quantum Mechanics...specifically the Many Worlds Theorem...seems to indicate multiple timelines.

Not... necessarily. The math works out the same, and the experiments work just as well, whether there's multiple timelines or not. What it comes down to is a philosophical interpretation of what you think the math signifies.

There's a 50/50 chance of a coin coming up heads. You flip it. It comes up tails. Does that mean there's "another life" where it came up heads instead?

If you are an atheist, which, I don't know...a small minority of the people on SDN might be, you probably believe in determinism at some sort of level. That is, that the Universe is governed by predetermined, unchanging laws.

Why do you capitalize words like "universe" and "free will?" To me, that's a symptom of a somewhat clogged mind- people who refer to abstract concepts with the same capitalization as proper nouns usually have very specific, very idiosyncratic ideas of what those concepts mean.

Make sure you examine all your assumptions when you use words like "free will." What do you mean when you think of "free," and what are you referring to when you talk about my "will?"

Both Nature and Nurture are inherently beyond your control. You may argue that you can change your environment or rise above it, but what determines whether or not you will succeed? Why do some people overcome a bad upbringing while others do not? Because some have greater will/intelligence/ethics, and such is determined by...oh, wait. Your nature and nurture up to that point. This holds true regardless of what you think your Nature stems from. You are who you are ultimately because of factors beyond your control. There has to be a causation to your character, and this causation cannot be yourself, because then where does that come from?

If all things have to have a specific, demonstrable reason for happening- if there can't be anything that just is, then yes we fall back into the "prime mover" argument.

If you ask a physicist why some equation describing the universe is true, you will get as an answer either "I don't know" or another equation. Ask why that equation is true and you'll get the same result. At some ultimate level, the equations just are; they do not need a reason for existing.

Of course, there's always the fact that your thoughts and decisions are really just electrical impulses and chemical reactions in your brain that are determined by set physical laws.

I do not consider it a violation of my free will that when I jump from a height, I fall, even if I desire to rise.

Do you think of it that way?

So then this would lead to the question of culpability. How far does the "I am just the way I am" or "he was raised by bad parents; cut him some slack!" argument go? The law and society is lenient towards mentally deficient people and the criminally insane, but has no sympathy for someone who was raised by bad parents or had bad genes. Why?

Because the dividing line between sympathy and non-sympathy is your ability to modify your actions.

For example, suppose that I wish to go skiing. Suppose that you say "Simon, if you go skiing, I will shoot you in the head." If I am a mentally competent and sane adult, I will say "I had better not go skiing." I might do other things (like shoot back, or call the police, or whatever), but I will definitely not go skiing. I will modify my actions in response to your threat.

Likewise, criminal law is based on the idea that you can point to someone who wants to kill or rob or cheat a person, and say to them "if you do that, we will throw you in jail for a long time." Hopefully, people will think about that and say "Okay, I won't kill, steal, or cheat." So they don't do that.

A person who is crazy or mentally deficient may not be able to change their behavior. I can stop an ordinary man from becoming an arsonist by telling him "if you set my house on fire, the state will throw you in jail." I may not be able to stop a true pyromaniac that way.

I think this idea of modified behavior is important to free will. "I" may be the product of my environment, but "I" am also an agent which makes decisions in reaction to events. The nature of "I" is defined in terms of the decisions "I" make. To me, "free will" means that the decisions which "I" make originate from the self-aware processes running in my brain, that which I identify with myself- not from some outside compulsion.

The fact that I don't control the decisions that happen outside my head, or the laws of physics, or the weather, don't mean that I don't have free will.

[Luke Skywalker]

Because the dividing line between sympathy and non-sympathy is your ability to modify your actions.

And among my primary points is that your ability to modify your actions stems from your character/will/mental strength/whatever, and that this stems from your nurture and your nature. That is, two young kids are raised in a poor shithole. One goes on to become a famous Civil Rights leader, and the other commits and murder and is executed. Why? You can say, "well, the good one made the right choice." Why? Because, ultimately, that good one had better genes, or was raised by better parents, or had some life changing experience, or something. Either way, you cannot end the chain of causation (at the risk of sounding overtly fancy) at "he was just a better person", because obviously something caused that, and that 'something' will ultimately chain back to things completely preceding and beyond your control.

So yes, you can make choices. But is your ability to make choices not ultimately something that stems entirely from factors beyond your control?

[Simon_Jester]

Because the dividing line between sympathy and non-sympathy is your ability to modify your actions.

And among my primary points is that your ability to modify your actions stems from your character/will/mental strength/whatever, and that this stems from your nurture and your nature.

So what?

If I cannot get you to change your actions by punishing you, then punishing you is senseless cruelty. If I can get you to change your actions by punishing you, punishing you may be appropriate.

I don't see why your point affects or changes anything that I ought to care about.

So yes, you can make choices. But is your ability to make choices not ultimately something that stems entirely from factors beyond your control?

Does it matter?

I have two arms. The fact that I have two arms is due to circumstances beyond my control- genetics gives me two arms instead of zero, or one, or four. But I still have two arms. Anyone dealing with me would be wise to remember that. Why I have two arms, or a need to breathe oxygen to live, or brown hair, or the ability to make choices... all those things aren't really relevant and don't impact whether I have those things.

And as far as I'm concerned, "free will" refers to the ability to make choices, not having somehow made that ability materialize out of thin air.

When people talk about "free will" as something that operates independent of causality, and that therefore either free will or causality does not exist, I think they're being foolish. And I usually think they're parroting something they read in a freshman philosophy textbook. A more sensible concept of free will revolves around the choices you make, not on somehow being able to divorce your brain from the laws of physics.

Why chafe at the existence of gravity?

[cadbrowser]

I've always considered free will an illusion. Causality, that is really all there is. Cause/Effect. True free will, in my opinion, would be independent from choice. Doesn't exist...you always have choice, any choice made creates effects.

Just my warped brain.

[Humphnaegal]

There's causality, and then there's acausality, which comes in with the mentioned quantum effects, and that's it. There's no room for will in there that isn't based on these fundamental elements of reality.

I think the reason we should put people in prison is to separate them from the general populace, because they are dangerous. I don't think it's dependent on philosophical questions of free will, but on whether that person is likely to make people-endangering choices again and again in the future.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So yes, you can make choices. But is your ability to make choices not ultimately something that stems entirely from factors beyond your control?

But these factors are so incredibly, infinitely complex you might as well say "God made me do it."

Seriously, there isn't some clear formula that says "these genes + this environment = criminal" or what have you. Hell, the way genes, epigenetics, environmental factors both before and after birth, and various social constructs interact are well beyond our abilities to model in any true deterministic fashion. We can posit correlations and probabilistic paradigms, sure, but we are talking about a series of elements that are almost irreducibly complex.

Your argument is little different than someone appealing to God as the cause of everything that happens.

-------------

edit:

I don't think it's dependent on philosophical questions of free will, but on whether that person is likely to make people-endangering choices again and again in the future.

Isn't the probability of someone making one of these choices incredibly dependent on the philosophical notion of free will? The very concept of making a choice is dependent on that question.

[Knife]

The OP talks as if even if all those factors exist as he says, there is only a binary choice left, or worse, only one choice due to all the predetermined factors. As I see it, even though a very large chunk of human behavior can be 'predicted' it falls in a very large bell curve of 'normal behavior' with a lot of leeway in that curve. 'Free Will' lies within that curve, with enough choices inside that curve of normal behavior that many different outcomes can be had.

[Humphnaegal]

Isn't the probability of someone making one of these choices incredibly dependent on the philosophical notion of free will? The very concept of making a choice is dependent on that question.

If we just see a choice as a process that occurs, all that matters is how likely it is that this process will reoccur, and that the person in question will continue to make choices that are devastatingly detrimental to other individuals. We also consider what outside processes lead to this choice, so that we can establish motive, so that we can determine whether the extreme thing they did was justified under a rare circumstance, and therefore not likely to be part of their general way of being.

None of these practical questions about choice, the law, and society, have to consider the philosophical question of free will at all. The law is, at its heart, about trying to prevent bad scenarios from reoccurring, and philosophical (or perhaps even semantic) questions hold (or should hold) little sway compared to the empirically estimated derivation of how prone this individual is to re-offending.

Why did they kill the guy? Because he kidnapped their son? Or do we have some people who are just biologically prone to murder on our hands? Whether will is "free" or not isn't relevant here. It's all about determining inclination.

[kc8tbe]

None of these practical questions about choice, the law, and society, have to consider the philosophical question of free will at all. The law is, at its heart, about trying to prevent bad scenarios from reoccurring...

This is only half of it. Yes, one purpose of the law is to prevent/deter crime. Another purpose is to deliver justice. Long ago, in some societies, the family of a murdered man would have been within their write to exact revenge on the killer. But what if they misidentify the killer? What if the killer's family then goes out for revenge? In our society, it is the society itself that exacts revenge, or "justice" on criminals. However, there are exceptions in cases where the criminal is not "responsible" for his actions. For example, we will sequester a mentally incompetent murder in a psychiatric institute or prison, but we will not execute him for something he didn't know was wrong to do. So, for better or worse, the culpability of criminals is very much a factor in meting punishment in our justice system.

[Ziggy Stardust]

If we just see a choice as a process that occurs, all that matters is how likely it is that this process will reoccur, and that the person in question will continue to make choices that are devastatingly detrimental to other individuals. We also consider what outside processes lead to this choice, so that we can establish motive, so that we can determine whether the extreme thing they did was justified under a rare circumstance, and therefore not likely to be part of their general way of being.

How is this mutually exclusive from the concept of free will? We are talking about a probabilistic process (actually, it is more accurate to describe choice as the end result of a complicated series of interacting processes ...), not a deterministic one.

None of these practical questions about choice, the law, and society, have to consider the philosophical question of free will at all.

It is impossible to even define the word "choice" without getting into the question of free will.

The law is, at its heart, about trying to prevent bad scenarios from reoccurring,

This is overly simplistic. Yes, prevention is a component. As is justice 9, as kc8tbe notes. At its heart law is really about mediating social interaction. Not all law is as simple as "don't do X or Y will happen to you". Further more, how does this rule out questions of free will? If, for example, free will does not exist, why should the law exist at all? All decisions are pre-determined, so there is no philosophical reason to punish bad behavior, as it will reoccur regardless of our own decisions. So, yes, free will IS important in this discussion.

philosophical (or perhaps even semantic) questions hold (or should hold) little sway compared to the empirically estimated derivation of how prone this individual is to re-offending.

The key word here is ESTIMATED. Think about the uncertainty principle, for example. To quote Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know, but it's a good layman's description...): "In layman's terms, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known." Of course the uncertainty principle itself applies directly to quantum mechanics, but derivations of it are certainly applicable for macro-scale probabilistic systems.

What do you do when we get into a gray area? The mentally handicapped, for example? What about abortion? Self-defense? Things are not nearly as black and white as you make them out to be in the real world. How do you decide how prone someone is to "re-offending" in these cases? It isn't always possible, and in some cases virtually impossible, to make these sort of predictions.

And even if it WERE, how does this rule out the concept of free will? As I said, the entire idea of punishing someone, or preventing altogether, an action you deem reprehensible is inseparable from the philosophical question of free will.

Why did they kill the guy? Because he kidnapped their son? Or do we have some people who are just biologically prone to murder on our hands? Whether will is "free" or not isn't relevant here. It's all about determining inclination.

Of course it's relevant, moron. If free will doesn't exist, the entire concept of law and punishment is irrelevant. If it does exist, the question of culpability is far more complicated than you seem to think.

What about the mentally challenged? The insane? Someone who provokes someone else into a fight and then kills them? Someone who kills someone purely for self defense? Steals to feed their family? Steals because they are a kleptomaniac, and can't resist the compulsion? What if they are drunk? On drugs? What if they were forced to commit a crime at gunpoint?

It is impossible to determine culpability and guilt without addressing in some way, even indirectly, the philosophical question of free will.

[Humphnaegal]

And even if it WERE, how does this rule out the concept of free will? As I said, the entire idea of punishing someone, or preventing altogether, an action you deem reprehensible is inseparable from the philosophical question of free will.

No it isn't.

If an asteroid was on a collision course with the Earth, the fact that we would want to do something about it, does not suggest that the asteroid has free will. It doesn't even suggest we have free will for wanting to stop the asteroid, and even if it did, it would be irrelevant.

Preventing people from doing things is very different, but the important thing is that it's quantitatively different, not qualitatively. Choices are just processes that combine different streams of input that react with already held patterns to set off a behavior. You can define that as free will if you really want to, but there's nothing free about it, and we don't even need to consider how free it is in order to determine whether somebody is likely to make the same choices again.

Free will is an ill-defined mystical concept.

Further more, how does this rule out questions of free will? If, for example, free will does not exist, why should the law exist at all? All decisions are pre-determined, so there is no philosophical reason to punish bad behavior, as it will reoccur regardless of our own decisions.

Lack of free will doesn't mean that all decisions are pre-determined. It just means that all decisions are based on the causality of classical physics, with the randomness of quantum physics at the bottom. There's no room for anything "free" there. You can define free will as just being choice, but if you do so than it's a misnomer and kind of pointless to begin with.

[Ziggy Stardust]

If an asteroid was on a collision course with the Earth, the fact that we would want to do something about it, does not suggest that the asteroid has free will.

That is an impressive strawman. Congratulations.

Seriously ... I have no words for how utterly ridiculous that analogy is with reference to what this conversation is about.

Preventing people from doing things is very different, but the important thing is that it's quantitatively different, not qualitatively.

How the hell is it quantitatively different? What quantities are you talking about?

Choices are just processes that combine different streams of input that react with already held patterns to set off a behavior. You can define that as free will if you really want to, but there's nothing free about it, and we don't even need to consider how free it is in order to determine whether somebody is likely to make the same choices again.

First of all, don't think I didn't notice you ignored half of my previous post, which addresses this.

Second of all, again, you are missing the point to spew vaguely philosophical bullshit. Address the point I posed several times already:

If free will does not exist, the concept of law and punishment becomes irrelevant. Since, as YOU yourself admitted in a previous post, the primary purpose of law is prevention (i.e. punishing a crime to prevent it from happening again), prevention is impossible if free will does not exist, because all actions are predetermined. The only way for law to fulfill the purpose you ascribe to it, is for free will to exist.

Free will is an ill-defined mystical concept.

No. It's not. That's why it is in the god-damned dictionary. In fact, it is an incredibly simple concept. There are differing philosophical notions as to what exactly it entails, but that is a far cry from an "ill-defined mystical concept."

Lack of free will doesn't mean that all decisions are pre-determined.

Yes. It does. Free will is the concept of voluntary decision. Without free will, you are implying all decisions are involuntary. Dependent. Think about a chemical reaction. You put salt in water ... the polar water molecules inevitably dissolve the salt into separate Na+ and Cl- molecules. This output is pre-determined. Involuntary. You are claiming that free will follows this model. Therefore, why would we implement any system in which, for example, we punish the dissolution of salt in water?

It just means that all decisions are based on the causality of classical physics, with the randomness of quantum physics at the bottom.

I never disputed this. In fact, I even brought up the uncertainty principle, which you casually ignored in order to ramble on about asteroids for some stupid reason.

You have yet to demonstrate that simply being based on physics is cause to toss out the notion of free will.

There's no room for anything "free" there.

Why not? All free means, in this situation, is voluntary. Indeterminate. Do you dispute that humans can act voluntarily, or that any situation that involves human interaction can be of indeterminate outcome?

You can define free will as just being choice, but if you do so than it's a misnomer and kind of pointless to begin with.

How so? Without free will there IS no choice.

And besides, again, I notice how you continually dodge the point.

This was your claim:

None of these practical questions about choice, the law, and society, have to consider the philosophical question of free will at all. The law is, at its heart, about trying to prevent bad scenarios from reoccurring, and philosophical (or perhaps even semantic) questions hold (or should hold) little sway compared to the empirically estimated derivation of how prone this individual is to re-offending.

Preventing bad scenarios from occurring is impossible without some type of free will. If humans aren't making voluntary decisions, all decisions are involuntary. Therefore, punishment serves no purpose, and is arguably immoral.

[Humphnaegal]

That is an impressive strawman. Congratulations.

That's not a strawman.

How the hell is it quantitatively different? What quantities are you talking about?

It's just different in scale of complexity, not in kind.

If free will does not exist, the concept of law and punishment becomes irrelevant. Since, as YOU yourself admitted in a previous post, the primary purpose of law is prevention (i.e. punishing a crime to prevent it from happening again), prevention is impossible if free will does not exist, because all actions are predetermined. The only way for law to fulfill the purpose you ascribe to it, is for free will to exist.

You haven't expounded on why this is the case. Preventing something doesn't even require that the thing you're preventing be conscious, it just requires that it has behavior that you can try to predict. That was the point of the asteroid example.

No. It's not. That's why it is in the god-damned dictionary. In fact, it is an incredibly simple concept. There are differing philosophical notions as to what exactly it entails, but that is a far cry from an "ill-defined mystical concept."

Something not being simply determined by physical processes is mystical and poorly defined, because there are no other processes known. Neither is it "independent", as per the first definition.

Yes. It does. Free will is the concept of voluntary decision. Without free will, you are implying all decisions are involuntary. Dependent. Think about a chemical reaction. You put salt in water ... the polar water molecules inevitably dissolve the salt into separate Na+ and Cl- molecules. This output is pre-determined. Involuntary. You are claiming that free will follows this model. Therefore, why would we implement any system in which, for example, we punish the dissolution of salt in water?

You don't have to know the outcome for a system to be deterministic. Anything that happens in the universe is grossly causal and is therefore grossly deterministic. A human being is just a really complex chemical reaction with many feedback loops, yet it's still determined by everything physical that goes into it, and has an outcome purely based on those factors.

Which is irrelevant, since the important thing is predicting behavior based on what we know, and since the only thing we can know is what we can observe, any independent element to will, that is not simply a result of physical processes, can by its very nature, not be investigated.

Therefore free will is not needed for law.

Preventing bad scenarios from occurring is impossible without some type of free will. If humans aren't making voluntary decisions, all decisions are involuntary. Therefore, punishment serves no purpose, and is arguably immoral.

A decision being involuntary doesn't mean that outsiders know the outcome, and it doesn't mean that they won't act - based on their own in built inclinations - to prevent a perceived outcome. It doesn't make it immoral either. Putting somebody in prison to remove them from mainstream society serves a purpose, whether they had a normal complex human brain, or a brain which directly ran on a simple program. A murderer still murders people whether he murders because of actual circumstances, or something not simply based on physics, which is "independent" somehow... If we don't want people to be murdered, we stop the murderer and isolate him from society to prevent further killings. We judge his sentence time based on how likely he is to recommit, and this is based on things such as whether it was a crime of passion instant outburst, or a pre-meditated crime, suggesting a more permanent dangerous makeup in this killer.

Of course, it should be noted that many of our decisions can be considered involuntary, especially since experiments have shown that with a hook-up to the brain in the lab, you can know what decision somebody is going to make even before they know it, and this with a good degree of accuracy.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's not a strawman.

Of course it is. An extraordinarily idiotic one.

Preventing something doesn't even require that the thing you're preventing be conscious, it just requires that it has behavior that you can try to predict. That was the point of the asteroid example.

In terms of law, the entire concept of "prevention" is based on "punishment." It is telling people that if they act a certain way that we consider to be negative, they will be punished in a certain way. If people do not have the ability to make their own decision, choose their own courses of action, then punishing those actions is NOT prevention. It is simply punishment. How do you not understand this?

Something not being simply determined by physical processes is mystical and poorly defined, because there are no other processes known.

Whoever said free will ISN'T determined by physical processes? I never claimed otherwise. For some reason you have this bizarre hang-up where physical processes = deterministic.

You don't have to know the outcome for a system to be deterministic. Anything that happens in the universe is grossly causal and is therefore grossly deterministic.

Probabilistic =/= deterministic. Do you understand what deterministic implies?

A human being is just a really complex chemical reaction with many feedback loops, yet it's still determined by everything physical that goes into it, and has an outcome purely based on those factors.

So? Nobody is disputing this. I even made the same damned point a couple of posts ago, including a discussion of why the uncertainty principle prevents us from calling this a deterministic model. Of course, you completely ignored this.

Which is irrelevant, since the important thing is predicting behavior based on what we know, and since the only thing we can know is what we can observe, any independent element to will, that is not simply a result of physical processes, can by its very nature, not be investigated.

Therefore free will is not needed for law.

You have yet to demonstrate why physical processes is the same thing as a deterministic model, or address the several points I have made about the probabilistic nature of physical processes.

A decision being involuntary doesn't mean that outsiders know the outcome, and it doesn't mean that they won't act - based on their own in built inclinations - to prevent a perceived outcome. It doesn't make it immoral either.

Of course it does. If people have no capacity for choice, they have no capacity for deciding their own actions; therefore, you are arbitrarily punishing people for things outside of their control. Which does nothing to prevent future outcomes.

If we don't want people to be murdered, we stop the murderer and isolate him from society to prevent further killings. We judge his sentence time based on how likely he is to recommit, and this is based on things such as whether it was a crime of passion instant outburst, or a pre-meditated crime, suggesting a more permanent dangerous makeup in this killer.

So law is all about punishment, instead of prevention? Now you are backpedaling. Now you are saying we should punish people for actions we deem to be wrong, despite the fact that they have NO CONTROL over those actions. Punishing one murderer does nothing to prevent people from murdering, because these actions are involuntary. Arguably, since we don't have free will according to you, the fact that we choose to imprison this murderer was predetermined ANYWAY, so he was never going to murder anyone else, etc. etc.

Also, don't think I didn't notice how you completely ignored ALL of the examples I gave in a previous post about grey areas of the law, where we have to take into account people not being in direct control of their actions. (i.e. the insane, mentally challenged, etc.)

Of course, it should be noted that many of our decisions can be considered involuntary, especially since experiments have shown that with a hook-up to the brain in the lab, you can know what decision somebody is going to make even before they know it, and this with a good degree of accuracy.

Not true. Even besides your misrepresentation of what the experiments actually involved, those experiments were conducted in the early 1980s, and have since been thoroughly debunked (well, at least the conclusions were, the results WERE real, they just don't indicate what Libet thought they did). Look at this and this.

If people do not have free will, they do not have the capacity to make their own decisions. Any actions they take are beyond their control. Therefore, they are not responsible for the outcomes of those actions, as they did not make any decision to initiate them. If the law is about prevention, we are talking about punishing a criminal in order to deter the same crime being committed by other people. However, if people lack free will, punishing one criminal does nothing to deter other criminals, as they don't have the capacity to make that decision in the first place. Furthermore, it is arguably immoral, as you are arbitrarily handing out punishment to people despite their inability to perform any action besides the one that they performed. In this case, the purpose of law is PUNISHMENT, not PREVENTION.

In order for law to be about PREVENTION, you must acknowledge that people can choose one or another action based on external factors. Once you acknowledge that people have the ability to choose, you are just playing semantics when you still dismiss the notion of free will.

[cadbrowser]

No. It's not. That's why it is in the god-damned dictionary.

Which definition are using for this discussion?

The reason I question this, is, it appears that in order to understand whether or not 'free will' is an apparent illusion (which I mentioned I held that stance earlier) is based on the concept of freedom as well.

From the philisopical definition, this part jumped out at me:

2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Emphasis mine.

I am curious as to how this aligns with your example with gravity preventing your desire to rise. Gravity is a physical force; in the presence of gravity, you do not have free will to rise.

Going back to the concept of freedom:

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. 3. the power to determine action without restraint.

Those were the closest definitions I could find that aligned with the previous definition of 'free will' in order to keep things "tidy" as it were.

With these above definition the very idea of laws, government, and etcetra are in perspective external control, interference, and regulation which negates the idea freedom.

A civil engineer designs a building that later collapses, killing hundreds of people. The cause of the collapse is ruled to be a design flaw. The engineer argues that the laws of physics, which existed long before him or the building's design, are ultimately responsible for the collapse and therefore he should not be culpable for the resultant deaths. Would you let the engineer off the hook based on this argument?

No, the argument is bullshit. The civil engineer's prime responsibility is the safety of the public as well as the health of the environment. With that, said engineer is expected to know and understand these laws of physics and have the ability to design a building that exceeds the safety requirements for those physics involved.

I don't see this as a very good example for the original thesis.

If people do not have free will, they do not have the capacity to make their own decisions.

I am trying to understand this concept.

I can choose to kill someone. There are laws that provide consequences for that choice.

Freedom would allow me to take action without restraint...choose to kill and carry out said action.

But the law took that freedom away.

Yet, I still can choose to kill.

Is this what you mean by free will?

EDIT: fixed a typo

[Scepticalguy]

Sam Harris just did a bit on this:

[Ziggy Stardust]

The reason I question this, is, it appears that in order to understand whether or not 'free will' is an apparent illusion (which I mentioned I held that stance earlier) is based on the concept of freedom as well.

What, exactly, do you mean by this? Freedom is a different philosophical concept from free will. Free will is not "based on" the concept of freedom. Both are based on a similar root conception, but their general usage is entirely different.

2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Emphasis mine.

I am curious as to how this aligns with your example with gravity preventing your desire to rise. Gravity is a physical force; in the presence of gravity, you do not have free will to rise.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said a damned thing about gravity. By the way, I was using the FIRST definition of "free will."

With these above definition the very idea of laws, government, and etcetra are in perspective external control, interference, and regulation which negates the idea freedom.

What the fuck are you blathering on about?

First of all, I accept your concession, seeing as you ignored 90% of my points on the issue.

Second of all, there is nothing about the "idea of laws, government, and etcetra" what negates the idea of freedom. This is extraordinarily idiotic, and a red herring.

I don't see this as a very good example for the original thesis.

If you don't like his engineer example, then why don't you address one of the dozen fucking examples I have raised in my previous posts, and you have summarily ignored?

I can choose to kill someone. There are laws that provide consequences for that choice.

Freedom would allow me to take action without restraint...choose to kill and carry out said action.

But the law took that freedom away.

Yet, I still can choose to kill.

Is this what you mean by free will?

How fucking stupid are you? I have spelled this out multiple times, in very simple terms. This is not difficult to understand.

1) Stop talking about "freedom." That isn't free will and you know it. You are just trying, rather pathetically, to move the goalposts.
2) How does the law take your freedom to take action away? You still have the CAPACITY TO CHOOSE. The law is not physically preventing you from making a choice.
3) THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF DETERRENCE ASSUMES THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CHOOSE. If people do not have the capacity to choose, THEN YOU CANNOT DETER THEIR ACTIONS, BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL.

And, once again, I assume you are conceding all the points of my post you ignored?

[cadbrowser]

And, once again, I assume you are conceding all the points of my post you ignored?

You certainly aren't talking to me...this is the first time I've took at stab at your posts. You were talking with Humphnaegal...not me.

If I didn't pull any other points out than the ones I attempted to understand, that isn't ignoring them...as I had no issues with them.

Freedom is a different philosophical concept from free will. Free will is not "based on" the concept of freedom. Both are based on a similar root conception, but their general usage is entirely different.

oh hell, you are right. I have no idea where the heck I was going with that! That's what I get for trying to understand something without my cups of coffee first.

You have me wrong, I was in no way trying to move goalposts...you yourself say that freedom and free will are based on a similar root concept...I was trying to fucking clarify that because I KNOW that I have ignorances. God damn...Not everybody here is trying to start a "who's dick is the biggest" contest.

I detest implying that I am stupid...I will admit that I am ignorant.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said a damned thing about gravity. By the way, I was using the FIRST definition of "free will."

Well shit...what the fuck did I do? I sincerely apologize if I misquoted you...I could've sworn there was text here regarding the "will" to want to rise, but the fact that gravity holds one to the earth prevents that, but "whomever" put that info in didn't think it was against free will.

Crap...found it...I did misquote you for Simon Jester by accident...Apologies.

If you don't like his engineer example, then why don't you address one of the dozen fucking examples I have raised in my previous posts, and you have summarily ignored?

Excuse me?!?! If I don't rebut your posts then I didn't ignore them...I had no issues with them. Reach between your asscrack and remove your panties. Jezus Christ!

I've said nothing in retaliation to your concept of deterrence. I think you have me confused with Humphnaegal.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You certainly aren't talking to me...this is the first time I've took at stab at your posts. You were talking with Humphnaegal...not me.

Bah, I'm sorry. My bad.

I don't know why I confused you with Humphnaegal. That's why I got so angry, I was confused why your post had nothing to do with mine, heh. Sorry again.

[cadbrowser]

It's all good. No worries.

If we both were discussing the 2nd philosophical definition based on what Simon Jester mentioned about free will (in his opinion) not being affected by gravity; would it make sense what I said?

Remember I'm still learning this whole debate thing, what vailidates arguments, points, counter points..and etcetera. So If I post something that is blatently wrong...chances are I will immediately conceed unless I am still having issues with understanding.

In order for me to conceed/debate to your ideas or Humphnaegal's I need to fully understand the concept of free will; and that is what I was going for. I think I need to go back and reread the OP tho, to make sure I am addressing the original intent.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, my issue is that Humphy and I were debating the more practical application of "free will" to theories of law and government. Mostly, his claims that free will doesn't exist, yet law is still based on the concept of deterrence (his words). My stance is that these are incompatible positions.

In terms of the more abstract philosophical debate between you and Simon, your points do make sense.