Punishment.

[caveman1917]

This has now degenerated into that type of philosophical discussion where no results can be gotten because people insist on arguing based on vaguely defined imaginary concepts.

Sad but true. Too bad really, since i do enjoy these discussions, if only people would define their concepts.

[Van Rijn]

I think post #163 answers that.

Ah. In post 163 I see this assertion about influences:

There's nothing free about the result which came from weighing those influences... the stronger influences always win out... directly leading to actions which are just more links in the chain of cause and effect.

I don't see where you've established this assertion nor do I see where you've shown that influence must preclude free will.

[P Timmy]

To wrench the discussion back to the direction initiated by the OP, I have to ask, let's say we grant you your premise that there is no free will, how're you going to convince those that do believe there is free will (through no fault of their own)? What kind of evidence that there is no free will, or even a convincing argument, can you give to them?

Thanks... and to begin with... I challenge the claim that there's such a thing as free will (uninfluenced choice)... and based on my arguments I think mine is the logical position to take... but convincing others to change their beliefs about free will is not necessarily my goal... I simply think free will and how it applies to punishment is an interesting subject to discuss... and if my premise that free will is just an illusion is granted... do you then agree that punishment can never be deserved?

I think that humans are nothing more than biological machines... and just like non-biological machines... have no free will. If you agree that humans are nothing more than biological machines... but you think they have free will... then what is the difference that allows a biological machine to have free will but not a non-biological machine?

I think the universe works through the process of cause and effect... that each effect has a preceding cause... and that effect is the cause of the next effect... and so on and so on... in an unbroken chain of cause and effect which does not allow for such a thing as free will... and I see no evidence that the chain of cause and effect is ever broken by an "uninfluenced cause" (a cause that is not a link in the chain of cause and effect).

I think the universe is probably deterministic... but even if it isn't as some argue that QM implies... a randomness factor still wouldn't allow for "will" to be free.

Memory and inputs from our senses are continuously analyzed by the brain producing a continuous stream of output... and that output is perceived to be free will.

For example... if you're holding a heavy object and it falls from your hand toward your bare foot... it could be said that you have free choice to quickly move your foot out of the way... or not move your foot and let it be mashed from the falling object... but in reality you only have one course of action... the course of action which the brain analyzed (in accordance with cause and effect) to be the strongest influence based on memory and sensory input. In other words... the course of action with the strongest influence always wins out.

Unless this chain of cause and effect can be broken by a non-random... uncaused influence (an influence that isn't a part of the chain of cause and effect)... then free will is not possible but the illusion of free will persists.

[Strange]

AI don't see where you've established this assertion nor do I see where you've shown that influence must preclude free will.

Easy: because he defines anything that is influenced as not being free. This is what makes this particular definition utterly meaningless.

[P Timmy]

P Timmy
...do you think that influence can be at least part of the reason that one chooses "A" instead of "B"?

Skeptic
Most of the time, yeah.

OK... do you think "A" can be chosen instead of "B" in such a way that does not involve influence?

Skeptic
Ever heard of The Imp of the Perverse?

No but I looked it up:::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imp_of_the_Perverse

"The Imp of the Perverse is a metaphor for the tendency to do exactly the wrong thing in a given situation for the sole reason that it is possible for wrong to be done. The impulse is compared to an imp (a small demon) which leads an otherwise decent person into mischief."

From what I've heard about demons... they're so influential... they're leading most people straight to hell

Skeptic
I have absolutely no desire to shoot myself in the foot with a gun.

Good

Skeptic
But I could choose to do just that, just to show that I am capable of making a choice I know I won't like and that I don't have to do. How do you explain this, except that I have free will?

You could shoot your foot... but don't you agree that if you did... the influences that led you to that choice were stronger than any influences you might have had to not shoot your foot... in other words... the stronger influences won out?

Skeptic
Or I could go less extreme, and just bite my tongue--which I'm doing just as I write this. How do you explain this, me inflicting pain on myself when I get no masochistic pleasure out of it?

Same as above... the stronger influences won out.

Originally Posted by P Timmy
Is cause and effect within the scientific realm?

Skeptic
Sure, but the universe isn't Newtonian. Quantum Mechanics swept the notion of a purely deterministic universe into the incorrect meme dustbin.

How would a non-deterministic universe allow for free will?

P Timmy
Do you believe that the human brain is anything other than biological?
Do you agree that a human is nothing more than a biological machine?

Skeptic
I'm very much a philosophical materialist, but if you think that means believing the universe is some kind of clockwork mechanism where nothing unpredictable ever happens, then you have a not-even-wrong understanding of the philosophical position. There are desktop toys that display chaotic behavior. No computer, extant or hypothetical (say a computer the size of the universe) could tell you how that toy will move next. If something made from a few bits of metal and an electromagnet can display such a property, then what weirdness could a human spit out?

Would things being unpredictable allow for free will?

[P Timmy]

...he defines anything that is influenced as not being free. This is what makes this particular definition utterly meaningless.

I think the notion of "will" being free even though it's influenced by things beyond our control is absurd.... and my definition points out that absurdity.

[AstroRockHunter]

I do believe that P Timmy is equating "choice" with "decision". Therein lies his mistake.

[NEOWatcher]

I think the notion of "will" being free even though it's influenced by things beyond our control is absurd.... and my definition points out that absurdity.

"Free will" is defined and it's definition is accepted. It does not match your definition. We reject your notion of "free will" based on that simple fact.
My source. Wiki on "Free Will".

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy.

It's the constraints that you are arguing, and those arguments are in the realm of metephysical determination and are far from a common view.

[Luckmeister]

P Timmy, you have continually asserted your (in my opinion flawed) conclusion that since we do not exhibit absolute, free of any influence, personal choices then no punishment is deserved and that humans would be a better-behaved, more moral species if punishment was eliminated and yet, when pressed on the subject, you conceded that some extent of punishment is necessary. Please explain how you reconcile those contradictory statements.

You have been repeatedly asked to give your definition of the term "deserved"; please address that.

You keep bringing up comparisons of human choice with AI, attempting to use AI to strengthen the case you are making regarding human choice. Please show how that conparison is relevant other than saying, "Humans don't have free will and machines don't have free will and we don't punish machines so we shouldn't punish humans." If you still think that simplistic logic is enough to make your case, then you haven't been paying attention to the points people have been making regarding the concept of free will.

I would like to see you offer some substantial basis to support your idea rather than a personal testimony that putting your idea into practice has improved your life and by using socratic logic common to a philosophy debate to make your points, which doesn't get you very far on a science board.

Please understand, I would love to see you show that your idea is valid and could be applicable to society in general but so far I don't feel you have begun to succeed in that.

[SkepticJ]

OK... do you think "A" can be chosen instead of "B" in such a way that does not involve influence?

Sure.

You could shoot your foot... but don't you agree that if you did... the influences that led you to that choice were stronger than any influences you might have had to not shoot your foot... in other words... the stronger influences won out?

Same as above... the stronger influences won out.

Does this sound falsifiable, to you?

How would a non-deterministic universe allow for free will?

Would things being unpredictable allow for free will?

Are you serious, or just trolling?

[Strange]

I think the notion of "will" being free even though it's influenced by things beyond our control is absurd.... and my definition points out that absurdity.

No. Your definition excludes any possibility of a choice being "free" and so is an example of begging the question. Your claim is also made unfalsifiable by the fact that when presented with an example of an uninfluenced choice you simply assert that the influence isn't known. So heads you win and tails we lose. Well done.

[Van Rijn]

Easy: because he defines anything that is influenced as not being free.

Yes, it looks that way.

[Van Rijn]

I think the notion of "will" being free even though it's influenced by things beyond our control is absurd....

You apparently consider it absurd because you are using the word "influence" in a way different than it is usually defined. You apparently are using it to mean something that dictates behavior, rather than something that can have some amount of effect on behavior. Since I do not equate "influence" with "dictated behavior," your argument makes no sense to me.

[P Timmy]

Thanks to all who participated (including lurkers) but I think it's time to stick a fork in this thread

Click on the guess game link (below) and join the fun... a new clue will be added to the "Bag of Coins" guess game today.

[AstroRockHunter]

Thanks to all who participated (including lurkers) but I think it's time to stick a fork in this thread

Click on the guess game link (below) and join the fun... a new clue will be added to the "Bag of Coins" guess game today.

So, what influenced you to choose to stop posting to this thread?

[danscope]

Hi Henrick, Sorry to respond late, owing to my vacation on Cape Cod. I was polishing my soul and my golf game. Had a few good holes with my son-in-law.
We met many wonderful people who shared their day with us ... and a few laughs. Seldom do you see someone without a soul. They are like a boneless chicken.
They don't support themselves, so much as just slump in the corner.
Have a great day, Sir.

Best regards,
Dan

[Van Rijn]

We met many wonderful people who shared their day with us ... and a few laughs. Seldom do you see someone without a soul. They are like a boneless chicken.
They don't support themselves, so much as just slump in the corner.

So the lack of soul causes osteomalacia? Does that mean that "soul" is vitamin D?

[danscope]

Hi, I suspect that the soul will suffer without vitamin D .

[Trakar]

So, how would crimes be dealt with? A good shunning? No, wait, that's a punishment too...

With rehabilitation and retraining?

[Trakar]

Whether anyone deserves punishment is a separate issue from whether punishment should be used.

In many criminal systems, and other parts of life, punishment isn't used because someone deserves it, it's used in order to make the expected price for non-desired behavior high enough to discourage that behavior from happening.

Note "discourage", not "prevent". No matter how high it is, there will always be people for whom the price is low enough.

But this presumes that "fear of punishment" is present in the considerations of those who commit crimes.

[Trakar]

What would you do with those who refuse to be "rehabilitated"? give them a "stern" talking to?

If they have committed a crime they have given up the right to "chose" their future. "Rehabilitation" doesn't have to be voluntary, though it seems it would be easier with cooperation.

[Trakar]

What is "compassionate", or "less hateful" about not punishing those who "break the rules"??


Actually, now that I think about it....what you seem (ok, johansen? ) to be advocating is the need for rules at all....if no one deserves punishment, all rules would become meaningless.

You only follow rules to avoid the punishments of breaking the rules?!
seriously!?

I mean I've heard of people who avoid sins because they are afraid of Hell, but I thought this manner of thinking a rare abberation, not something that was widespread applicable to most people in more practical terms.

[swampyankee]

I'm not moderating!

I'm just trying to drag this vaguely back on track, by asking a question:

> Why is the presence or absence of a "soul" relevance to the question of punishment? Temporal authorities have no practical interest in how people's souls behave in the afterlife.

While religious belief will effect the opinions people have about punishment, especially capital punishment, the concern about the efficacy of punishment in controlling behavior is a concern of the temporal authorities. One of the behaviors the temporal authorities are trying to prevent is a cycle of personal vengeance and clan feud. Except for the most devoutly religious, the prospect of punishment in the afterlife would be insufficient to prevent the victim (or the victim's family) from taking vengeance. Without the temporal authorities succeeding (at least most of the time) in keeping vengeance and feud in line, society would quickly devolve into rule by local strong men. See, for example, much of the Medieval era.

[Trakar]

To wrench the discussion back to the direction initiated by the OP, I have to ask, let's say we grant you your premise that there is no free will, how're you going to convince those that do believe there is free will (through no fault of their own)? What kind of evidence that there is no free will, or even a convincing argument, can you give to them?

If we focus on conscious free will which is what most would associate with contemplative decision making and thus subject to "punishment" considerations, there are studies such as these, which many researchers believe seem to indicate that the conscious decision making process is an illusion of after-the-fact rationalization, rather than the actual decision making process itself:

Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will -
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108...l/477023a.html

[Trakar]

...Why is the presence or absence of a "soul" relevance to the question of punishment? Temporal authorities have no practical interest in how people's souls behave in the afterlife...

Speaking of which, it looks like I stumbled into the afterlife of this thread. I didn't realize that it was 6 pages long when I started responding, and as it all seems to have been thrashed out prior to my arrival, please feel free to let the dead RIP.

[danscope]

The nature of the conscious individual that has been "brought up" , has subscribed to manners of behavior.
Under the parent's and teacher's eyes, that person grows as a human into a good product of society and, as such, will enjoy the privileges of that society as a function of his behavior. When he deviates from that norm, he soon runs into trouble, economicaly, socialy and in a sense...spiritualy, as he is forced into a reclusive environment . His mind will dwell
on his condition and contemplate the past, present and future, such as it is and will be. Society tries to remedy that
disturbed individual early on,so as to help him avoid that condition. For many reasons. It is in our own interest to have agreeable
individuals with reasonable behavior as opposed to those who would defy such society and "Game the system" as it were
like stealing for instance,instead of hard work.... to get what he needs or wants. We provide amply for those who
"choose" the bad path.
But that is simply just one form of punishment. Take the case of the artisan , who has invested much time and treasure into a work, only to make some terrible mistake and render that work unsatisfactory, if only in his own disciplined eyes. Ask any carpenter who worked a fine, long piece of finish wood , planed, sanded and formed to a specific billet, only to cut it short or wrong, or perhaps split it when fastening etc. It will cost him dearly in time and materials , along with his good attitude, which like the golfer who has made a poor shot, must summon his courage,
shake off his rage, compose himself and begin anew to fruition. Life is full of examples of risk, reward and
punishment of sorts, and we don't have to look far. Punishment is a grim teacher, and...depending on the individual,
a certain wraith who watches at arm's length for opportunity. The learned person knows this and works to defeat that
factor, ensuring success where others find failure. That shall be their reward, little by little, and day by day.
A good teacher makes sure to point out the pitfalls as well as the path to fruition. There can seldom be success without a knowledge of both and the discipline and courage to try, to work hard and, in the end, teach others as they have been taught. When we fail as techers, we beget those who fall, some farther than others.
Teach well and prosper,

Dan

[SeanF]

But this presumes that "fear of punishment" is present in the considerations of those who commit crimes.

Well, it doesn't, actually, but let's say for the sake of argument that it does.

Why would you think that fear of punishment does not prevent people from committing crimes?

[swampyankee]

Well, it doesn't, actually, but let's say for the sake of argument that it does.

Why would you think that fear of punishment does not prevent people from committing crimes?

My belief is that fear of punishment frequently doesn't work simply because most criminals are too stupid to parse the statement "if I do this, then I'll get punished." The first step of rehabilitation is to get the criminal to get that idea into their little pea-sized brain.

[danscope]

The criminal thrives on the concept that he won't get caught, and even if he does, his lawyer will spring him and then he can bug out. His other self dominates his thoughts and he can always justify any wierd and lopsided idea with equally
lopsided pretzle logic. In short, he doesn't care.

[HenrikOlsen]

This is actually a common mistake, punishment isn't there to prevent any and all crime from ever happening, it's just plain silly to expect that.

It's there to reduce crime by making some (not all, that would be absurd to expect) reconsider.

Criminals, who by definition already decided that the price was low enough to pay (or are unable to do the analysis or willing to make the gamble) do not invalidate this.


Note that no level of punishment or rehabilitation will make crime go away totally, it's an impossible goal and anyone promising to fulfill it is spewing bovine digestive products.