this wasn't debunking anything, he just said that sapolsky didn't give justice to any compatibilist arguments and largely excluded them from the book, and it doesn't really matter because his thesis is materialistic determinism, and he's concerned with listing off all the ways that affects your decision making
Impossible. All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone. The brain is made up of neurons. Neurons are made up of chemicals. Chemicals follow the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no mind at work in these laws. Any appearance of choice is thus illusory, as every action you can and will ever make can be totally described in terms of chemicals
donald's way of knowing is more reliable that mickey's
everyone who uses this image immediately follows by attempting to justify crackpot metaphysics like idealism
>All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone
Citation fricking needed. Even normalgay psychology gets you to the point that the whole organism contributes to the psyche.
>All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone. The brain is made up of neurons. Neurons are made up of chemicals. Chemicals follow the laws of physics and chemistry
I am chemicals.
The actions of chemicals are my actions.
My actions are chemicals (me) acting in accordance with their (mine) true nature, out of their (mine) free will.
>"Noooo that's not free will it's laws of physics"
Laws of physics are my free will. It is mine own nature to act through the laws of physics. They can be a universal constant and an expression of my will at the same time, there is no contradiction here.
even if it is i'm not capable of feeling that way. even people who claim to disbelieve in free will still have to make decisions and feel remorse when they make the wrong ones. this is a rare situation where my feelings LITERALLY refute facts (assuming that it even is a fact)
And for philosophical purposes too. We have the actual, subjective experience of free choice. Whatever scientists happen to discover about individual neurons in the brain is completely irrelevant to this.
This. Science cannot, and will never be able to, account for experience. And for all intents and purposes, there is no discernable difference between a world with free will vs. one without.
Any scientist spending their time on such a metaphysical subject is wasting energy.
Free will is not a scientific issue, Sapolski is a wanker on that front and the rest of scientific community does not take him seriously for that reason. He's alright as pop-sci homosexual who gets people to find interest in the issue and talk about it, but he does not provide anything beyond that. Even if he did do not fricking get your perception of life and reality from a popsci guy it is fricking embarresing.
>subjective experience of choice
it's subjective, it's an illusion, a dream
Presence or absence of free will is a subjective experience in either case. It doesn't make any factual difference. Within the objective reality it is a non-question, a tautology. People having or not having free will ultimately doesn't mean anything at all.
Everyone regardless of their convictions agrees that any human decision is made out of external factors and the decider himself with his own qualities. Determining which of these things or other things in their histories is "the cause" and which is "the effect" has nothing to do with determining the nature of the reality or existence. It's literally aesthetics.
The free will question is important because of the legal implications, at least they assume that we do have free will and should be responsible for our actions, you dismissing it so casually screams brainlet energy.
>at least they assume that we do have free will and should be responsible for our actions
>we stumbled into some 100% irrefutable scientific+metaphysical proof of the hard determinism >it shows that legislature is predetermined to create laws that don't take determinism into account because that's predetermined more convenient >homies still go to jail even tho it's all muh socioeconomics and external factors - since it is predetermined that sending homies to jail makes fewer homies predetermined to do crime
Much legal implications. Many justice.
The average anon on IQfy and IQfy is smarter than Robert Sapolsky.
He's just an old, confused, depressed man. Of course he thinks there's not free will.
There is very poor evidence empirical for reductionism or epiphenomenalism. Most of the science since the peak of reductionism in the 50s has pointed towards unifications, not reductions, and a sort of bigism, not the smallism used to say "science says there is no free will."
Showing that the type of people people are affects their choices isn't showing that concious decisions are epiphenonal.
>All of the arguments set forth by gadflies like Robert Sapolsky and Samuel Harris are refuted by the simple fact of the unearned prestige based on an ethnic israeli tradition. Since the days of Spinoza, israelites have had a innate contempt for metaphysical libertarianism they happily. and with impunity enjoy foisting on a helpless Gentile population through passive aggressive nepotism, and a immense collective effort to rid the whole world of Christian influences. which is not too dissimilar similar to naturalists and pagans and revolves around a worship of nature, in that they is not intermediary between God's existence and the material world, also not too dissimilar to the biblical trope of worshipping a golden calf. Therefore they see no contradiction between the natural world and its material worth in the temporal world, instead of something that is immaterial and enduring. and not only that, in tandem with Judaism’s relationship with Gentiles, committed determinists display a constantly depressed woe-is-me attitude and are really committed to the idea that they bear no witness to agency nor are responsible for any of their actions and exhibit an extremely selfish attitude similar to solipsism; an equally self-refuting philosophy, only that solipsism has at least a sense of self at the very fundamental level, which already puts it leagues ahead of determinism’s lack of personal agency.
How is that different, though? Isn't that what it means for a choice to be determined, that it had to be what it was and that it couldn't have been another way?
Yeah, we don't magically choose based on nothing that exists before our choices. Such choices wouldn't be free, they would just be arbitrary, based on nothing.
Freedom means being self-determining and none of our understanding of the world dictates that human beings can't be more of less self-determining. Obviously we aren't completely self creating or self determining, but neither are we like billiard balls. A person's memories, desires, emotions, and idea of what is good determine their behavior. This is exactly the sort of freedom Plato, Aristotle, the Patristics, and the Medievals focused on developing. The whole point of asceticism is that learning to deny the passions and desired will allow you to choose based on what you think is truly good, not what just appears good or feels good.
Only in the modern era did this silly idea of freedom as magical uncaused activity become a thing. What is uncaused is necessarily random, and acting randomly isn't an exercise of freedom in the same way a muscle spasm isn't voluntary movement.
To be fair, overthinking determinism
can lead to more self awareness and more refined choice, as you see how things arise. But I think a lot of people want to promote it instead as defeatism for personal emotional and ideological reasons. Ties in with their weird notion of genetics. They say it's obvious but then want the concept to prematurely stop at some level, like genetics, absolving them of choice and awareness.
consciousness isn't relevant to his point
and consciousness doesn't entail free will either
he's a scientist, his goal as a scientist is to describe experiments and neuroscientific develops that show you think you're freely choosing as a rational agent but are actually not
There seem to be evident non-deterministic aspects of the physical world in the Uncertainty Priniciple, in the stochastic distribution of quantum decay, etc.
What is the Deterministic perspective on these things?
Obviously they must have some argument for it, theyve been around long enough.
>the world is deterministic >there are apparently observable non-deterministic aspects of the base physical laws of the universe >yeah but i want to be a nihilist
Right so that's maybe the argument for particle decay randomness.
But there are literal physical bounds on the speed at which information can be transferred.
It is physically impossible to have absolute knowledge of a system.
You can ONLY approximately model it.
sapolsky is not a philosopher and openly admits he doesn't understand nor does he care to understand anything related to consciousness, the book's first chapter is the "the few seconds before you make a decision" and all the research about that, going back in time all the way to evopsych stuff. After that is part 2, where he gives a terrible solution for justice in a world without free will which verges on dystopian
also midway through he lightly addresses quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and emergent properties. his answers on these are also unsatisfactory
really when backed into a corner he pulls the >well could you have done otherwise? >well something caused it even if we don't understand exactly what >well could you have thought about thinking about thinking about thinking about what you're thinking right now?
Legal responsibility has fundamentally nothing to do with causation.
Societies appoint responsibility and dispense punishment based on the preventive principle aimed at social stability. They don't punish people or entities if we believe that this will have a destabilizing effect, and attribute undue responsibility when it is more effective.
Thinking that law serves an abstract principle instead of social needs is some peak brainlet shit.
Whether society punishes you for it's sake doesn't mean they don't think you and any other sane person have free will. The mentally ill are usually exempt from these sentences because a psychiatrist deems them insane, hence no free will. These are extremely important assumptions being made by institutions that determine the course of societies and it is no wonder a brainlet like you is so oblivious to their power over you.
>The mentally ill are usually exempt from these sentences because a psychiatrist deems them insane, hence no free will.
The mentally ill were not exempt from shit until fairly recently, so society had no issue with them having or lacking free will then.
It doesn't have that issue now, as mental health exemptions were not pushed on the ground of free will or responsibility - it went through on the interests of human rights groups and the prison complex, with the argument that prisons are not equipped to hold them, so these individuals remain a threat for others and for themselves when they are incarcerated there, so the incarceration does not actually serve it's function for them.
Mentally ill with violent tendencies are still incarcerated if they are found not fit to stand trial - the specialized medical facilities that take them still have all the repressive and violent qualities of prisons. So the societies have no issue with these individuals being punished with incarceration, despite them being supposedly exempt from punishments due to their actions not being the result of their own free will.
>These are extremely important assumptions being made by institutions that determine the course of societies
The brainlet element here is that you think that these assumptions have any relation to the free will and interests of the individual in general. The assumptions you are talking about are purely utilitarian in nature.
They are only utilitarian as a consequence of the religious nature that law inherits from. Christianity deems humans as agents with free will, commit sin, and you have done it out of free will, you get that translation to common law by the english who deemed crime as an action committed first sinfully and second as a betrayal to society and purely out of free will. This assumption is very explicit and to deny it as purely utilitarian is moronic and shows your poor knowledge of history.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>They are only utilitarian as a consequence of the religious nature that law inherits from
Those laws are very much secular in nature. I though Christian institutions loved to make a point of how they never instituted or enforced law, that being the function of the secular arm. Render unto Caesar and all that.
>Christianity deems humans as agents with free will
homie did you just say that God doesn't know what the future holds?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Whether they are secular or dictated by god is irrelevant as i keep telling you. What is relevant is the belief held by people who make and uphold these laws, that we have free will, and that people who commit crimes should be jailed because they could have done better, whatever that means, what god thinks, whether he exists or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>What is relevant is the belief held by people who make and uphold these laws
Said belief is that implementing and upholding those laws makes for a better and more stable society. Whether the subjects of said law possess or lack free will never enters the equation.
>people who commit crimes should be jailed because...
...that way they are in jail and can no longer do crimes that might harm people on the outside.
>they could have done better
And?.. How does putting them in a box address this? They could have done better, so, box now?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No that belief is secondary and how do i know this, because you let them out under the assumption that they have been rehabilitated and out of free will can act better. You are taking a weak utilitarian premise and attempting to argue for something humans don't do. If it was purely as you say, prisoners would never be set free.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>because you let them out under the assumption that they have been rehabilitated and out of free will can act better
Why though? Why would prison ever make a man with fee will act better? Why would a man possessing a free will freely choose to act in adherence with the law after being subjected to the violence at the command of the law? How does that make any sense? Why wouldn't he freely choose to be even more criminal now that the law has cast him out of the society and humiliated him in the eyes of all men, never to be clean from it's derision again?
The very idea that punishment for certain actions makes people avoid said actions is antithetical to the concept of free will, as it assumes that all kinds of people equal before the law will act in the same way - supposedly out of fear, which is the opposite of acting out of free will.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I am not adressing the why's i am telling you that society expects you to have the free will to make better choices, that is the basis of the current judicial system and not some second rate utilitarian assumption. The idea that we have free will is more potent than your dry and glib utilitarianism that only seems to spring out in our modern times. I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief and has survived as a relic in modern society in disciplines like economics and political theory. You can't just brush all that up and call it utilitarianism.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The idea that we have free will is more potent
It that your whole point? Well religious extremism is even more potent. I guess we should be treating that as the truth.
>I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief and has survived as a relic in modern society in disciplines like economics and political theory. You can't just brush all that up >"W-we are not talking about China are we, l-let's just brush that up"
bruh
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Dude, i am disagreeing with your utilitarian assumptions idea i am not advocating that we have free will, those are two different things. You need to go back and read the first arguments.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well that just sounds as arguing in bad faith there.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What's being discussed in this subthread is the powerful influence of the idea of free will in the legal system, not whether free will exists.
>I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief
I think a great deal of prots would disagree here. Even more curious is that those very prots are the ones most involved of all Christians with the advent of legal society. Catholicism had no issue whatsoever with people (supposedly possessing free will) being incarcerated indefinitely.
I don't think that follows. Catholicism assumes that humans can be forgiven for their sins, you can't argue then that it has no issue with people not receiving pardon or being released from their sentences
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>What's being discussed in this subthread is the powerful influence of the idea of free will in the legal system, not whether free will exists.
Fair enough. So, you're arguing that the idea of the free will as it is formed by Christian theology is the foundation of legal system as we know it, and that without it we would not have the rule of law, correct? That seems extremely questionable to me, simply for the reasons that:
1. Christianity has dominated societies for centuries without the rule of law manifesting in the slightest - and it was in fact the weakening of religious influence on the secular authority that coincided with emergence of the rule of law.
2. Societies that follow the rule of law existed and continue to exist completely independently of any Christian influence, or the concept of free will in particular. That simply proves that there are some other underlying factors that lead to the emergence of the rule of law, and I believe that those are utilitarian in nature.
>Catholicism assumes that humans can be forgiven for their sins
Forgiven by God. That very specifically has no bearing on forgiveness by the worldly law and worldly authorities. And this doesn't address the issue of Puritan/Calvinist divine predetermination, which is highly relevant as those guys had a significant role in forming the principles of what we understand as the rule of law, more so than most other Christian denominations. Brushing away the examples of Communist societies is also questionable, since they clearly show that the rule of law plainly does not require any (quasi-)religious foundation of free will in order to exist and be enforced. Communists do not deny free will, but neither they uphold it - they just treat the concept as irrelevant.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>and that without it we would not have the rule of law, correct
Thia isn't what i said. But the first part is correct. And just because religious influence waned, doesn't mean the remnants in its influence disappeared.
Yes there are underlying factors but we are talking about basic assumptions about redemption here not whether people should pay 20 or 30% tax based on the country they come from. The most basic assumption about human choice and its consequences on the rest of society. Forgiveness comes from god as all laws do. This is what informed christians to make laws, this is how they argued in court, to brush this off with your modern eyes is ignorance. Puritans and calvinists did not make english common law, it was made by catholics in the middle ages. Again communists don't matter because they practice modern law today, if their legal institutions were so successful they wouldn't have switched. You'd be more convincing if you spoke about muslims or hindus who think raping a woman is ok, but even they still practice common law when it suits them. These are all just a bunch of strawmen you have introduced that avoid talking about the fundamental choice legal institutions assume you have so that they can punish you when you stray.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>This is what informed christians to make laws
I already pointed out how Catholics did not have any issue with indefinite imprisonment tho, and how the more comprehensive legal systems that we have now were created specifically after waning of religious authority. So far you have completely failed to establish any connection between the Christian (or rather, Catholic) concept of free will and emergence of the rule of law.
>this is how they argued in court
Do you have a single fact to back this up? That in the 1400s a guy from York who was about to be hanged for stealing cattle argued to the free will with the sheriff, when he in fact had no right to any legal defense whatsoever, despite a Christian priest being present to hear his last confession and administer the last rites?
>Puritans and calvinists did not make english common law, it was made by catholics in the middle ages
The one that Catholics made was not supreme - as it was subject to the sovereign, and as such it was not the rule of law, and did not pay any regard to the free will of the subjects, who are to act in accordance with the will of sovereign at all times. Until the Reformation began and it all went "Wait no, NOT LKE THAT".
>communists don't matter because they practice modern law today, if their legal institutions were so successful they wouldn't have switched
Anon they never had any other law. Communists were doing modern law from the beginning. And by the same logic, if the Christianity was the key influence on the modern law, then we would not switch TO modern law from the feudal law for which Christianity is the key influence.
> You'd be more convincing if you spoke about muslims or hindus who think raping a woman is ok, but even they still practice common law when it suits them
So, where's the Christian influence here? Also, reminder that Christianity saw no issue with rape for centuries just as well. >"noooo it's not rape if they are married"
That's what Muslims and Hindus believe as well.
>avoid talking about the fundamental choice legal institutions assume
I made my case on those assumptions, and you are just seething about it since without providing a single argument beyond "it was all defined by Christian concept of free will because IT JUST WAS OKAY???"
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
People, of any religious affiliation in the west exclaim jesus when they are shocked even though christianity has waned, they celebrate christmass too. Your argument does not follow, waning of christian influence has no bearing on anything.
The priest was present to forgive the sinner, I don't see how this argument contradicts anything. He can choose his legal defense if he could afford it, this does not deny the court's assumption of free will.
The will of the sovereign is subject to laws of god, this is why britain and the holy roman empire became protestant, because they did not want to be subjects of rome's theocracy. Their protestant monarchies were still subjected to god's laws.
Again, modern law inherits its core tenets from christianity, just because we don't practice feudalism or hanging of thieves doesn't invalidate this claim.
The influence is the common law introduced by the british who thought homosexuality should be punished btw. Guess what hindus and muslims are still against today.
You did not make any case, you continue to introduce strawmans by going on about modern law, as if it sprang from a vacuum when in fact kept the best beliefs of christianity and free will intact.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>People, of any religious affiliation in the west exclaim jesus when they are shocked even though christianity has waned, they celebrate christmass too.
And? By that logic literally everything is "built on assumptions inherited from Christianity", including troons, pedophilia and space flight. That's not a sound argument because it does not show any connection between the supposed influence Christian concept of free will and the legal practice.
> He can choose his legal defense if he could afford it, this does not deny the court's assumption of free will.
The one that you failed to demonstrate.
>The will of the sovereign is subject to laws of god, this is why britain and the holy roman empire became protestant, because they did not want to be subjects of rome's theocracy. Their protestant monarchies were still subjected to god's laws.
Christianity assumes that soveregins can be wrong and/or sinful, and as such can make unjust rulings, which are compensated by the Final Judgement. Where does the rule of law come in here?
>Again, modern law inherits its core tenets from christianity
No argument tho.
> as if it sprang from a vacuum when in fact kept the best beliefs of christianity and free will intact
I didn't tho - I pointed out that they came from pragmatic approaches to utilitarian purposes. You disregarded that point without providing any argument.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, by that logic, free will is inherited from chritianity. This is another strawman because we are not talking about troons and pedophilia.
I just did, the priest's presence and obligation to forgive a sinful and repentant criminal assumes free will. He is willing to repent his sins, the court is beholden to provide these services for him and in fact uses his repentance as a tool when punishing him. The law's injustice here has more to do with class than religion.
Christianity assumes god judges you, at least the powers that be do, when they sentence you. The rule of law is in the fear of god more than anything else.
I btfod your utilitarian assumption by pointing out that humans and society in general make assumption about your free will so that they can punish you, you have not refuted this argument. You just keep introducing new strawmen to keep this fruitless argument going.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I btfod your utilitarian assumption by pointing out that humans and society in general make assumption about your free will so that they can punish you,
No, you did not point that out. You just said they do, without providing any proof whatsoever.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I already did this by showing utilitarianism is a consequence of this belief and all you could do after is give strawmen for me to attack instead of showing it as a contradiction.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief
I think a great deal of prots would disagree here. Even more curious is that those very prots are the ones most involved of all Christians with the advent of legal society. Catholicism had no issue whatsoever with people (supposedly possessing free will) being incarcerated indefinitely.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If it was purely as you say, prisoners would never be set free.
They never were for a really long-ass time. Then prisons became a business - be it private or state-operated, and it turned out that holding prisoners indefinitely costs that business a lot of resources.
Somehow, for some reason, it became unacceptable to execute people for petty crimes or imprison people indefinitely specifically at that moment. Must be a coincidence.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>They are only utilitarian as a consequence of the religious nature that law inherits from.
I guess Soviet Union and Communist China never had any prisons then...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
We are not talking about china are we, and even if we are, both countries today employ the modern judicial system that assumes humans can be rehabilitated.
Denying the absence of free will is cope, all the other versions and definitions of free will are a cope, it isn't real but the west is adamant about this belief since so much of its culture is based around the idea that it's real. This is almost a copernican revolution where people can't accept it. The reasons why are also complex and multidisciplinary which makes people even on IQfy cope harder and willfully (or not not) misunderstand what exactly is being implied when people deboonk free will. I don't see the masses changing their stance on this issue until after ww3
I feel like philosopher gays are pure math gays minus any applicable skill. You question shit that doesn't even matter. Who fricking cares, and who fricking asked?
You're all brainlet morons who will amount to nothing and be homeless, sucking off strangers for money.
>Haha free will is fake you’re just a clockwork automaton! Only materialism matters! It’s all atoms! >W-what? You’re going to s-shoot me? No! No! That’s wrong! It’s not right! I want to live! You’re a monster! This is murder!
Debunked by this philosopher:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/
this wasn't debunking anything, he just said that sapolsky didn't give justice to any compatibilist arguments and largely excluded them from the book, and it doesn't really matter because his thesis is materialistic determinism, and he's concerned with listing off all the ways that affects your decision making
Impossible. All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone. The brain is made up of neurons. Neurons are made up of chemicals. Chemicals follow the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no mind at work in these laws. Any appearance of choice is thus illusory, as every action you can and will ever make can be totally described in terms of chemicals
>through the use of my mind, i have discovered chemicals in my brain
>therefore chemicals exist and my mind does not
Makes zero sense
donald's way of knowing is more reliable that mickey's
everyone who uses this image immediately follows by attempting to justify crackpot metaphysics like idealism
wouldn't that mean there is only value in material universe
>All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone
Citation fricking needed. Even normalgay psychology gets you to the point that the whole organism contributes to the psyche.
That has nothing to do with free will. Even if god existed and controlled everything, you still wouldn't have free will by definition of him existing.
Actions are the product of hormones that provide the impulse in the first place.
>All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone.
the first who can prove this gets a Nobel prize
>All actions are the product of brain activity and brain activity alone. The brain is made up of neurons. Neurons are made up of chemicals. Chemicals follow the laws of physics and chemistry
I am chemicals.
The actions of chemicals are my actions.
My actions are chemicals (me) acting in accordance with their (mine) true nature, out of their (mine) free will.
>"Noooo that's not free will it's laws of physics"
Laws of physics are my free will. It is mine own nature to act through the laws of physics. They can be a universal constant and an expression of my will at the same time, there is no contradiction here.
If you still have to decide, then something's up.
the fact that I have the subjective experience of choice deboonks this, for all practical purposes
>subjective experience of choice
it's subjective, it's an illusion, a dream
even if it is i'm not capable of feeling that way. even people who claim to disbelieve in free will still have to make decisions and feel remorse when they make the wrong ones. this is a rare situation where my feelings LITERALLY refute facts (assuming that it even is a fact)
And for philosophical purposes too. We have the actual, subjective experience of free choice. Whatever scientists happen to discover about individual neurons in the brain is completely irrelevant to this.
This. Science cannot, and will never be able to, account for experience. And for all intents and purposes, there is no discernable difference between a world with free will vs. one without.
Any scientist spending their time on such a metaphysical subject is wasting energy.
A world with free will would break current laws of physics, you are just too much of a brainlet to imagine it
Oh my science, not the heckin' current lawrinos of physics!
You are relying on them to get your message through IQfy homosexual.
>if i feel like something is the case that means it is
where do you draw the line on this
The nature of human subjectivity, I imagine.
Free will is not a scientific issue, Sapolski is a wanker on that front and the rest of scientific community does not take him seriously for that reason. He's alright as pop-sci homosexual who gets people to find interest in the issue and talk about it, but he does not provide anything beyond that. Even if he did do not fricking get your perception of life and reality from a popsci guy it is fricking embarresing.
Presence or absence of free will is a subjective experience in either case. It doesn't make any factual difference. Within the objective reality it is a non-question, a tautology. People having or not having free will ultimately doesn't mean anything at all.
Everyone regardless of their convictions agrees that any human decision is made out of external factors and the decider himself with his own qualities. Determining which of these things or other things in their histories is "the cause" and which is "the effect" has nothing to do with determining the nature of the reality or existence. It's literally aesthetics.
The free will question is important because of the legal implications, at least they assume that we do have free will and should be responsible for our actions, you dismissing it so casually screams brainlet energy.
>at least they assume that we do have free will and should be responsible for our actions
>we stumbled into some 100% irrefutable scientific+metaphysical proof of the hard determinism
>it shows that legislature is predetermined to create laws that don't take determinism into account because that's predetermined more convenient
>homies still go to jail even tho it's all muh socioeconomics and external factors - since it is predetermined that sending homies to jail makes fewer homies predetermined to do crime
Much legal implications. Many justice.
The average anon on IQfy and IQfy is smarter than Robert Sapolsky.
He's just an old, confused, depressed man. Of course he thinks there's not free will.
that's right goyyim, become a hedonic pig so that israelites can harvest your shitty soul. /devil
There is very poor evidence empirical for reductionism or epiphenomenalism. Most of the science since the peak of reductionism in the 50s has pointed towards unifications, not reductions, and a sort of bigism, not the smallism used to say "science says there is no free will."
Showing that the type of people people are affects their choices isn't showing that concious decisions are epiphenonal.
>All of the arguments set forth by gadflies like Robert Sapolsky and Samuel Harris are refuted by the simple fact of the unearned prestige based on an ethnic israeli tradition. Since the days of Spinoza, israelites have had a innate contempt for metaphysical libertarianism they happily. and with impunity enjoy foisting on a helpless Gentile population through passive aggressive nepotism, and a immense collective effort to rid the whole world of Christian influences. which is not too dissimilar similar to naturalists and pagans and revolves around a worship of nature, in that they is not intermediary between God's existence and the material world, also not too dissimilar to the biblical trope of worshipping a golden calf. Therefore they see no contradiction between the natural world and its material worth in the temporal world, instead of something that is immaterial and enduring. and not only that, in tandem with Judaism’s relationship with Gentiles, committed determinists display a constantly depressed woe-is-me attitude and are really committed to the idea that they bear no witness to agency nor are responsible for any of their actions and exhibit an extremely selfish attitude similar to solipsism; an equally self-refuting philosophy, only that solipsism has at least a sense of self at the very fundamental level, which already puts it leagues ahead of determinism’s lack of personal agency.
Ayn Rand wrote about these books in Atlas Shrugged, lol.
>what makes you think you can think?
Lol there's nothing new under the sun.
Doesn't matter whether you do or not. The point is that whatever you choose was already determined before you chose it.
No, you yourself made the choice but you could have never chosen otherwise. Nobody can choose for you. Absolute free will doesn't make any sense.
How is that different, though? Isn't that what it means for a choice to be determined, that it had to be what it was and that it couldn't have been another way?
Yeah, we don't magically choose based on nothing that exists before our choices. Such choices wouldn't be free, they would just be arbitrary, based on nothing.
Freedom means being self-determining and none of our understanding of the world dictates that human beings can't be more of less self-determining. Obviously we aren't completely self creating or self determining, but neither are we like billiard balls. A person's memories, desires, emotions, and idea of what is good determine their behavior. This is exactly the sort of freedom Plato, Aristotle, the Patristics, and the Medievals focused on developing. The whole point of asceticism is that learning to deny the passions and desired will allow you to choose based on what you think is truly good, not what just appears good or feels good.
Only in the modern era did this silly idea of freedom as magical uncaused activity become a thing. What is uncaused is necessarily random, and acting randomly isn't an exercise of freedom in the same way a muscle spasm isn't voluntary movement.
To be fair, overthinking determinism
can lead to more self awareness and more refined choice, as you see how things arise. But I think a lot of people want to promote it instead as defeatism for personal emotional and ideological reasons. Ties in with their weird notion of genetics. They say it's obvious but then want the concept to prematurely stop at some level, like genetics, absolving them of choice and awareness.
Does it really matter
Quantum mechanics-based arguments for free will:
exact opposite moral of what you should have concluded. Aquinas talks about this.
What happens when you filter the metaphysics of Aquinas through Hegel?
>Chapter 2: "I don't know what consciousness is"
Dropped.
consciousness isn't relevant to his point
and consciousness doesn't entail free will either
he's a scientist, his goal as a scientist is to describe experiments and neuroscientific develops that show you think you're freely choosing as a rational agent but are actually not
__Yes__
There seem to be evident non-deterministic aspects of the physical world in the Uncertainty Priniciple, in the stochastic distribution of quantum decay, etc.
What is the Deterministic perspective on these things?
Obviously they must have some argument for it, theyve been around long enough.
That it doesn't lead to any meaningful changed in behavior?
>the world is deterministic
>there are apparently observable non-deterministic aspects of the base physical laws of the universe
>yeah but i want to be a nihilist
>stochastic
>it's not determined it's just COMPLETELY RANDOM
not helping your case here
>i like pancakes
>why do you hate waffles
Hidden variables.
Right so that's maybe the argument for particle decay randomness.
But there are literal physical bounds on the speed at which information can be transferred.
It is physically impossible to have absolute knowledge of a system.
You can ONLY approximately model it.
"give into" implies an imposition of will.
Does this book address 'creative causation' at all?
sapolsky is not a philosopher and openly admits he doesn't understand nor does he care to understand anything related to consciousness, the book's first chapter is the "the few seconds before you make a decision" and all the research about that, going back in time all the way to evopsych stuff. After that is part 2, where he gives a terrible solution for justice in a world without free will which verges on dystopian
also midway through he lightly addresses quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and emergent properties. his answers on these are also unsatisfactory
really when backed into a corner he pulls the
>well could you have done otherwise?
>well something caused it even if we don't understand exactly what
>well could you have thought about thinking about thinking about thinking about what you're thinking right now?
The postulated answer of free will is more unsatisfactory and dystopian but you are a midwit
Legal responsibility has fundamentally nothing to do with causation.
Societies appoint responsibility and dispense punishment based on the preventive principle aimed at social stability. They don't punish people or entities if we believe that this will have a destabilizing effect, and attribute undue responsibility when it is more effective.
Thinking that law serves an abstract principle instead of social needs is some peak brainlet shit.
Whether society punishes you for it's sake doesn't mean they don't think you and any other sane person have free will. The mentally ill are usually exempt from these sentences because a psychiatrist deems them insane, hence no free will. These are extremely important assumptions being made by institutions that determine the course of societies and it is no wonder a brainlet like you is so oblivious to their power over you.
>The mentally ill are usually exempt from these sentences because a psychiatrist deems them insane, hence no free will.
The mentally ill were not exempt from shit until fairly recently, so society had no issue with them having or lacking free will then.
It doesn't have that issue now, as mental health exemptions were not pushed on the ground of free will or responsibility - it went through on the interests of human rights groups and the prison complex, with the argument that prisons are not equipped to hold them, so these individuals remain a threat for others and for themselves when they are incarcerated there, so the incarceration does not actually serve it's function for them.
Mentally ill with violent tendencies are still incarcerated if they are found not fit to stand trial - the specialized medical facilities that take them still have all the repressive and violent qualities of prisons. So the societies have no issue with these individuals being punished with incarceration, despite them being supposedly exempt from punishments due to their actions not being the result of their own free will.
>These are extremely important assumptions being made by institutions that determine the course of societies
The brainlet element here is that you think that these assumptions have any relation to the free will and interests of the individual in general. The assumptions you are talking about are purely utilitarian in nature.
They are only utilitarian as a consequence of the religious nature that law inherits from. Christianity deems humans as agents with free will, commit sin, and you have done it out of free will, you get that translation to common law by the english who deemed crime as an action committed first sinfully and second as a betrayal to society and purely out of free will. This assumption is very explicit and to deny it as purely utilitarian is moronic and shows your poor knowledge of history.
>They are only utilitarian as a consequence of the religious nature that law inherits from
Those laws are very much secular in nature. I though Christian institutions loved to make a point of how they never instituted or enforced law, that being the function of the secular arm. Render unto Caesar and all that.
>Christianity deems humans as agents with free will
homie did you just say that God doesn't know what the future holds?
Whether they are secular or dictated by god is irrelevant as i keep telling you. What is relevant is the belief held by people who make and uphold these laws, that we have free will, and that people who commit crimes should be jailed because they could have done better, whatever that means, what god thinks, whether he exists or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
>What is relevant is the belief held by people who make and uphold these laws
Said belief is that implementing and upholding those laws makes for a better and more stable society. Whether the subjects of said law possess or lack free will never enters the equation.
>people who commit crimes should be jailed because...
...that way they are in jail and can no longer do crimes that might harm people on the outside.
>they could have done better
And?.. How does putting them in a box address this? They could have done better, so, box now?
No that belief is secondary and how do i know this, because you let them out under the assumption that they have been rehabilitated and out of free will can act better. You are taking a weak utilitarian premise and attempting to argue for something humans don't do. If it was purely as you say, prisoners would never be set free.
>because you let them out under the assumption that they have been rehabilitated and out of free will can act better
Why though? Why would prison ever make a man with fee will act better? Why would a man possessing a free will freely choose to act in adherence with the law after being subjected to the violence at the command of the law? How does that make any sense? Why wouldn't he freely choose to be even more criminal now that the law has cast him out of the society and humiliated him in the eyes of all men, never to be clean from it's derision again?
The very idea that punishment for certain actions makes people avoid said actions is antithetical to the concept of free will, as it assumes that all kinds of people equal before the law will act in the same way - supposedly out of fear, which is the opposite of acting out of free will.
I am not adressing the why's i am telling you that society expects you to have the free will to make better choices, that is the basis of the current judicial system and not some second rate utilitarian assumption. The idea that we have free will is more potent than your dry and glib utilitarianism that only seems to spring out in our modern times. I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief and has survived as a relic in modern society in disciplines like economics and political theory. You can't just brush all that up and call it utilitarianism.
>The idea that we have free will is more potent
It that your whole point? Well religious extremism is even more potent. I guess we should be treating that as the truth.
>I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief and has survived as a relic in modern society in disciplines like economics and political theory. You can't just brush all that up
>"W-we are not talking about China are we, l-let's just brush that up"
bruh
Dude, i am disagreeing with your utilitarian assumptions idea i am not advocating that we have free will, those are two different things. You need to go back and read the first arguments.
Well that just sounds as arguing in bad faith there.
What's being discussed in this subthread is the powerful influence of the idea of free will in the legal system, not whether free will exists.
I don't think that follows. Catholicism assumes that humans can be forgiven for their sins, you can't argue then that it has no issue with people not receiving pardon or being released from their sentences
>What's being discussed in this subthread is the powerful influence of the idea of free will in the legal system, not whether free will exists.
Fair enough. So, you're arguing that the idea of the free will as it is formed by Christian theology is the foundation of legal system as we know it, and that without it we would not have the rule of law, correct? That seems extremely questionable to me, simply for the reasons that:
1. Christianity has dominated societies for centuries without the rule of law manifesting in the slightest - and it was in fact the weakening of religious influence on the secular authority that coincided with emergence of the rule of law.
2. Societies that follow the rule of law existed and continue to exist completely independently of any Christian influence, or the concept of free will in particular. That simply proves that there are some other underlying factors that lead to the emergence of the rule of law, and I believe that those are utilitarian in nature.
>Catholicism assumes that humans can be forgiven for their sins
Forgiven by God. That very specifically has no bearing on forgiveness by the worldly law and worldly authorities. And this doesn't address the issue of Puritan/Calvinist divine predetermination, which is highly relevant as those guys had a significant role in forming the principles of what we understand as the rule of law, more so than most other Christian denominations. Brushing away the examples of Communist societies is also questionable, since they clearly show that the rule of law plainly does not require any (quasi-)religious foundation of free will in order to exist and be enforced. Communists do not deny free will, but neither they uphold it - they just treat the concept as irrelevant.
>and that without it we would not have the rule of law, correct
Thia isn't what i said. But the first part is correct. And just because religious influence waned, doesn't mean the remnants in its influence disappeared.
Yes there are underlying factors but we are talking about basic assumptions about redemption here not whether people should pay 20 or 30% tax based on the country they come from. The most basic assumption about human choice and its consequences on the rest of society. Forgiveness comes from god as all laws do. This is what informed christians to make laws, this is how they argued in court, to brush this off with your modern eyes is ignorance. Puritans and calvinists did not make english common law, it was made by catholics in the middle ages. Again communists don't matter because they practice modern law today, if their legal institutions were so successful they wouldn't have switched. You'd be more convincing if you spoke about muslims or hindus who think raping a woman is ok, but even they still practice common law when it suits them. These are all just a bunch of strawmen you have introduced that avoid talking about the fundamental choice legal institutions assume you have so that they can punish you when you stray.
>This is what informed christians to make laws
I already pointed out how Catholics did not have any issue with indefinite imprisonment tho, and how the more comprehensive legal systems that we have now were created specifically after waning of religious authority. So far you have completely failed to establish any connection between the Christian (or rather, Catholic) concept of free will and emergence of the rule of law.
>this is how they argued in court
Do you have a single fact to back this up? That in the 1400s a guy from York who was about to be hanged for stealing cattle argued to the free will with the sheriff, when he in fact had no right to any legal defense whatsoever, despite a Christian priest being present to hear his last confession and administer the last rites?
>Puritans and calvinists did not make english common law, it was made by catholics in the middle ages
The one that Catholics made was not supreme - as it was subject to the sovereign, and as such it was not the rule of law, and did not pay any regard to the free will of the subjects, who are to act in accordance with the will of sovereign at all times. Until the Reformation began and it all went "Wait no, NOT LKE THAT".
>communists don't matter because they practice modern law today, if their legal institutions were so successful they wouldn't have switched
Anon they never had any other law. Communists were doing modern law from the beginning. And by the same logic, if the Christianity was the key influence on the modern law, then we would not switch TO modern law from the feudal law for which Christianity is the key influence.
> You'd be more convincing if you spoke about muslims or hindus who think raping a woman is ok, but even they still practice common law when it suits them
So, where's the Christian influence here? Also, reminder that Christianity saw no issue with rape for centuries just as well.
>"noooo it's not rape if they are married"
That's what Muslims and Hindus believe as well.
>avoid talking about the fundamental choice legal institutions assume
I made my case on those assumptions, and you are just seething about it since without providing a single argument beyond "it was all defined by Christian concept of free will because IT JUST WAS OKAY???"
People, of any religious affiliation in the west exclaim jesus when they are shocked even though christianity has waned, they celebrate christmass too. Your argument does not follow, waning of christian influence has no bearing on anything.
The priest was present to forgive the sinner, I don't see how this argument contradicts anything. He can choose his legal defense if he could afford it, this does not deny the court's assumption of free will.
The will of the sovereign is subject to laws of god, this is why britain and the holy roman empire became protestant, because they did not want to be subjects of rome's theocracy. Their protestant monarchies were still subjected to god's laws.
Again, modern law inherits its core tenets from christianity, just because we don't practice feudalism or hanging of thieves doesn't invalidate this claim.
The influence is the common law introduced by the british who thought homosexuality should be punished btw. Guess what hindus and muslims are still against today.
You did not make any case, you continue to introduce strawmans by going on about modern law, as if it sprang from a vacuum when in fact kept the best beliefs of christianity and free will intact.
>People, of any religious affiliation in the west exclaim jesus when they are shocked even though christianity has waned, they celebrate christmass too.
And? By that logic literally everything is "built on assumptions inherited from Christianity", including troons, pedophilia and space flight. That's not a sound argument because it does not show any connection between the supposed influence Christian concept of free will and the legal practice.
> He can choose his legal defense if he could afford it, this does not deny the court's assumption of free will.
The one that you failed to demonstrate.
>The will of the sovereign is subject to laws of god, this is why britain and the holy roman empire became protestant, because they did not want to be subjects of rome's theocracy. Their protestant monarchies were still subjected to god's laws.
Christianity assumes that soveregins can be wrong and/or sinful, and as such can make unjust rulings, which are compensated by the Final Judgement. Where does the rule of law come in here?
>Again, modern law inherits its core tenets from christianity
No argument tho.
> as if it sprang from a vacuum when in fact kept the best beliefs of christianity and free will intact
I didn't tho - I pointed out that they came from pragmatic approaches to utilitarian purposes. You disregarded that point without providing any argument.
No, by that logic, free will is inherited from chritianity. This is another strawman because we are not talking about troons and pedophilia.
I just did, the priest's presence and obligation to forgive a sinful and repentant criminal assumes free will. He is willing to repent his sins, the court is beholden to provide these services for him and in fact uses his repentance as a tool when punishing him. The law's injustice here has more to do with class than religion.
Christianity assumes god judges you, at least the powers that be do, when they sentence you. The rule of law is in the fear of god more than anything else.
I btfod your utilitarian assumption by pointing out that humans and society in general make assumption about your free will so that they can punish you, you have not refuted this argument. You just keep introducing new strawmen to keep this fruitless argument going.
>I btfod your utilitarian assumption by pointing out that humans and society in general make assumption about your free will so that they can punish you,
No, you did not point that out. You just said they do, without providing any proof whatsoever.
I already did this by showing utilitarianism is a consequence of this belief and all you could do after is give strawmen for me to attack instead of showing it as a contradiction.
>I dare say its the lynchpin of christian belief
I think a great deal of prots would disagree here. Even more curious is that those very prots are the ones most involved of all Christians with the advent of legal society. Catholicism had no issue whatsoever with people (supposedly possessing free will) being incarcerated indefinitely.
>If it was purely as you say, prisoners would never be set free.
They never were for a really long-ass time. Then prisons became a business - be it private or state-operated, and it turned out that holding prisoners indefinitely costs that business a lot of resources.
Somehow, for some reason, it became unacceptable to execute people for petty crimes or imprison people indefinitely specifically at that moment. Must be a coincidence.
>They are only utilitarian as a consequence of the religious nature that law inherits from.
I guess Soviet Union and Communist China never had any prisons then...
We are not talking about china are we, and even if we are, both countries today employ the modern judicial system that assumes humans can be rehabilitated.
Denying the absence of free will is cope, all the other versions and definitions of free will are a cope, it isn't real but the west is adamant about this belief since so much of its culture is based around the idea that it's real. This is almost a copernican revolution where people can't accept it. The reasons why are also complex and multidisciplinary which makes people even on IQfy cope harder and willfully (or not not) misunderstand what exactly is being implied when people deboonk free will. I don't see the masses changing their stance on this issue until after ww3
We don't have free will, but we do have free choice.
I feel like philosopher gays are pure math gays minus any applicable skill. You question shit that doesn't even matter. Who fricking cares, and who fricking asked?
You're all brainlet morons who will amount to nothing and be homeless, sucking off strangers for money.
>inb4 anything
was it really determined in advance for me to eat the cotton out of a benzedrex inahler and jack off for 5 hours straight and throw up
You just got to pick the right book to read that tells you what you want to here. Then everything recommended is some Bible philosopher.
>I should
No
You will
>Haha free will is fake you’re just a clockwork automaton! Only materialism matters! It’s all atoms!
>W-what? You’re going to s-shoot me? No! No! That’s wrong! It’s not right! I want to live! You’re a monster! This is murder!
>muh feefees