Comment by firmgently | Hacker News Reader

Comment by firmgently | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Modern mainstream science does not allow for the existence of free will. Materialism (everything is physical) and Determinism (everything that ever happens is an inevitable and ultimately predictable consequence of The Big Bang) reign in contemporary thought. Free will is largely considered to be an illusion or psychological trick (see eg. Daniel C. Dennett 'Freedom Evolves') and several studies have shown that decisions happen before we become aware of them and believe ourselves to have consciously decided (see Benjamin Libet's experiments amongst many others).

For free will to exist the question of what is doing the willing has to be answered. The classic (René Descartes) explanation was that of the Cartesian Theatre, the idea that somewhere inside our heads there is some kind of entity that is separate from the physical substance that makes up our bodies. As far as I can see modern science's answer to that is 'nah - neurons' (I'm oversimplifying, people go into lots of detail about electrochemical processes which happen in the brain).

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with/believe all of this (although Dennett's books are quite persuasive) but I'm not aware of any 'respectable' current theories that allow for any kind of 'ghost in the machine' - and without that, there's nowhere for free will to come from (and with that all that happens is you then need to answer what is driving the free will of the ghost/spirit/agent and where it comes from - which is similar to how The Big Bang doesn't explain why something could spontaneously appear out of nothing, only that it did and what happened next. Soap Bubble Universes, Multiverses etc just push the question one step further away... one turtle further down the stack).

The world has a serious problem to resolve here because if there truly is no free will then there is no justification for punishing people for their actions - they had no choice in the matter... in which case the criminal justice system is barbaric and unfounded.

I realise a lot of people here will already know this stuff but it plays on my mind quite a lot so please excuse the essay :)

> Modern mainstream science does not allow for the existence of free will.

Physics and math do allow it. I'm not in the least bit worried about those who disagree, they will give some excuse when they are shown to be wrong (maybe something about underpowered studies). Though I suspect the choice not as free as people think.

> everything that ever happens is an inevitable and ultimately predictable consequence of The Big Bang

No. By quantum physics. Most things are not predictable. Add to this non-linear effects and you get a really non-predictable universe (some part of this is Chaos theory).

> and several studies have shown that decisions happen before we become aware of them and believe ourselves to have consciously decided

This means exactly what it means and nothing else, that is, the brain decides before it is aware of that fact (and it can be argued most decisions are "hardware accelerated" and automatic: nothing wrong with that). No further conclusions can be taken out of that

The non-existence of free will has no direct policy implication. Since people are deterministic, the knowledge of punishments would create different behaviors.

The non-existence of free has huge policy implications. There are many discussions of this. For example the top result on Google for me looking for "free will justice punishment" was this:

https://www.orlandocriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2016/01/f...

If a criminal has no free will, then they are not responsible for their actions since responsibility is dependent on moral agency. I disagree with that author's conclusion though, that you have to let every criminal go. I think that when someone is apprehended and determined to have committed the crime the decision to be made now comes from a different perspective. What treatment of this person will produce the best (or least bad) outcome for society on the whole? In one case that could mean letting the person go if every indication is that they will not commit another crime regardless of any punishment. In another case it could be locking them up and never letting them out, even on a first offence, if it is very likely that they will commit serious crimes if freed.

Of course there are still discussions to be had weighing the impact of the sentencing decision on the victim, the perpetrator, and the rest of society. There's also how much trust to place in the scientific models of likelihood for recidivism. But accepting that people have no moral agency undercuts the most basic premise of laws and the justice system.

The direct participants in the justice system are not the whole picture. Society is not just affected by the judgement against the defendant, but by the logical precedent of the judgement. Making fair and consistent rules has widespread impact, allowing other people to understand the consequences of their actions and respond accordingly.

A deterministic universe does not mean people do not have moral agency. It just means some people are predetermined to behave immorally. That does not mean we should not do what we can to prevent that behavior.

I agree with everything you've written except this:

> The world has a serious problem to resolve here because if there truly is no free will then there is no justification for punishing people for their actions - they had no choice in the matter... in which case the criminal justice system is barbaric and unfounded.

"Free will" has no impact on the role of the justice system. Punishment is based on the circumstances surrounding intent and behavior, it doesn't matter if one "willingly" (in the free will sense) commits a premeditated homicide or one was "determined" to be the type of person that commits a premeditated homicide, either way, deterring and punishing that behavior is the intended goal of the justice system. The faculties of mind that we regard as possible mitigating factors in the administration of justice are unaffected by any philosophical conclusions regarding the nature of free will.

Even if you are right, your comment is pointless.

Let's assume Buddism was the ultimate truth of how the Universe work. Would it be Ok for a Buddist to interrupt a debate about criminal law with the remark that, given reincarnation, all murders are an illusion???

People feel inside like they have free will, and they are not going to change that opinion because of your argument. If a men in a white labcoat tells them to disregard their own feelings and surrender to the BigBadCompany, they are not going to do so... they are going to label people in white coats as "manipulative enemy". Furthermore, they are going to label everyone that oppose people in white coats, - antivaxers, prolifers, climate change deniers, etc, - as "potential ally".

So, you want to stop Donald Trump from taking over the world??? Why don't you stop preaching to the choir while alienating everyone else?

>Would it be Ok for a Buddist to interrupt a debate about criminal law with the remark that, given reincarnation, all murders are an illusion???

Maybe not but would it be ok for a Buddhist to interrupt a thread to point out that Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation?

https://www.thoughtco.com/reincarnation-in-buddhism-449994

Reply on news.ycombinator.com