ant wrote: . . .If someone decides NOT to steal because of a future negative consequence (punishment) then they have exercised free-will.

It is either free will or causal determination here.
If John Doe steals because of a pre-determined biological disposition, it is destined to be.

If this can be determined prior to his actions, then as a causal determinist, you should have no problem altering his future misdeeds.

If John Doe is not biologically disposed to theft, you can not bestow moral praise on him because he chose NOT to steal when an ideal situation occurred in which he could get away with it. He simply wasn't "wired" to steal.


Michael Shermer has a high IQ. And so does his child who scores higher on his MCAT (i'm making this up) than John Doe's child. John Doe has a lower IQ than Shermer and has genetically transferred this over to his child.
Should we praise the performance of Shermer's child?

I'm not really paying too much attention to your paraphrasing of what Michael Shermer supposedly said. I'm not sure it's really important. There are too many factors here to make such broad generalizations as "it is either free will or causal determination here." Probably anyone would steal under certain circumstances. Is someone stealing out of greed or hunger? If we're wired for anything, it is to be able to adapt to different circumstances. The world doesn't lend itself to firm judgment of always right or always wrong. Even murder is sometimes justified if it arises out of self defense or protecting family members.

Some of us are born in social circumstances such as religious indoctrination that discourages stealing while others may be exposed to poverty that may lend itself to certain group influences that encourage stealing such as gang initiation.

And you bring up another point. A superior IQ makes it possible to better foresee the negative consequences of stealing. So a less intelligent person might be more inclined to steal because he lacks the intelligence to properly assess the consequences of his actions.

Though we are wired to adapt to different circumstances, we are also probably wired to easily judge others for perceived wrong—a tit-for-tat mentality that is actually based on game theory. Maybe we are all natural hypocrites to some extent, not understanding or ignoring complex factors that might come into play when someone steals or commits other crimes.

One of Charles Dickens' themes in many of his novels, especially in Oliver Twist, exposes this underlying hypocrisy by showing us society's underbelly, the crushing weight of poverty, child labor, and recruitment of children as criminals. Mark Twain, likewise, showed the pernicious effects of slavery by holding a mirror so that we could see our own racism, and he does it all with a semi-literate rabble rouser named Huck.

Our reasoning here seems like a violation of the law of the excluded middle.

Thanks for your thoughts.

ant wrote:Our reasoning here seems like a violation of the law of the excluded middle.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm sure I went off on a tangent. To be honest, I'm not really sure what causal determinism even is.

If "willpower" would prevent this hypothetical character from stealing, then that would be free-will in action, correct?

Only if the exercising of one’s will is without any prior cause. Introspectively, every time you engage your willpower, it is motivated. Knowledge that sugars make you fat. Knowledge that doing meth can harm you. Knowledge that sleeping with your neighbor’s wife would have bad consequences. This knowledge is the basis for engaging our willpower in many cases. This knowledge is attained causally, through the transfer of information.

In this sense, willpower isn’t so much a free-floating rational entity(you) making a choice. Instead, it’s a contest of opposing forces. Often times, the immoral motive is from our evolutionary heritage. Our desire for sweet foods, our desire to procreate, our desire to gain prestige with minimal effort. When our moral knowledge is at odds with these desires, there is an internal struggle between the two.

Someone who is biologically determined to commit robbery at some point in his life would NOT be deterred by societal punishment consequences would they?

What do you mean biologically determined? Determinism doesn’t work on only biology. There would be plenty of other variables that would ultimately lead to his thieving behavior. External influences are every bit as important as biological influences.

With that said, a more direct answer to your question is that (lacking a chip)John Doe would not refrain from stealing because he did not have enough exposure to the consequences. Or he could have been a risk seeker like so many shoplifters, aware of the consequences but choosing to take the risk regardless. The thrill of getting away with such a risk is like gambling, the same reward mechanisms are in play.

If John Doe knew he was addicted to shoplifting, as some people are, then he should be commended for getting a chip implanted, as a method of controlling himself when willpower alone wouldn’t suffice. We should hope that more people would follow his lead.

Nor would they be motivated to reap future "rewards" for NOT acting on biological impulses beyond their control.

In this scenario, exercising his will not to steal wouldn’t be motivated by a future reward, it would be motivated by avoidance of potential future punishment.

If someone decides NOT to steal because of a future negative consequence (punishment) then they have exercised free-will.

I’m guessing you think of free-will as lacking prior cause. An uncaused agency within our minds? If so, what makes you think the decision not to steal is without reason? A ‘reason’ is causally efficacious. Think of it as a soft-input variable in computer programming. It is a cause that is also caused. My point is, you can’t hold up ‘free-will’ as an uncaused phenomenon. Which is why most philosophers of the mind say that free will is an illusion. There is causation behind all of it, with supervenience on neural activity.

Biological determinism, sometimes called Genetic determinism, is the idea that each of our behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism


If a person is disposed to deviant behavior because of cerebral localized defects, then how would "willpower" dispose of a biological defect and why would a deviant be Truly deserving of blame if his actions were determined?

So again, are you in the free will camp or the determinism camp?
Are you saying that you are a determinist but other variable come into play to change determined outcomes?
That makes no sense, particularly if you are injecting "willpower" as you did in your first post.

Here is what you initially wrote, Interbane:

If a person exercised his willpower to overcome his desire to perpetrate an act he knows is wrong, then we should praise him to reinforce that behavior.

Here is the definition of "willpower"

will·pow·er
noun \ˈwil-ˌpau̇(-ə)r\

: the ability to control yourself : strong determination that allows you to do something difficult (such as to lose weight or quit smoking)


I get the idea that society sets rewards and punishes to encourage/discourage. That's clear.
I'd think you'd agree that our prisons are full of people that were unable to neither control deviant behavior or adequately assess future punishment in order to control deviant beavior. And you've indicated in your initial post you consider yourself a determinist. As one, how could you hold a criminal truly responsible for something he could not have ultimatley controlled?

There would be plenty of other variables that would ultimately lead to his thieving behavior. External influences are every bit as important as biological influences.

External influences that are immediately in place (like bank security) to prevent John Doe (who's deviant behavior has been determined due to some brain defect) from robbing a bank would prevent him from robing the bank. But if he could get away with it safely, he would, based on his needy economic status (external influence) and the fact that he's already per-disposed to deviant behavior.

Are you saying he could have chosen to do otherwise if he had the willpower?
That's free will and not determinism.
You can't see that?

If determinism is true, then free will must be false. Do you agree with that statement?

Oh, that determinism.

It does appear that nearly everything we do is motivated by unconscious impulses. We are very good at post hoc rationalization, coming up with a good story that explains why we did something after our brain has already decided to do it. This is one of the areas where science contradicts with what we call "common sense." Because it seems obvious that we have free will, but this very well may be an illusion. I personally think we do have some free will.

I've been a victim of car theft. Imagine going into every little detail of what was going on in the thief's life to make him decide to break into my car that day. Would we start from the day he was born? No, I would imagine we would have to go to his family of origin, maybe many generations before he was even born to find all that went into his decision. In theory, there's a finite amount of data, even if we could never come up with all of it. We would also have to go into game theory which explains behavior in purely mathematical terms. There is a ratio of people who are prone to steal to those who are not prone to steal—and every little permutation in between. Such a ratio has been fine-tuned for millions of years to lead to the best survival of the species. Naturally, if everybody stole, everybody would lose. If no one or almost no one stole, that might open the door to vulnerabilities for those very few who did steal. So the best ratio apparently is that some of us steal some of the time.

I'm thinking of Hari Seldon now . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Seldon

If a person is disposed to deviant behavior because of cerebral localized defects, then how would "willpower" dispose of a biological defect and why would a deviant be Truly deserving of blame if his actions were determined?

I think genetic determinism is silly and false. At best, our genetic heritage gives us tendencies for certain behaviors, but it is not deterministic. From birth, we have many tendencies, such as craving sugar or wanting to mate with an attractive partner. But those are influences, and not the same as determined outcomes. It only deals tangentially with causation.

Causal determinism is what I'm referring to. Not necessarianism perhaps, because emergent properties are a grey area. But some form of causal determinism.

So again, are you in the free will camp or the determinism camp?

I believe the universe is deterministic. So there's no confusion, this is what I'm referring to: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

As one, how could you hold a criminal truly responsible for something he could not have ultimatley controlled?

I only hold people responsible if they knew what they did was wrong, and they did it intentionally. Holding someone responsible in such cases is behavioral manipulation. What else do you think the act of holding someone responsible is supposed to achieve? To prevent them from doing it again, they must be held responsible. It's about future behaviors, using the past as a template of what to do or what not to do.

What I've found as a determinist is that my understanding of the concepts is slightly altered. I've found myself far more forgiving, understanding that shaming and blaming often only perpetuates a nasty cycle. So I forgive people, because their actions are ultimately determined, but at the same time they must be held responsible so that they learn, and so that others learn from example.

Often times, the most brutal and disgusting deeds can be traced back to other causes. Child abuse is commonly found in the backgrounds of murderers and rapists. They should be punished as appropriate(sometimes death is appropriate), for reasons I hope I've made clear, but there should be forgiveness in the understanding that they were ultimately determined to do what they did.

External influences that are immediately in place (like bank security) to prevent John Doe (who's deviant behavior has been determined due to some brain defect) from robbing a bank would prevent him from robing the bank. But if he could get away with it safely, he would, based on his needy economic status (external influence) and the fact that he's already per-disposed to deviant behavior.

Are you saying he could have chosen to do otherwise if he had the willpower?
That's free will and not determinism.
You can't see that?

I'm saying he could have chosen to do otherwise if he had the willpower. But his amount of willpower at that time was determined by his past experience. If he had more willpower means - if he had different previous experiences(external influences as opposed to biological influences that you mentioned). We can imagine such an alternate history for John Doe for explanatory purposes, since this is speculative, but in reality there would be no alternate history. If we were talking about a real person, then he couldn't have chosen to do otherwise - because the strength of his will at that point was already determined.

I have been following this thread off and on as it has expanded. I will not bother to quote what others have said or to criticize their opinions. But I will say this. The premise, putting a 'mind control' chip in a person's brain to ensure he behaves according to the morality, religious convictions, societal views, or the egomaniacy of the implanter, is WRONG! It flies in the face of all that makes us human. As for determinism vs. free will, yes we all are shaped by our genetic imprint, by our upbringing, by our social environment, by our physical environment. Does this take away our free will? I don't know, I would like to think it does not, but that is just the opinon of one somewhat salty old curmudgeon.

P.S. This thread did remind me a delightful science fiction short story by R. C. Fitzpatrick called "The Circuit Riders." I found a reference to it on Good Reads, and believe it was published in Analog Science Fact/Fiction magazine. I haven't been able to pin down the date it was published, but will keep looking for it and will add it here if I can find it.

More on "The Circuit Riders." You can find it on Good Reads (www.goodreads.com). It was published in 1962, but remains (in my opinion) a classic short story in this genre. It is set in PIttsburg, and if you are old enough to remember Forbes Field, you will enjoy it even more.

Cattleman wrote:As for determinism vs. free will, yes we all are shaped by our genetic imprint, by our upbringing, by our social environment, by our physical environment. Does this take away our free will? I don't know, I would like to think it does not, but that is just the opinon of one somewhat salty old curmudgeon.

The book by Dennett I mentioned earlier is a great read that expands on what you're saying. Whether or not free will is an illusion is an intellectual matter, rather than an experiential one. We can't gain an experiential perspective that's third person, and the vast majority of what influences our choices is hidden to us.

It's like thinking of an answer to a riddle. You know the answer is stored by the arrangement of neurons, but can you backtrack it with your mind's eye when it pops into your head? You can't. The operation of our consciousness may supervene on neuronal firings, but that doesn't mean we're aware of what's going on.

Another good example to illustrate this is the priming effect in psychology. Street magicians use this to manipulate people without them being aware of it. Of course, that's only one variable amongst thousands or even millions that determine our choices. The complexity of how our brains operate means that the majority of it is hidden to us. Even though free will is an illusion, that doesn't mean we don't feel in control. The illusion can't be overcome, even if we arrive at the conclusion that the universe is determined.