As it appears, from a philosophical perspective, it cannot be said that Free Will cannot be disputed.chewybrian wrote: ↑March 8th, 2020, 6:01 am Dogma is a moral belief taken as fact, usually because it comes from a perceived authority, like the church. Your argument would hold weight if it were against many religious beliefs. In that case, the believer arguably must swim against the tide of his actual experience in the world and create the belief on his own at all moments. He can not directly access God for proof of his belief, in the way I could prove to myself that my dog exists, by interacting with her, or the way I could validate my own free will, by making a choice.
So, in the case of free will, dogma more clearly represents the case of the believer in determinism. They must swim against the tide of all their experience. At every moment, they are forced to choose with no chance of avoiding the choice, and they know their choices have consequences, so they will naturally take care to make good choices most of the time (if they are thinking clearly). If they wish to continue believing in determinism, they must deny their experience, even as they live what they claim is a lie at all times. They are choosing the theory over their experience, and arguably just as far in denial as many religious believers.
Why would I need an objective defense against reality? If I choose, as most people do, to accept that my experience of choosing in the world is real, I can access this experience at any moment to validate my belief. It's quite obvious, since we all have this experience, that the burden of proof is on the determinist to show that all human experience is an illusion. Influences or mechanical problems do not suffice. I have the power of sight. Some people are color blind, some are totally blind, sometimes it's dark and I can't see well... Yet, the fact remains that healthy people under the right conditions have the ability to see. Similarly, healthy people under normal conditions can freely choose. To believe this is as rational as any possible belief I might hold. To believe in dogma would be to accept something that was not self-evident; this is.
You seem to be assuming that belief in free will is going to diminish over time to a trickle, as perhaps religious belief might. I disagree. If, in the case of religion, people had direct access to God, one should not expect belief to dry up. In the case of free will, we have this direct access. If you denied God while we were standing right next to God, I would say you were mad. I say we are, in effect, standing right next to free will at this moment, and you are mad if you don't see and acknowledge it. You are using your free will at all waking moments, like it or not. Any attempt to deny this will only diminish your effectiveness at putting it to use.
A recent neurology study claimed that Free Will is an illusion created by the brain.Philosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer.
A new research program spanning 17 universities and backed by more than $7 million from two private foundations hopes to break out the impasse by bringing neuroscientists and philosophers together. The collaboration, the researchers say, can help them tackle two important questions: What does it take to have free will? And whatever that is, do we have it?
(2019) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03 ... stery-free
Free will may be an illusion, scientists suggest after study shows choice may just be brain tricking itself
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 08181.html
I did not intend to suggest that a belief in Free Will will diminish over time similar to religions. I merely intended to evaluate the perspective of a movement that may ultimately intend to replace the criminal justice system. Free Will Skepticism (the ability to claim that it is merely a belief) is central in their perspective.
Like with the concept wisdom, or with valuing that must precede the senses, what it is that makes a human free may reside in a context that precedes that what can be comprehended by empirical science. Evidence that this may be true is the fact that empirical science has been unable to explain consciousness.
An example. Pain is to be considered real (not a phantasy). On a deeper level, there is something that precedes that pain. There is a value element involved. One considers (that what causes) pain as "bad".
It must be implied that an element of valuing is involved for pain to be possible. That what causes pain is considered "bad". But pain also implies something else, that the valuing by an individual, while as such has a subjective element, originates from something that is real. A universal "good".
It can be implied that for valuing to be possible it requires a distinguish ability. By the nature of value, valuing per se appropriates that distinguish ability from that what can be indicated as "good". Because something cannot give rise to itself, "good" per se cannot be valued.
- valuing requires a distinguish ability
Valuing is making a distinction between good and bad. Bad isn't of substance. Bad is what lessens good. As such, one does not choose but 'value'.
The first logical implication is that for valuing to be possible, it requires a distinguish ability and by the nature of value it derives that ability from what can be indicated as "good".
- factual logic (logical truth): something cannot give rise to itself
The simple logic that something cannot give rise to itself can be considered factual logic or logical truth.
- indicated "good" cannot be other than "good" per se
If the indicated "good" could be anything other than that what it is considered to be per se, it would need to have been valued and that is impossible by the factual logic at point 2.
My footnote provides further substantiation.
I am certain that the environment and culture can have a big influence on human thoughts and behaviour. It is only when you study philosophy that you can learn to understand it and derive actionable advantage, such as enhanced thinking. It is certainly good to intend to improve the world, and thus to prevent crime.
At question is whether it would be wise to replace the criminal justice system with preventative measures, in which the abolishment of a belief in Free Will is central. I simply intend to discover insights.