Posted: Aug 23, 2017 1:02 pm
GrahamH wrote:zoon wrote:GrahamH wrote:scott1328 wrote:Why are you puzzled. I have posted several times that free will is predicated upon predictability of outcome, and weighing of consequences, without which an agent cannot be said to have made a free choice. The agent's own impression of the situation notwithstanding.
Perhaps because free will is about the capacity to be unpredictable to others, to not slavishly follow the rules and 'do the right thing'
If humans are too predictable it erodes the concept, but we could have significant chaos and still believe in free will as long as people do what they think or say they will do.
For practical purposes of the law and in ordinary usage, free will is only ascribed to people where they are neither entirely predictable (as in falling), or entirely unpredictable, as in some forms of mental illness. I think it’s where people are trusted to stay in line with the local moral rules most of the time, but not enough is known about brain mechanisms to predict them with deadly accuracy (which might happen eventually if neuroscience continues at its present rate).
?
In fact the issue arises when people act in ways that are not expected. We can't accurately predict crime and when agents act in those ways that were not predicted there is a presumption that they did so by their free will. People obeying the rules might be doing so by free will, but the question doesn't arise, does it? They are doing what they are told to do, what they are coerced to do (crime will be punished), what they are trained to do. They behave just as an zombie without free will would behave.
People are sometimes praised or rewarded for morally approved behaviour, which does imply free will as much as blaming and punishment, but it's not usually such a contentious issue. As you say, it's likely to happen where there's a likelihood that they or others will not behave so well, it's an attempt to influence future actions either of the agent or of onlookers.