Posted: Oct 20, 2018 12:17 am
by ughaibu
zoon wrote:if neuroscience had reached the point where behaviour could easily be modified directly by altering brain structures, then there would be no point in using punishment and reward, because altering the structure of the brain would give far more detailed control
Just to be clear about this, you think that lobotomising criminals is an advance in human behaviour?
zoon wrote:my view is that free will is a useful concept in the context of our current ignorance of brain mechanisms, but that it would drop out of use if we understood ourselves fully in scientific terms. It’s in that sense that I’m saying free will is not ultimate.
But free will isn't a psychological or political device, so whether we hold that there is free will isn't something decided by irrelevancies like the supposed attitude to justice in the USA. If it were, then presumably places like Norway would be full of free will deniers, but of course they aren't. Political considerations are no more relevant to the reality of free will than they are to the reality of global warming and psychological considerations are no more relevant to the reality of free will than they are to the reality of evolution.
zoon wrote:Certainly, we don’t yet know for certain that we are determinate, but the evidence all points that way?
You keep saying this, but it's not clear what you mean by the eccentric term "determinate" nor what the supposed evidence is, perhaps you could spell these things out.
Also, as science includes the assumption that there is free will, whatever it is that you mean by the above, it cannot consistently be that science suggests there is no free will.