Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/Free Will"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(saving work...) |
(a bit more) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[subject::''Free Will'']] | [[subject::''Free Will'']] | ||
</hide> | </hide> | ||
| − | == | + | ==Introduction== |
Harris starts out using the phrase "[[free will]]" as if the definition were uncontested and unilateral. From various discussions of this book online, however, there seems to be substantial ambiguity surrounding the term, and much of the disagreement with Harris's thesis arises from [[conflation]] of the possible definitions. | Harris starts out using the phrase "[[free will]]" as if the definition were uncontested and unilateral. From various discussions of this book online, however, there seems to be substantial ambiguity surrounding the term, and much of the disagreement with Harris's thesis arises from [[conflation]] of the possible definitions. | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
<blockquote>Whatever their conscious motives, these men cannot know why they are as they are. Nor can we account for why we are not like them.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Whatever their conscious motives, these men cannot know why they are as they are. Nor can we account for why we are not like them.</blockquote> | ||
| − | This is a naked assertion, without any evidence. Certainly through studying the brain -- as Harris himself describes in his book ''[[The Moral Landscape]]'', if I understand that book's thesis correctly -- we can gain an understanding of what particular features lead to various types of criminal behavior. We have already begun to do this, and progress in brain science is accelerating rapidly. Saying "we can't account" for their behavior is absurd. | + | This is a naked assertion, without any evidence; since we're still in the introduction, presumably Harris will defend it later... but on the face of it, it seems clearly wrong: Certainly through studying the brain -- as Harris himself describes in his book ''[[The Moral Landscape]]'', if I understand that book's thesis correctly -- we can gain an understanding of what particular features lead to various types of criminal behavior. We have already begun to do this, and progress in brain science is accelerating rapidly. Saying "we can't account" for their behavior is absurd. |
Even without brain science, however, we can make some accounting of how we are different, or why we behave differently, from many criminals: | Even without brain science, however, we can make some accounting of how we are different, or why we behave differently, from many criminals: | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
The '''difference''' between (a) "hard-wired" criminals and (b) epileptics, autistics, etc. is that the "defects" of the latter do not pose a serious danger to others merely by their existence, while the "defect" of criminality clearly ''does''. (I'll note that epileptics may pose a threat if they have a seizure while operating heavy machinery -- which is why we generally don't let epileptics have drivers' licenses unless they have their condition under control. The idea of selectively preventing behaviorally-caused harm due to brain "defects" is not a new one.) | The '''difference''' between (a) "hard-wired" criminals and (b) epileptics, autistics, etc. is that the "defects" of the latter do not pose a serious danger to others merely by their existence, while the "defect" of criminality clearly ''does''. (I'll note that epileptics may pose a threat if they have a seizure while operating heavy machinery -- which is why we generally don't let epileptics have drivers' licenses unless they have their condition under control. The idea of selectively preventing behaviorally-caused harm due to brain "defects" is not a new one.) | ||
| + | ===It's an Illusion=== | ||
| + | We're still in the introduction, so presumably the following statement will also be defended at length later on: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.</blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Again, though, on the face of it, there is a problem with this statement. Saying that "thoughts and intentions emerge from [things] over which we exert no conscious control" implies a couple of things: | ||
| + | * our consciousness has a will (which is simply not able to express itself through our actions) | ||
| + | * conscious control is required for "free will" | ||
| + | |||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||