"They should police their own"

Free will is too poorly defined a concept to believe or disbelieve in.
Even if there is no free will, I have to live day to day life as if it exists, because what's the realistic alternative?

You need to make contact with Morpheus or Trinity.

There's also the contradiction in saying "Humans have no free will."

As soon as you say it, you've refuted it.

I think a lot of Harris's thesis is that you can't attribute things to free will when there are numerous internal factors at play that you have no awareness or control of.

I don't necessarily agree with him, or even understand him, but it's interesting.

^I was intrigued enough to find this:

I've come across similar neuroscience studies, and fMRIs don't lie, but I wonder how you separate internal from external? I doubt there's a gene sequence for religiosity, for example.

How so?

Btw, even if everyone who murders when murder carries a prison sentence has a certain genetic fault, that doesn't mean only they will murder if we lift the prison sentence.

If you have no free will, how can you freely say "Humans have free will"? Or is it all just programming?

Who says you're freely saying it?

Anyway, @Diacanu is right. Free will doesn't simply map to juridical responsibility. You end up saying you only want to imprison people for a crime they've committed if they do not have a disposition to commit such a crime. That doesn't make any sense either.

See, Flashy, this is where you fail. A real troll could have cajoled his way into getting some kind of embarrassing admission. But since nobody takes you seriously anymore, you're so easy to brush off that this is all you get.

I'm pretty sure Flashy fails worse in real life than he fails here. That's why he is so busy failing here.

That should have been "No free will." Long day...

Can we not talk about free will again? I'm sure there's a great Packard/Async thread about it around here somewhere...

Kneel before Zod.

I knew you were going to say that.

^ISWYDT.