/lit/ - Literature

crypto-Greco-Buddhism incarnate

>>21012420
Harris talks constantly about how the self is an illusion.

>>21012420
>bridges the is-ought gap
BASED SAM DOES IT AGAIN!!!

>>21012424
Then why isn’t he an open individualist?

good on religion and philosophy, retarded on ethics and politics

>>21012420
he's a kike. move along.

Thought experiment for the deniers of free will:

Let's assume scientists could place electrodes and a receiver in your brain such that they can control your body from remote. For example they could make you go somewhere, make you say something or make you put your signature on a contract to start your process of gender transition. If you do not believe in free will you should have no problem consenting to the placement of said electrodes in your brain. After all nothing changes from your perspective. Your body is acting completely deterministically on its own without you having any agency over what it does. In addition your brain will continue to create the illusion of free will. When the scientist navigates your body to the doctor and makes your mouth say "I want to be a woman" it will feel in your subjective experience just as if it was always your desire and your free decision.

So, would you consent? If not, give a convincing reason without admitting you believe in free will.

>>21012575
are you retarded? this is a "if you're an antinatalist why don't you just kill yourself haha gottem" tier argument

>>21012613
How so? I'm presenting two scenarios to you: The status quo vs the scenario above with remote control. If you reject free will, these two scenarios should be morally and perceptually indistinguishable for you, so you shouldn't be able to value one as better than the other.

>>21012652
>dude morals and objective values
i enjoy my life (the illusion of my agency) so i do not want to ruin it, you might as well ask every free will denier why don't they kill themselves, except you just wrote a useless paragraph to pretend you have some deeper point to make. now fuck off

>>21012672
How would remote control ruin your life if you don't have agency in the first place?

>>21012613
>if you're an antinatalist why don't you just kill yourself
well, why don't they?

>>21012684
Because it wouldn't be your deterministic control it would be someone else's. Unless you're trying to say you can't apply ownership to a deterministic process. Which is kind of like saying you can't be blamed for throwing a rock at someone's head since the trajectory of the rock followed a deterministic path.

>>21012689
I am not an anti-natalist.

I imagine that many of them would argue that they want to reduce suffering and this would be achieved with fewer or no humans being in existence. The process of killing yourself is itself going to cause suffering (even with an easy death, it would be hard psychologically on the one that dies and their family and friends will suffer), so isn't a good way of of solving the problem.

On the other hand, not having children causes little to no suffering (many of them would probably argue that not having children improves your life), and by reducing the number of people in the world the future will be better for those that are alive (perhaps just animal and plants (I didn't say these people were worth learning from)), and so there will be less suffering.

>>21012613
>if you're an antinatalist why don't you just kill yourself
anti-natalists STILL haven't been able to answer this question

>>21012778

This is why I took the wind to court when it knocked over my milk bottles.

>>21012778
If you deny free will then there is no "your deterministic control". You have no control at all.
>can't be blamed for throwing a rock
Indeed, free will denialists wouldn't even cite the deterministic trajectory of the rock but already start with the deterministic trajectory of biochemistry in your brain that leads to your body throwing the rock. According to them there was no free decision involved, only a deterministic chain of events.

>>21012804
>If you deny free will then there is no "your deterministic control". You have no control at all.
This is only if you think that you can't claim ownership of a deterministic process. We are deterministic but it is OUR deterministic process.
>Indeed, free will denialists wouldn't even cite the deterministic trajectory of the rock but already start with the deterministic trajectory of biochemistry in your brain that leads to your body throwing the rock.
No they don't. You are the deterministic system of biochemistry in your brain. That is you. You are responsible for the actions of that system since you are that system. You're trying to say that lack of free will implies the lack of self when it doesn't.

>>21012858
>We are deterministic but it is OUR deterministic process.
Absolutely meaningless without free will. Ownership then merely refers to spatial relations.
>You are responsible for the actions of that system since you are that system.
I cannot be responsible for something over which I have no control. It's like saying you're responsible for the weather or for the rotation of the planet.

>>21012879
>Absolutely meaningless without free will.
Then this is what you should have said from the beginning, that you believe lack of free will means you don't exist.
>I cannot be responsible for something over which I have no control.
I already made fun of this with the rock example. You can have responsibility for a deterministic process outside of your control.

>>21012910
>You can have responsibility for a deterministic process outside of your control.
Does a baby have responsibility for throwing a plate down from a table? Does a dog have responsibility for biting a cat? Does a river have responsibility for flowing? Does a cloud have responsibility for raining? Does a rock have responsibility for falling down from a cliff? Does an electron have responsibility for staying near a nucleus? All of these are deterministic processes, and in each instance it would be bizarre to talk about responsibility. Humans are no different. They are merely biological robots - according to denialists of free will.

>>21012575
Just because they're fucking with my motor complex it doesn't mean that the rest of my brain is happy with that. Internal conflicts are real and can cause a lot of subjective distress simply because the brain is compartmentalized. If they're fucking with all of my brain to the point that there's no internal conflict then there will be no internal conflict but consenting to this procedure requires my current brain to sway more towards this decision than against it.
Even if the brain region that denies free will thinks that this might be an alright decision there are certainly some brain regions that don't understand the concept of free will and just want to avoid having to live as a disgusting tranny that will inevitably commit suicide by overdosing on plastic bags.

>>21012575
I would not because the electrodes would interfere with my own will which my ego values. That doesn't mean my will is free and not constrained by physical properties causing it to determined by a traceable causal chain. It just means my ego in it's current state does not want to relinquish its control. However, our minds are basically already controlled in the manner you described by advertising and propaganda. We are controlled by other people's ideas that we have no awareness of even right now.

>>21012910
>>21012910
A non-chooser is a cause of a rock's flight, but not responsible.

Responsibility requires agency, which requires choice.

>>21012948
>Does a baby have responsibility for throwing a plate down from a table?
Ownership of a baby's actions is troublesome even for believers in free will. It depends when you assign personhood.
>Does a dog have responsibility for biting a cat?
Same with animals as with babies. Depends on whether you consider an animal as a person with responsibility for it's actions. Believers in free will have the same problem.
>the rest of your examples
Nobody thinks a cloud or rock are persons.
>Humans are no different. They are merely biological robots - according to denialists of free will.
Except humans are persons with responsibility for their actions. Again you keep coming back to the assumption you're making that if you don't have free will you don't exist. This is pretty clearly false. Just use your remote control example from above. From your perspective do you think someone in that situation ceases to exist when their free will is taken away?

>>21012575
You know. You can identify Mr. Brainlet by the absolute retardation of his borderline trollish thought experiments

>>21012787
Abortion cause suffering as well. Are they anti-abortion?

>>21012986
You're misunderstanding my example to prop up your argument. What I said was
>Which is kind of like saying you can't be blamed for throwing a rock at someone's head since the trajectory of the rock followed a deterministic path.
Even if you believe in free will the trajectory of the rock after it leaves your hand is deterministic and outside of your control unless you're telekinetic. Yet we still assign responsibility to the person who threw the rock. You can have ownership of a deterministic process outside of your control. You have ownership of your brain even though it's deterministic and outside of your control.

>>21012575
This is a classical case of begging the question. (Kids take notes)

You have baked the assumption that free will exists in your thought experiment by proclaiming that the subject will have a choice in the matter of determining whether he will consent to his brain being scrambled or not.

The deterministic processes in my brain lead to a consequence where I will refuse the doctor on his offer.

If the deterministic processes in your brain lead you to allowing someone to remote control you into castrating yourself, then that's your problem, not mine.

Your argument is stupid and you are stupid.

>>21012613
Lol this. This retarded creationist christlarper high school dropout uneducated hillbilly who read a few books on philosophy and venerates ancient greeks as peak of human thought because they appeal to his biases, actually thinks that his arguments are some profound gotcha! Peak Dunning Kruger

>>21012420
Never heard of him?

>>21012575
This doesn’t work if the doctor has bad intentions that won’t align with my preferences. If he wants to make me stop procrastinating, go ahead. But being a tranny would just increase the likelihood of suicide. You’re basically just asking if I want to be born as another person. Depends on who the person is

>>21013154
And yet none of you know how to properly respond to the thought experiment as I did here >>21013209

You already admit that you are deterministic. This is no problem. What determines your characteristics? Genetics, environment, etc. So it doesn’t make an inherent difference if a scientist is the influence or your parents. The problem comes when the scientist deliberately makes you want to act in such a way that you will suffer. As I pointed out, if the scientist makes us want to be more productive, procrastinate less, etc. then we would be fine with it. But even then, we might be afraid to let someone else have so much influence over our lives, just because it could harm us in the future. This has nothing to do with free will vs determinism, it’s just about our preferences.

>>21013004
>>21013004
>>21013004
I'd imagine that most of them are fine with abortion. They probably doubt it causes suffering or believe that it leads to less suffering in total.

>>21013013
We hold people responsible for throwing a rock and the consequences of a throw, as we believe they had a choice about throwing it.

If someone held a gun to your head and commanded you to throw a rock, we wouldn't hold you responsible for throwing it. In this case, we'd blame the agent exercising choice, which is the person with the gun. You'd still be part of the causal explanation, but not the moral explanation.

If we are incapable of making choices, then it is difficult to argue that we are responsible for anything. We could be in the causal order, but not the moral order.

>>21013442
Wrong. We hold people responsible for actions because we want to influence their actions in the future. The Justice system does not exist purely to punish unjust actions, to have some sort of revenge on evil people. Punishment exists to prevent bad behavior and to separate dangerous criminals from the rest of society. You would punish artificial intelligence humans in the same way, even if you knew they were deterministic beings (assume they can somehow feel suffering and have the illusion of free will and mimic humans in all ways). Likewise, you don’t have to believe that dogs have free will to punish them. All you are doing is correcting their behavior, since their undesirable behavior harms you in some way. None of this requires free will and is completely conceivable in a deterministic world.

>>21013004
Abortion causes a lot less suffering than subjecting someone to 80 years of life.

>>21012778
>because it wouldn't be your deterministic control it would be someone else's
dude you can't be this retarded, there is no "your" or "someone else's" deterministic control, just deterministic control

>>21013292
You could argue that a metaphysical doctor already is controlling my actions via invisible tools. It doesn't matter. That retard framed his question as if we have a choice of deciding if we'd be ok with a doctor messing with us or not. That's the real contention.

At the end of the day people do castrate themselves, they do commit suicide, they do make bad choices. They can't just "will" those things away and many tines don't even "want" to.

If you think about this further, the only way free will is truly possible is if the human's action is completely randomly generated. Such a person would be absurd.

>>21013643
>That retard framed his question as if we have a choice of deciding if we'd be ok with a doctor messing with us or not. That's the real contention.
No, otherwise he would have simply argued that all decisions are free choices. His main point is that you are deterministic therefore you shouldn’t worry about what is the ultimate cause of your actions. This is flawed because we still have preferences, we don’t want others to control us because this threatens our ability to attain what we know we prefer. Even a being that knows it is deterministic, and happy as it is, would not just willingly allow some external entity to control it.

>>21012988
What does responsibility have to do with existence? An apple exists. Does it have responsibility? No. A human exists. Does it have responsibility? Only if it has free will.

Even if determinism seems to have a logical and empirical advantage over free will, I dare say most people can't shake the feeling that we are responsible for our actions and thus we must have some agency in them. How do we reconcile that feeling of having free will with the knowledge that we do not? Do we simply adopt some kind of doublethink where we behave as though people are responsible for their actions while knowing they aren't? Wouldn't it require that we redefine our perception of justice and human rights?

>>21013486
People other than the slain are involved.

>>21013463
You are talking about fixing or healing, so as to make something operate better or gain in health. Fix, upgrade, heal, rather than punish.

Responsibility requires choice. This is why we don't punish the criminally insane, but treat them. Likewise, we lock up for reasons of safety and treatment, but not punish, those that have committed no crime, but present a clear danger to themselves or others.

If nobody chooses, then nobody is punished. This doesn't by itself invalidate the argument of those that say nobody chooses. For that leap, you'd need a reason to believe that people are punished.

The moral order and causal order are distinct. Are we teaching someone to make better choices or rearranging the matter of the universe to change how it inter-relates over time?

SUICIDE BOMBERS 4 PLATO

>>21014518
So you’re telling me that if we could create synthetic humans that think and feel exactly as we do, yet without free will, that we should never punish them for anything?

>>21014616
I'm telling you that if they can be punished, rather than fixed, that they have free will.

You are talking in the language of the moral order whilst denying the basis of said order.

Side-note: if there is no moral order, then the 4chan captcha is not evil, so there must be a moral order. Come on, it's obvious.

>>21014670
Do you actually think that a world of deterministic beings couldn’t possibly develop a punishment system? Does it not make sense that organisms would evolve to detect undesirable behavior and find a way to minimize or eliminate that behavior? How does this require free will? Free will is just unnecessary

>>21014691
If there isn't free will, then whatever you are doing isn't punishment. You are confusing the order of physical causes with that of moral choices. This, by itself, does not prove or disprove the existence of free will.

>>21014167
Does it have an empirical advantage? This can't come from the empirical tests of the physical sciences which examine the causal order of the physical world and do not even attempt to examine any moral order.

The empirical evidence of my life, that being my own experience of the world, is run through and through with choice and the existence of a moral order. Such an experience is so so common to mankind that those that deny free will normally have to insist that free will is an illusion, as it is so firmly and obviously supported by the empirical evidence that simply claiming it is not a part of our experience is too unconvincing. Common sensical empiricism will always get you to free will, it requires denial of both common sense and the overwhelming empirical evidence to get away from it. As you say, 'most people can't shake the feeling that we are responsible for our actions'.

Does it have a logical advantage? This comes down to base principles. The principle of a reductive physical reality is one that many hold that often leads them to deny the empirical evidence by denying free will. Others hold this principle and yet say a moral and physical order are compatible (more generally, compatibilism is a mainstream position in the free will debate). Others don't hold the principal of a reductive physical reality. They have other base principles. Some that fit with the empirical evidence and allow for free will and some that do not, that thereby deny the empirical evidence that points conclusively to free will, which typically leads them, as stated, claiming that free is an illusion.

Probably the most common principle of those that believe in free will is that the fundamental principle of existence is God. The principle cause, the prime mover, supreme being, et cetera. Obviously, the compatibility of some divine plan that allows moral agents to act within a physical order without said physical order preventing them from making moral choices is a big topic that has been much debated. Still, people of such a principle are not the only ones that believe in free will.

Whichever set of principles you put your faith in will determine the logical result you come to. However, if your principles are going to fit the over-whelming empirical evidence, evidence that is not just the common report of mankind, but for most of us, the self-evident truth of our own most fundamental experience, then you are a man of great faith indeed. Having denied the evidence of your eyes and mind, you are truly running on the blindest of faith.

Put simply, if there is doublethink, then it is on the part of the those that buy into the conspiracy theory that our experience as humans is an elaborate con-trick, as on the one hand they have to think there is no free will, whilst on the other being faced with a basic mental experience that is suffused with moral choices. This is a most profound confusion.

>>21013415
>>21013486
Good to know that anti-natalism is in really just another form of hedonistic atheism hiding beneath the veil of humanism to unleash the floodgates for all kinds of satanic garbage.

im choosing to touch my penis right now
i didnt have to touch my penis
i had no reason to touch my penis
but here i am

therefore...

>>21014961
Is it possible for a world without free will to be indistinguishable from our world? If so, then the simplest explanation for our world is that it doesn’t have free will, because otherwise you’d have to explain how free will works.

>>21012672
>now fuck off
This little tranny weakling right here thinks he could intimidate anyone with his burgeoning hips from the HRT poison he injected in his body and weak feminine pencil arms atrophied from the sheer lack of test his body produces kek.

Lets be real, what people are really asking when they ask "does free will exist?" is "are people responsible for their actions?".

>>21013486
>that image
This shit is demoralization to make plebeians content with their meager caste birthright in life, instead of moving past their suffering and growing into men. Really is depressing to see people openly spread this hateful robot propaganda without thinking about the consequences in doing so.

>>21015095
That question is just as vague. Now you have to define responsible

>>21013486
Non-existence sounds boring.

>>21015095
I consider these two entirely different questions. Personally I find the idea of free will ludicrous, just completely incoherent. I still think it is entirely inescapable that we treat people as if they are responsible for their actions, both psychologically and pragmatically this is just necessary. I'm actually much more severe about things like punishment than many people who do think free will exists.

The only thing I do think is that we should have compassion for horrible people because they didnt choose to be like that. But they still need to be executed.

>>21013888
>His main point is that you are deterministic therefore you shouldn’t worry about what is the ultimate cause of your actions.

The very act of worrying about the cause of our actions is pre-determined in a deterministic worldview.

>>21014167
>Do we simply adopt some kind of doublethink where we behave as though people are responsible for their actions while knowing they aren't?

Responsibility for action is a human construct. I would argue that our laws actually do work with a deterministic mindset. When we punish people we do not set out to avenge them for their actions. We set out to correct their path by removing them from society and bringing fear into other potential criminals from following that path. If that is not deterministic, I don't know what is

>>21015762
no, Justice exists for the sake of Justice. If a criminal dies accidentally then he should be resuscitated and tortured to bring the world back into balance. Then he should be killed. Then he shall suffer in hell for eternity.

>>21014961
>I will believe whatever nonsense I want and then claim its a self evident truth of human experience

Yawn

>>21015769
I wonder what pre-determined your mind to be this way. But I like you

>>21014961
>I will believe whatever nonsense I want and claim its a "self evident truth of human experience" so I don't have to provide evidence for it.

Yawn

>>21015783
>NOOO YOU NEED TO EUNUCHIZE YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE EMPIRICAL PEER REVIEWED STUDIES INSTEAD OF RELYING ON ANECDOTES!!!!!

>>21015802
>YOU NEED TO RESPECT THE EMPIRICAL PEER REVIEWED STUDIES INSTEAD OF RELYING ON ANECDOTES!!!!!

>>21015818
>>21015802
>peer review
Nigga I ain't about them tricks. What if your peers and you are shit. Just a bunch of faggots agreeing with each other innit

INDEPENDENT REPLICATION OR BUST

>>21015823
>INDEPENDENT REPLICATION OR BUST

Uh.... Based?

>>21015832
That is the scientific method as put down by the Royal Society several centuries ago

>>21015762
>We set out to correct their path by removing them from society and bringing fear into other potential criminals from following that path. If that is not deterministic, I don't know what is
The problem with this is that if our sense of justice was truly deterministic then we'd go deeper than punishing people. We would try to remove the cause of the negative behavior too. Punishments don't really work as a deterrent because people either do bad things in the heat of the moment or because they think they will not get caught. If the threat of consequences was all it took, then nobody would commit crimes and nobody would reoffend. We punish criminals only because we decided as a society that the individual made the choice to do wrong.

>>21015880
>punishment doesnt work
Not a whole lot of drug dealers in Singapore where its met by death penalty. Still plenty of alcoholics but absolutely 0 junkies walking around the streets

>>21015890
>Not a whole lot of drug dealers in Singapore
But they still exist, as they do in all countries with such laws. Why punish the dealers in a deterministic system? Why not work to remove their access to the drugs or remedy the socio-economic conditions that lead people to use drugs? They won't, because the law is not created with a deterministic mindset. It's created on the basis that criminals choose to break laws.

>>21013199
Same

Free will as we conceive of it does not exist in “””reality””” however it is a useful tool through which to view the world. Moreoever, the alternative is quite unhelpful. Therefore, I will continue to use the paradigm of free will.

By the way, everyone should read Thomas S. Kuhn.

>>21012420
His whole brand of secular spirituality is how companies exploit people

>>21015880
>We would try to remove the cause of the negative behavior too.

Only if it was that easy.

>If the threat of consequences was all it took, then nobody would commit crimes and nobody would reoffend.

But the threat does prevent a large portion of the population from plunging into absolute anarchy

>We punish criminals only because we decided as a society that the individual made the choice to do wrong.

That is NOT how any modern justice system works. Hell, this is not how any medieval justice system worked. Fear and prevention were always huge factors.

Further, the philosophy that we only punish people ONLY because they chose to do wrong is empty. Because it literally achieves nothing other than menial mental satisfaction of an enraged party that feels wronged. If that was the only factor , people would expect death penalty for the most minor of offences they feel and it would be granted

>>21016083
>useful tool through which to view the world
elaborate on how and why it is helpful

>>21012575
You can't deny free will exists. That in itself is free will.

>>21013486
>ignores the joys of love
>ignores the joy of overcoming
>ignores intellectual pleasures
>claims that enjoyment of beauty is relative as though that negates its value to individuals
Those four make up for all the other bullshit you listed, and it's not even close.

>>21012575
>If you do not believe in free will you should have no problem consenting to the placement of said electrodes in your brain.
Why is liking certain things and disliking others incompatible with human actions having causes?

>>21013486
You forgot death anxiety

>>21012420
Literally who?

>>21012575
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism means in relation to free will. The problem does not reside in where the origin of thought and actions are, but the fact that the nature of physical causality determines the working of the brain regardless. If someone else is manipulating the workings of the brain, they’re essentially just simulating what would have happened if they weren’t. Since “you” is a fiction away along with the phenomenal illusion of being fully consciously in control of one’s actions (it can very easily be broken).

>>21016595
>Further, the philosophy that we only punish people ONLY because they chose to do wrong is empty. Because it literally achieves nothing other than menial mental satisfaction of an enraged party that feels wronged. If that was the only factor , people would expect death penalty for the most minor of offences they feel and it would be granted
Western justice systems were developed in deeply Christian times and Christianity is big on free will. We do not mitigate punishments based on deterministic factors, we only mitigate based on a person's role, intentions, and most of all, their perceived responsibility. We have an entire section of the justice system that isn't even about crime and punishment and is entirely about assigning responsibility. Threat of punishment is not what keeps most people from committing crimes, because most people do commit at least petty crimes or misdemeanors at some point in their lives, and crime has always existed even when punishments were much harsher, which wasn't that long ago.

>>21017148
>Since “you” is a fiction away
fictionary things are not self aware and yet I have self-awareness and so that shows that 'you' is not a fiction

Neither determinism nor free will can be proven, better take what makes more sense and what brings responsibility to our action

>>21017329
>, we only mitigate based on a person's role, intentions, and most of all, their perceived responsibility.

Yes. A person who commits a crime in a heat of passion is treated differently from someone who deliberately plans their attacks. That's because the courts recognise that its not merely a matter of "free choice" and that outside deterministic factors can influence the outcomes. They also recognise that a man who accidently kills someone in a road accident is less likely to kill again and needs a lesser jail sentence than a serial killer who was deliberate and is likelier to kill again. That's a pretty deterministic assumption.

In your christian view, the serial killer is punished more simply because he killed more people and so deserves to have more pain thrown upon him by your vengeful God. This is not just in sharp contrast with the reality of justice system but with christian doctrine regarding crime and redemption as well.

>Threat of punishment is not what keeps most people from committing crimes

This can only be tested if the threat is removed

>because most people do commit at least petty crimes or misdemeanors at some point in their lives, and crime has always existed even when punishments were much harsher,

Now imagine how bad it would be if punishment is removed altogether.

>>21017349
>fictional things are not self aware
Source?
You are literally one of the fictional things which contradicts this.
“You” are a phenomenal reality but an ontological fiction. Selfhood is a habitual aspect of human experience but not a necessary or universal one. Many do not have a sense of self, or experience some momentarily break from it. Selfhood is a biologically determined habit more than a transcendental locus. Read Sartre and then Hofstadter.

>>21017446
You're completely ignoring the core issue. Our justice system is not about stopping bad behavior. It's about removing people who choose to do bad behavior. You're seriously sitting here trying to argue an apple into an orange.

I know you prefer a deterministic system, but if you do you should not be satisfied with our current system, because it is not at all concerned with determinism. It's concerned with the perceived choices people make to assign responsibility to each party.

>>21012575
That's a deterministic process, yes, but free conscious goal-directed behavior evolves out of pink noise (Self-organized criticality)

>>21017446
>A person who commits a crime in a heat of passion is treated differently from someone who deliberately plans their attacks. That's because the courts recognise that its not merely a matter of "free choice" and that outside deterministic factors can influence the outcomes.
What do you mean? They should be treated in the same way, since they both are as much likely of committing the crime again (one because is deliberately evil, the other because is impulsive); and if their actions were deterministically caused, why should one be punished harder? It's not like he deserves it more

free will is real

>>21017954
No it isn't.

>>21017702
No one has refuted this yet lmao

>>21017956
OR IS IT?

>>21017617
>It's about removing people who choose to do bad behavior.

And what does that achieve? Yeeees. Criminals not indulging in bad behaviour PRECISELY because they are jailed. With the added effect of reminding normal people that a system exists and they better behave.

>It's concerned with the perceived choices people make to assign responsibility to each party

I won't deny that the human element of vengeance is not completely absent in how the system operates. But that's not the ideal it strive towards. The ideals are what I already mentioned, which any police officer or lawyer can confirm. The greater context is always maintanence of law and order for stable functioning of society and preventing chaos and anarchy. The medieval kings and modern states may disagree on weather the criminal be vengefully punished or penally corrected , but the greater context remains the same. Without it the "assigning responsibility" part would make no sense.

>What do you mean? They should be treated in the same way, since they both are as much likely of committing the crime again

How did you come to that conclusion? Actually, if our current system operated on "free will" assumption then they both would be punished the same. Since the serial killer can always "will" to become a law abiding citizen and the other guy can "will" to become a serial car killer. The only reason to treat them differently then would be petty revenge. This clearly doesn't happen. The deterministic system actually has a reason(that is not vengeance) why one should be punished more than the other. And that's how it happens.

>It's not like he deserves it more

If you actually read my post you'd know that I never based it on who deserves what. That is literally how YOUR system works. Not mine

>>21012575
I would not, because I'm not a logical actor. Free will still doesn't real.
>All these (you)s from pseuds

>>21012420
The illusion of the self can easily persist even after dispelling the illusion of free will. This is because within one's subjective conscious representation of reality, the self is a much stronger concept than free will. Denying the self implies denying free will beforehand. Denying free will though, is a necessary step to denying the self, but not a sufficient one.

>>21012575

I must also add this in general.

Without the context of maintaining social order , the concept of laws make no sense. Why is good good? Why is bad bad? The christian will answer that because God said so. But there's no rhyme or reason to why God would consider one thing good and the other bad.

Further, the christian God is vengeful. He does punish people based on his seemingly arbitrary definition of bad for no other reason than that the person did that bad thing which god didn't want. This is especially apparent in the old testament.

This leads to the conundrum of God creating arbitrary laws. Giving people free will and then punishing them if they do the bad thing. Without a societal context what's the need for all this circus? Nobody knows. It exists in its own vaccum devoid of concept.

By assuming that laws begets society instead of vice versa the christian puts the cart before the horse. And this gets confused when things don't match up.

>>21018077
>And what does that achieve?
A punishment for choice, not a prevention of bad behavior. If our justice system was deterministic it would seek to stop bad behavior, but it doesn't. We only punish people after the fact, because our justice system is founded on the belief that regardless of their circumstances they can choose at any time to not commit the crime.

>>21018077
>The greater context is always maintanence of law and order for stable functioning of society and preventing chaos and anarchy
This has absolutely nothing to do with determinism.

>>21018116
>A punishment for choice

So empty meaningless revenge.

>would seek to stop bad behavior,

What part of "laws exist to prevent people from committing crime" you don't understand. This is such a basic fact. One would literally have to live in their basements their whole lives to deny such objectivity about the system. Have you ever seen what happens when law system fails? Ever heard of "Haiti Earthquake" or "Indian partition"?

>This has absolutely nothing to do with determinism.

This has absolutely everything to do with the fact that the justice system does seek to stop bad behaviour. Because stopping bad behaviour IS a part of maintaining law and order.

>>21018077
>The deterministic system actually has a reason(that is not vengeance) why one should be punished more than the other.
WHAT WOULD THAT BE, you fucking retard? You wasted my time with all those words and didn't even explain the main part.

>Actually, if our current system operated on "free will" assumption then they both would be punished the same. Since the serial killer can always "will" to become a law abiding citizen and the other guy can "will" to become a serial car killer.
That's nonsense, why if someone has chosen (because he has free will) to commit an heinous act would not commit it again? It's not vengeance, it's so that people choose (because they have free will) not to act heinously. In my view, if someone act impulsively he is not exercising free will, he is following what his (deterministic if you want) emotions cause him to do. So, he hasn't actively chosen to commit the crime.

In your view they both literally couldn't have done anything different, why punish one harder? Answer now, why?

>>21018168
>What part of "laws exist to prevent people from committing crime" you don't understand.
What you don't understand is that laws exist to partition responsibility for crime and to provide avenues of punishment and recompense. We do not actively stop crimes before they happen. Crimes exist even in times when punishments were harsher. They do not stop crimes from happening, and nothing you have provided can prove it.

>>21013486

>>21017591
>Selfhood is a biologically determined habit more than a transcendental locus.
Where do these habits come from if not a centralized self? Wouldn't you say that a self is the only thing that allows us to contemplate such a thing as transcendence in the first place?

>>21018200
>WHAT WOULD THAT BE, you fucking retard? You wasted my time with all those words and didn't even explain the main part.

Already made those points in precious posts. Actually read them.
Tldr: prevent crime by inducing fear of punishment, and in more recent times, correctionalism. (Both of which presume a soft form of determinism)

>why if someone has chosen (because he has free will) to commit an heinous act would not commit it again?

The idea that he would have an inclination to kill again presumes some form of determinism. There are factors outside anyone's control that determine it. I can see where your confusion is coming from, you don't understand the implications of either determinism or free will.

>why punish one harder?

You answered it yourself. He's deterministically inclined to do it again.

>>21018211
>We do not actively stop crimes before they happen.

With laws we do. Idc if you are too out of touch with reality to see it. Your first world comfortable life has crippled your perception. You'd be getting your ass raped twice a day if you lived in complete lawlessness.

>>21018271
You still haven't demonstrated how any of this means our justice system is founded on determinism and free will.
>Your first world comfortable life has crippled your perception.
This sounds more like a you problem and a me problem.

>>21018271
>With laws we do.
But you don't. There's still people who do crime. We wouldn't need the punishment aspect of the justice system at all if the system we have actually worked to stop crime. You still haven't demonstrated how the modern Western system is deterministic rather than based on free will.

>>21018254
>The idea that he would have an inclination to kill again presumes some form of determinism
I've never disagreed on that, BUT he can choose to not do it, while the other can't, because he is impulsive.

>You answered it yourself. He's deterministically inclined to do it again.
Well, you are either a faggot, a retard or just shitposting (but probably all three of those). Did you fucking read dumbass? The other is also deterministically inclined to do so, because he is impulsive. Again (because you probably have some comprehension deficit at this point), one can freewilly choose not to do it, because he is deterministically heinous (not impulsive), the other deterministically do it because he is impulsive. Do you see the difference?
The question still stand, but at this point I know for sure you don't have an answer and will never answer without strawmanning my argument: why is one punished harder than the other?

>>21012420
"Free will" simply cannot exist because it is logically impossible. All human behaviour is somewhat guided and determined. There's always some form of predictability. And the elements that are not predictable can easily be subscribed to a lack of full understanding of a complex individual.

The only way a human can have true free will is if there's a random number generator installed in his head so that each and every choice and behaviour he makes is completely random. Such a human being would be absurd.

Therefore humans don't have free will. QED

>>21018314
>The only way a human can have true free will is if there's a random number generator installed in his head so that each and every choice and behaviour he makes is completely random.
Completely random behavior wouldn't be free will either because all that person's actions would be random rather than "willed."

>>21018296
>But you don't. There's still people who do crime

>Anon lives under law.
>Anon's ass is safe
>All laws are removed.
>Muscular cornholing cocksucking faggots barge into anon's room
>Anon gets his pink juicy boipucci raped 5 times a day by big oily hairy men.
>Anon becomes a gay twink sex slave
>No consequence for faggots since laws don't exist
>Anon still thinks laws don't exist to prevent crime.

Lol I think I'm done here.

>>21012438
Open individualism doesn't deny the self per se, it's just that everyone should use their agency to the betterment of each other

>>21018342
I'm going to try to spell this out for you: creating consequences to influence actions does not leave out the possibility of free will. You can create a law that says we can't smoke pot and make the consequences as harsh as you want. A person who believes in free will is still going to insist that each person is still allowed to weigh the benefits against the possible negatives of smoking pot. If some people choose not to break the law that does not mean that the law has removed their choice, because they can still decide to break it, and many people will decide to break it. Your argument has nothing to do with determinism and doesn't prove that our modern system is deterministic.

>>21018314
>All human behaviour is somewhat guided and determined.
Prove it faggot. Hint: you can't

>>21018302
>BUT he can choose to not do it, while the other can't, because he is impulsive

Are you arguing that modern justice system is NOT based on concept of free will?

>one can freewilly choose not to do it, because he is deterministically heinous (not impulsive), the other deterministically do it because he is impulsive

Thanks for displaying that you don't actually understand the philosophy of determinism and in extention the idea of free will.

>why is one punished harder than the other?

>I'll just ask a question that has already been answered.

>>21013486
You can tell some dude with no chin wrote this lmfao

>>21018324
>Completely random behavior wouldn't be free will either because all that person's actions would be random rather than "willed."

Au contraire, the only "will" that can ever be free is one that is truly random. If the "will" is predictable then it is not free. And if the "will" is unpredictable then it is random.

So for a person to have 100% free will at all times would require all his actions to be fully random. absurdum ad reductio

>>21018342
I had a hunch that deterministicfags were all secretly wanting to be pozzed by a pack of nigger. Thankfully, this anon erased all doubt in my mind.

>>21018399
>Strawman
>Avoid once again the question
>"I wonder how much until he figures out I'm just trolling him"