Freewill debate.

[EminemBase]

Thanks man, I still tend to repeat myself a lot though lmao.

Yeah that's may only criticism.

Although I agree with SliK. You are very thorough and rational, that's why I wanted to hear your two cents.

Thanks

So what did you think of my post; do you agree, what's your thoughts?

[Willy]

So if freewill doesn't exist, we should theoretically be able to program robots that also trick themselves into believing they have freewill. I want to hear someone argue FOR freewill, the thought of not having it kinda sucks.

One could lose all sense of personal responsibility for his actions, though if he did it would just mean he was genetically predisposed and environmentally conditioned to be the type of person that would do so. What if we are all super intelligent AI in a greater entity's game of The Sims. Graphics look pretty good from my perspective, wonder how it looks up there? I'm going to bed.

[CrashBand]

Thanks man, I still tend to repeat myself a lot though lmao.

Yeah that's may only criticism.

Although I agree with SliK. You are very thorough and rational, that's why I wanted to hear your two cents.

Thanks

So what did you think of my post; do you agree, what's your thoughts?

Yeah, I agree.

This conception of free will relies on the assumptions that we are free to behave differently than we did in the past and that we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions.

Although it seems like this is the case. These assumptions are false.

Our conscious intentions were caused by events in our brains that we did not control or consciously intend.

We have no conscious control and no true, free will.

Sam Harris did a thought experiment that let us choose any city. The major point being you are not free to do what does not occur to you. And you cannot influence your desires.

Then comes the consequences of accepting the fact there is no free will. It has the potential to change the way we view morals, justice, politics.

There is no moral responsibility. It is then not rational to hate a murderer or to think they 'deserve punishment'. We can fear them and lock them up for the better of everyones well-being (safety).

I also argue that we should live within the illusion, we can 'hold people responsible' for their actions in practical situations. Even though we know intellectually that we don't have free will. It's a duality.

[EminemBase]

So if freewill doesn't exist, we should theoretically be able to program robots that also trick themselves into believing they have freewill. I want to hear someone argue FOR freewill, the thought of not having it kinda sucks.

Well not really. Consciousness is one of the most complex conundrums of evolution; I think we think of free will as conscious choice... but I don't think that can truly exist as consciousness comes after the choice, it's just the observation of the choice. So we feel like we're consciously making it.

One could lose all sense of personal responsibility for his actions, though if he did it would just mean he was genetically predisposed and environmentally conditioned to be the type of person that would do so. What if we are all super intelligent AI in a greater entity's game of The Sims. Graphics look pretty good from my perspective, wonder how it looks up there? I'm going to bed.

Well... the interesting thing about that is; you could say that, you could say well everybody could just go wild then - but how many will really read that and go out killing and being outlandish and reckless? almost none probably. Which illustrates the point of the illusion of choice perfectly; even though everybody will feel like they 'could' if they 'wanted to', they wouldn't and won't.

[EminemBase]

There is no moral responsibility. It is then not rational to hate a murderer or to think they 'deserve punishment'. We can fear them and lock them up for the better of everyones well-being (safety).

I also argue that we should live within the illusion, we can 'hold people responsible' for their actions in practical situations. Even though we know intellectually that we don't have free will. It's a duality.

Well this is one of the areas that set me off in thinking about it deeply to be honest... I've watched a lot of serial-killer documentaries and studied them (just find them fascinating, psychologically) and I've always thought it's pretty odd how... we treat such people like they had a choice...

Which in a way is like, the failure of society and law to catch-up to understanding of behaviour. Because who wakes up and says "hmm, I think I wanna be a rapist murderer", nobody CHOOSES that, they either are that or they aren't. And the rest of us generally aren't, but then we treat the ones who are as if they also aren't and chose to be that, which is pretty bizarre.

[Willy]

^We still have to treat it like it's a choice though. That enforces the idea that there is a choice, and that choice is extremely bad and wrong. Which in turn influences people not to do that. Because even if our choices are predetermined, they are predetermined to help our survival as a species. And killing other people within our species on a whim isn't evolutionary advantageous because of social repercussions. It is our evolutionary duty to treat people like that and protect the illusion because it protects our species. People need to feel accountable, whether they are or aren't.

There really isn't another option, it is a societal failure but we can only do so much. We also can't forbid people with certain genes from reproducing. I don't know if any of this made a damn bit of sense lol. I suckadick at putting my brainshit on paper.

[EminemBase]

^We still have to treat it like it's a choice though. That enforces the idea that there is a choice, and that choice is extremely bad and wrong. Which in turn influences people not to do that. Because even if our choices are predetermined, they are predetermined to help our survival as a species. And killing other people within our species on a whim isn't evolutionary advantageous because of social repercussions. It is our evolutionary duty to treat people like that and protect the illusion because it protects our species. People need to feel accountable, whether they are or aren't.

There really isn't another option, it is a societal failure but we can only do so much. We also can't forbid people with certain genes from reproducing. I don't know if any of this made a damn bit of sense lol. I suckadick at putting my brainshit on paper.

I don't think we should treat it as a choice. Nobody chooses to be a serial-killer; it's not an attractive proposition; so clearly it needs to be treated as a mental issue, not a crime.

Obviously people want to see 'justice' for victims, and many people would wince at calling serial-killers mentally 'ill' as it kind of absolves them from responsibility. But if you continue to treat it like a choice, what do you think that will solve? there's a thousand Ted Bundy's in wait.

Serial-killers aren't criminals, they're mentally deranged; life imprisonment is pointless. And so is execution (which I don't agree with btw), it won't deter future serial-killers as by definition: they don't care. It's not a gain, it's a psyche that is perverse and beyond law or humanity.

Until we grow up and start treating such heinous crimes as what they are: mental illness, then they will continue, you can punish a bank robber; there was a risk vs. reward, it was done for material gain. But when somebody is slaughtering people at will for their own perverse pleasure, in abundance... that's something else. And punishing it, eh.

[Willy]

I think we SHOULD treat it as a choice, even if it's not, because it deters people from doing it. I can't prove that, but what would you propose as an alternative to jail or execution? If it's not a choice at all, then these type of people are counterproductive to our goal as a species, extremely dangerous, unpredictable, unstable.. like, what do we do with them?

We have evolved to this point as social animals, and that type of behavior has been repressed because it doesn't help our cause. The illusion of accountability allows our society to function, and if you take that away I think a lot of shit starts to crumble.

[EminemBase]

I think we SHOULD treat it as a choice, even if it's not, because it deters people from doing it. I can't prove that, but what would you propose as an alternative to jail or execution? If it's not a choice at all, then these type of people are counterproductive to our goal as a species, extremely dangerous, unpredictable, unstable.. like, what do we do with them?

We have evolved to this point as social animals, and that type of behavior has been repressed because it doesn't help our cause. The illusion of accountability allows our society to function, and if you take that away I think a lot of shit starts to crumble.

But I don't think it does deter people.

A heavy sentence for a bank robbery or theft deters people; but that's a rational scenario of risk vs. reward and a monetary gain there...

But, when somebody has the urge and is killing several people ongoing, eating them, fucking them... whatever - do you really think they care about jail terms? it's not a material gain, it's a mental perversion. It needs to be treated as mental disability I think.

As what I've found with almost all serial-killers is that they lack empathy, which is also a common trait of many types of autism... they lack of empathy and that's often why they start hurting things (usually start with animals) out of curiosity, then they move up to humans.

That's not a choice, that's mental illness. As, even if I was allowed to kill people... I wouldn't.

[Willy]

^Okay, but there is still gray area between normal people and bat-shit crazy people. I don't think it's black and white, everyone has degrees of insanity in them.

Like, if someone fucks your girlfriend, you may feel an extreme urge to hit him with a shovel, repeatedly. I think this situation is also rational, as it's [you want to make this dude feel the physical pain he caused you emotionally] vs [i'm going to go to jail for a long time if I do it]. Also, in this case I think jail as a punishment definitely matters, which in turn goes back to my point about the illusion of accountability and treating it as a choice.

[EminemBase]

^Okay, but there is still gray area between normal people and bat-shit crazy people. I don't think it's black and white, everyone has degrees of insanity in them.

Like, if someone fucks your girlfriend, you may feel an extreme urge to hit him with a shovel, repeatedly. I think this situation is also rational, as it's [you want to make this dude feel the physical pain he caused you emotionally] vs [i'm going to go to jail for a long time if I do it]. Also, in this case I think jail as a punishment definitely matters, which in turn goes back to my point about the illusion of accountability and treating it as a choice.

Well people always argue this, that, there's 'no such thing' as normal, but there is.

Normal is the majority. And the MAJORITY of people have no desire to randomly kill people and have moral and emotional weight that makes most incapable of not empathizing.

Serial-killers are mostly abnormal because they have the urge to randomly kill people (your example was a rational route, entirely different; there's a difference between anger and... Bundy) and rarely feel any remorse. In fact they're often fascinated with their subjects, and treat them like objects.

Also what I've noticed with most serial-killers; nearly always men, and nearly always kill women and there's nearly always some kind of sexual perversion in mind. And I've noticed sex is linked to aggression; think about when you fuck, it's like "aww yeah, fuck yeah *grit teeth*, sex seems to have violence embedded in it. I think that serial-killers are a result of young men with abnormal lack of empathy (like Autistic) and confusing, disturbing upbringings. And what really causes bad upbringings and stress and horror, is poverty.

In the example you gave; I agree, jail time would matter. But that was a response to an emotional upset, and although extreme - understandable. So it makes sense to be punished for a bad reaction but, serial-killers kill people randomly, because they like it. That's not understandable, nor is it like a one-off reaction or loose temper; a serial-killer just kills people because he wants to, when you have a human being who has an instinctive urge to kill people regularly, I don't think the idea of jail time matters to them, and it's not a crime of gain, it's perverted and senseless. A mentally ill act.

[Willy]

^Maybe not RANDOMLY, but I think people feel the urge to kill people/cause extreme physical pain to people all the time, and it's normal. There are reasons though, not just psychotic whims. The point I am trying to make is: How do you differentiate to the public that if one acts emotionally and steps out of line it is entirely his fault, but if a psychopath goes on a killing spree society suddenly has to cater to his mental illness.

Our punishment system makes sense to me because it deters normal people away from their animalistic urges, while punishing ALL that break the rules. I can't think of a better alternative. Maybe prevention, which is fine and all, but there still has to be a price to pay for breaking the rules, especially on such an extreme level.

The idea of jail-time may not matter to them, but it serves as a deterrent for the average person, even if they don't have desires to *randomly* kill people. Also, what do you propose we do with the crazies? I understand you are saying they are incapable of feeling like normal people do, but even so, what do we do with such outliers when they commit horrible crimes?

[CrashBand]

Serial-killers aren't criminals, they're mentally deranged; life imprisonment is pointless.

No it's not. We can still justify locking people up for the better of everyone.

Some people have a problem with this if the person doesn't 'deserve it' so to say.

So we just have to feel compassion for the person that is getting locked up. But we can still justify locking them up I believe.

WillyMo's is an interesting stance. Act like we have moral responsibility even though we intellectually know we don't for the practicality of society.

[EminemBase]

Serial-killers aren't criminals, they're mentally deranged; life imprisonment is pointless.

No it's not. We can still justify locking people up for the better of everyone.

Some people have a problem with this if the person doesn't 'deserve it' so to say.

So we just have to feel compassion for the person that is getting locked up. But we can still justify locking them up I believe.

WillyMo's is an interesting stance. Act like we have moral responsibility even though we intellectually know we don't for the practicality of society.

I don't mean it's pointless for society; I mean it's a pointless threat to a serial-killer. Serial-killers don't do crime for gain, it's a perverse, violent impulse. Of course locking them away helps society but what I mean is; we need to stop pretending serial-killers choose to 'break the law' and that the punishment means anything.

We do have moral responsibility but pretending that serial-killers simply couldn't resist killing whilst the rest of us could is a naive way of looking at it. When people are murdered aimlessly, people want justice and they want a villain and just want to say "he's evil", but you'll never stop future psychopaths emerging with that mentality, it's simply not an honest look at the issue.

It's not that the rest of us 'succeeded in resisting' the urge to kill people; most of us simply don't have that urge, it's clearly a perverse psyche, a damaged outlook and set of impulses - and treating those as if they're conscious crimes of gain vs. punishment will only ever sweep it under the rug.

[Willy]

"When people are murdered aimlessly, people want justice and they want a villain and just want to say "he's evil", but you'll never stop future psychopaths emerging with that mentality, it's simply not an honest look at the issue."

I agree completely, but regardless of WHY they do shit, I think they need to either be locked up, killed, or studied so we can figure out the causes and prevent it. But really... how can we morally prevent something like that? What else can you do besides stop people with certain gene distributions from reproducing? Increase the overall quality of life, make sure kids are being raised in healthy environments, stop school bullying... sure, but genetically these people will still exist. I think it's an inevitable evil that's a part of nature's population control package.

I understand that you are saying that it's a pointless threat for serial killers, but I'm willing use them as a teaching tool for society.