If free will doesn't exist and we are all slaves to our

By this logic there are no other options because locking them up/killing them would happen anyway. If there is no true freedom of will, there are no choices, only actions and reactions that are specific to that single situation.

>>25890828
Your key word being "if" mate

>>25890891
This. Stop slobbering all over Sam Harris' cock.

>>25890884
>only actions and reactions that are specific to that single situation
thats what I'm saying. If this is true, why bother punishing them? Killing them is the logical choice if you aim is peace.

>>25890828

That's not the argument asshole, people don't have their actions decided by genetics alone, but by social programming as well.

Since 20 years in prison (or however long) is a pretty big life changer it could legitimately change them in such a way as to never do it again

It's more morally justifiable to kill unborn babies than it is to kill murderers.

>>25890828
to elevate your own stature as a morally (socially) correct being

>>25890911
genes determine how you react to stimuli. Your "personality" is just a list of instructions on how to react to the world surrounding you.

>>25890828
Execution is not efficient because of the legal process and delays. It's a matter of practicality. I find it strange that inmates on death row actively try to have their sentenced changed to life in prison. Why? They should want to die and get it over with.

Overall it's a problem with society valuing human life above all else. I read Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race and it warped my view of the situation. Now I think we're all better off having never been born. Barring that, we'd all be better off dying quickly at the same time. Since that won't happen we ought to never have children and we should each die as quickly a possible on our own.

In criminal justice terms, criminals may not be culpable for their crimes and you can't fix them all, but they are dangerous so we need to isolate them from society.

>>25890828

Because they're a threat to society. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to live though, that's why we lock them up. No one is willingly born.

>>25890939

Not at all a coherent response to what i posted.

Clearly you want to argue and are going to be retarded no matter what I contribute so I'm gonna close the flood gates here.

>>25890908
Must I draw you a picture? No free will=no other courses of action except the current one.

Assume action -> reaction. Therefore every probability is either 1 or 0 in every scenario. Therefore we don't kill all criminals because we don't kill all criminals. This situation may change or not, it's impossible to tell. But current situation is and always has been certain.

>>25890930
this.
We accept the illusion of choice because making "morally" correct choices over others makes us feel superior = a boost in dopamine.

>If free will doesn't exist and we are all slaves to our genetic programming, why do we bother locking dangerous (killers, rapists, etc) criminals up?

To protect society from them and to act as a deterrent.

>Why bother punishing them?

To condition them against further transgressions.

>They're never going to get better or learn from their mistakes

Some will, some won't. Human behavior is due to a combination of genetics and environmental factors, not genetics alone. Some people can be conditioned against bad behavior. These are often people who are not psychopaths, but are simply confused, or have anger problems, or are hooked on drugs. But yes, it seems that some people are beyond rehabilitation. Especially people on the far end of the ASPD spectrum.

>Their criminal actions wasn't a choice, but rather a directive.

The complex interaction of their genetics and conditioning caused the actions. As science advances it may be possible one day to change peoples' genetic makeup even after they're born. As it stands now, there is evidence that many criminals can be rehabilitated through conditioning. But some are beyond rehabilitation, yes.

>Wouldn't execution be more efficient?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

>Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population.

Execution is not efficient in terms of money spent, nor is there evidence it acts as an effective deterrent for crime. It would cost less to lock up incorrigible criminals for life than to kill them.

At some point in the future it may be possible to cure psychopathic criminals of their destructive natures through genetic manipulation, or brain implants.

>>25890930
>>25890945
>>25890995
>>25890939

>muh dopamine
>muh jeans influence everything
>muh hard determinism

kill yourselves

>>25891073
great counter point anon. You've completely changed my world view with your insult.

>>25890995
>muh chemicals
no, it's about the social interaction.

dopaminefags are fucking intolerable

>>25891061
i mean, you've confirmed my position.
What you did answer was the cost. But would killing the criminal reduce the cost over the long term?

>>25891146

Social interaction causes the release of various neurotransmitters in the brain such as dopamine, cortisol, adrenaline, and oxytocin.

It's not magic, anon.

>>25891190
but muh majik dough
muh god

>>25891190
not invariably, you stupid fedoralord. muh chemicals are an influence in behavior but they are not a reason for behavior. self preservation, dumbass. why do so many people stop at chemical functions

>>25891178

Perhaps it theoretically could, if you did away with the appeals process and had a policy of just killing those found guilty of certain crimes on the spot.

This would however lead to the execution of innocent people and also people who actually could be rehabilitated.

Once you realize that people with evil natures are really just victims themselves, the idea of killing them may also become less palatable.

If someone is a bad person, that's unfortunate. It's not as if they, in a vacuum free of their genetics and environment, decided to be bad. Something is wrong with them. I'd go so far as to say that a strong propensity for antisocial behavior itself is evidence of what should be considered mental illness. People compelled to do evil things are literally sick.

>>25891211

>not invariably, you stupid fedoralord

Ease up on the personal insults. And yes, invariably. Social interaction does cause the release of neurotransmitters. That's how you even feel feelings. The chemicals cause the feelings--that's why drugs can make you feel happy, or scared, or sad, even in absence of external stimuli.

>muh chemicals are an influence in behavior but they are not a reason for behavior.

That's an incoherent contradiction. If they influence your behavior, that means they're a cause of your behavior. Influence = cause.

>>25891211
Your reasoning is backwards, Interactions are due to chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are due to atomic reactions.
Stimuli causes chemical reactions and those chemical reactions create the output = your behavior.

>muh insults and memes
lets try to have an adult conversation, yeah? If you can't try /b/ or /pol/

Shouldn't quantum fluctuations completely nulify determinism?

>>25891293
>>25891279
>chemical reactions that developed as a reward for those who self-preserved is the reason for those organisms' self preservation
>chemical reactions occurring within existence trumps existence itself
>avoiding my point by getting defensive because i called you what you are

>>25891293

>Your reasoning is backwards, Interactions are due to chemical reactions.

That's right. But the interactions also cause further chemical reactions, which lead to new interactions, which lead to new chemical reactions, over and over again.

>>25891301
quantum mechanics is a somewhat new field with a lot of questions that need to be answered.
Using anything "quantum" to define magic is silly. its the same as the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Plus, we're starting discover that their are patterns to quantum reactions. Which means things can be predicted with math.

>>25891339

>chemical reactions occurring within existence trumps existence itself

Nobody said that. I see you've moved on from personal attacks to just making shit up.

>>25891348
I don't believe in magic
I just believe in randomness

>>25891340
You need the initial stimuli or interaction to cause the chemical reaction.
and those chemical reactions are limited by your genes, which means your actions can be predicted. And if you action can be predicted, that means free-will does not exist.

>>25891377
We're making a lot of discoveries that quantum reactions aren't random, is what I'm saying, but the possibility is still there. Using a new field of science to prove the existence of random variables is silly.

>>25891410

>You need the initial stimuli or interaction to cause the chemical reaction.

Right. Of course it's hard to pinpoint what the "initial" one would be. Seems like it would stretch all the way back to when you were in utero.

>and those chemical reactions are limited by your genes, which means your actions can be predicted.

We don't really have the ability to make flawless predictions about human behavior, but we can generally make good deductions, yeah.

>And if you action can be predicted, that means free-will does not exist.

That would be true, and even if they can't be predicted, that doesn't mean free will does exist.

>>25891439
I think the universe is alternating between order and chaos every moment
Like when the universe expanded in an explosion (chaos) then the matter attracted itself (order) then stars exploded (chaos) then matter attracted (order) creating earth (more order)
then matter interacts (chaos), life starts, evolution, then humans get sapient, evolution stops
know what I mean?

>>25891483

I'm not the person you were just talking to, but I should add that human evolution hasn't stopped. We're still evolving.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/humans-are-still-evolving-despite-massive-recent-lifestyle-changes-study-finds-10026995.html

>>25891473
>We don't really have the ability to make flawless predictions about human behavior, but we can generally make good deductions, yeah.

>"we don;t have the ability to calculate all variables, therefore, randomness exists"
that would be the same as
>"we don't have the ability to calculate how far planets are from us, therefore, they don't exist"
That was the belief in the 18th century.

just because the algorithms don't exist, doesn't mean you can use that unknown to prove randomness exists. Every time humans have tried to prove that predictability exists, its always been true. I'm going to stick with the trend of predictability. It seems that math governs our universe, and therefore, our actions can be predicted with enough computing power.

File: 1445805898546.jpg (18KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 408x408px

>if free will doesn't exist why don't we choose to take this different action?

>>25891510
natural selection isn't

>>25891483
Philosophically, I believe that the universe is trying to create order, but is using the method of "chaos" to find that order (trial and error). However, I don't believe that these actions are guided by randomness. Instead, I believe that these action are guided by math. The universe is iterating through every possible integer (which is not random), to determine possible stable states.

>>25891591
Shouldn't butterfly effect prove you wrong?
It just reinforces the unpredictability

>>25891603
butterfly effect proves predictability.
What are you talking about?

One variable can massively change the result of the out
is what butterfly effect proves. But the equation stays the same.

>>25891532

>"we don;t have the ability to calculate all variables, therefore, randomness exists"

I'm not attributing this to any bad intent on your part, but it seems that you're putting words in my mouth. I never implied that.

You might be confusing me with someone else.

>>25891701
I literally quoted what I was referencing. If you didn't understand, then this discussion is pointless because you can't keep up.

>>25891728

Okay.

>"we don;t have the ability to calculate all variables, therefore, randomness exists"

See that?

In the post I made (25891473), never said it, nor did my words in that post imply it.

>>25891473
>that doesn't mean free will does exist
>>25891761
read you're post again and it seems we're debating the same thing. Not sure why you responded to me.

>>25890828
>those millions of poor guys who got framed for rape just because the whore regretted it the morning after now get executed
>instead of spreading the message of keeping away from these witches, now they are silenced
Great fucking idea op

>>25891073
>no reasoning or logic backing up his point

you are cancer

>>25891874
it's /pol/ logic. Essentially you bully or mock betas into believing what you believes Reason plays no part.

>>25890828
>why do we bother locking dangerous (killers, rapists, etc) criminals up?
to keep them away from us.
>Why bother punishing them?
this remains a valid point - why? they must be locked away from society, but if there's a way to make it economically efficient (i.e. have them work in prison to get money exchangeable for consumer goods) why not let them have comfortable lives?
>>25890908
>Killing them is the logical choice if you aim is peace.
not at all, they've already often consumed resources from society. Offering them voluntary labor to help repay this (in exchange for limited personal benefits like consumer goods) is preferable to writing them off entirely.

furthermore, by accepting that prison exists to keep dangerous people away from society, you can stop using it as a punishment in itself and punish other non-dangerous crimes with financial penalties or other measures instead of overburdening the prison system with people who would be perfectly safe to allow back into society with other limitations (for example most financial criminals, they simply need to be kept out of jobs where they can do the same thing again - they don't need to be kept out of society at large as they're harmless stacking shelves.)

>>25891935

The money saved with a plan like this would be incredible.

We could use all the extra money to improve libraries and clean up pollution sites and make public parks.

Having nice parks could help reduce obesity, which would ease the burden on health care resources. Cleaning up polluted sites would probably reduce cancer rates, too.

We humans should move beyond the thirst for vengeance and move towards an efficient use of our resources. Being merciful could end up not only reducing suffering directly, but it could have tons of indirect benefits too, including financial benefits.

>25891935

However, I think there should be a limit to how comfortable prison is. If it's TOO good, it couldn't have any kind of deterrent effect.

There has to be some kind of negative thing associated with prison life to have it function as a deterrent, no?

>>25892032
>having people in chronic pain will make them better
your logic is what cause criminals to become worse.
The best way to rehabiliate criminals is to give them purpose. You give them purpose by having them contribute to society and being rewarded (through paychecks).

M8, you're dumb as fuck. Free will doesn't exist (or it does, but you're not smart enough to understand this, so I'll leave it alone). We are slaves to our genetic programming as it interacts will social shaping.

Imprisoning people is a form of social shaping.

>>25892070

>having people in chronic pain will make them better

I'm not saying they should be in chronic pain, just that there should be a limit on how good prison is so people don't intentionally commit crimes for the sake of going to prison and having it be like a free vacation.

>>25892110
Having your freedom taken away and being forced to spend time with violent crazy people (or being raped by them) isn't much of an incentive to go to prison, no matter how nice the rooms are.

Studies have show over and over again that negative reinforcement does not work. The only will to get people to repeat good behavior is to reward them for it.

>>25892098

>or it does, but you're not smart enough to understand this, so I'll leave it alone

explain mr. smart guy

File: magic.gif (490KB, 350x196px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 350x196px

>>25892345
freewill is easy to understand sir.