He believes in the superiority of humans over nature

>he believes in the superiority of humans over nature
>he believes humans have free will and aren't just a product of their causes

So, I know this is only tangentially related, but I feel like the illusion of free will is practically equivalent to actual free will.

Like I hear a lot of say that if we don't have free will it's not fair to punish people because they didn't actually have a choice in the matter, but I dont think that's the case. I mean even if it was pretermined at the start of the big bang that you were going to get a little too stabby on someone and kill them, your consciousness still had to decide to do it. Like you didn't actually make a "choice" but you did intentionally stab someone to death, and I feel like that intent to do wrong condemns you.

Does that make sense?

>he separates humans FROM nature
>he things "causes" are separate from behaviour

Do you even zen, bro?

>He believes certain causes made him post this on Veeky Forums rather than Veeky Forums

no because your "conscious" is still be a product of the "big bang"
and that you are only reacting to something that already happened

a better analogy is with amor fati, even if you think you had some power over your actions it has nothing to do with the physical processes that lead to it
it is just your brain making sense of the world-at-real etc

But the making-sense would also be caused by the same chain of unbroken events. Free will is an illusion, etc.

this is a board for books you retarded faggot

But a person can do something wrong, knowing that it is wrong. And whether or not it was inevitable doesn't detract from the fact that the crime still had motive. Even if the mind is simply a combination of neurons and chemicals, it shows the collective that this particular brain is unstable and won't abide by the rules of the collective.

It seems that it would still be rational for the collective to want to remove this individual from society, even if you can't truly have personal responsibility

By this logic, there is no collective responsibility either. It's an amalgamation of chemical reactions.

i've always felt as though the "free will is a prerequisite to criminal responsibility" is retarded

a person who behaves criminally due to causes going back to the beginning of time behaves that way because it's his nature. he's analogous to a rabid dog that needs to be put out. his nature is ultimately the product of causes beyond his control, but that's irrelevant, because he can't change

on the other hand, a hypothetical person with free will who behaves criminally could actually be redeemed and taught to act differently, and thus theoretically deserves the possibility of rehabilitation

Excellent point.

Yeah that's basically what I'm getting at

Like even if you can't possibly have "true' personal responsibility, you still have effective personal responsibly in how you interact with society. Like it's not really your fault that you racked up $10000 in credit card debt, but it's still rational for me to deny you a mortgage because of it.

fucking dumb
'he was predetermined to be a bad person therefore he can't change'
imagine he was predetermined to be a bad person but in the same vain he was predetermined to change into a good person

most people don't fundamentally change their ways

it also strikes me as ridiculous to say a guy who killed fifty people can become a "good person", if he just doesn't kill any more people after a certain point. redemption is a joke idea, if you're a murderer, that will always be your nature, no matter how many bible verses you learn in order to pretend otherwise

Why don't more people know this?

Veeky Forums has always hosted discussions like these, dumb newfags

I don't even know what free will means at this point. life is too complicated to think of it in the terms of free will vs no free will. Like I get that I could go do anything I could want, from stab a baby, to fly across the world, but I also know that everything I do is electrical impulses predicated on evolution and momentum and all kinds of shit that's beyond comprehension.

yes the illusion of free will is good enough.
the crux of the issue is how our vocabulary isn't meant to deal with ideas like materialism
what does it mean to choose between possible alternatives?
one take is to consider that human feeling of choice and us that in our definition of free will. this should certainly tell us free will exists.
but then consider from a materialist paradigm that those complex human feelings boil down to causal laws of nature that are predictable on a macro scale and random on at the quantum level. where does choice play into these causal relationships? it doesn't really and now free will doesn't exist

>he's analogous to a rabid dog that needs to be put out.

See that's different than how some view criminal punishment. Many think it should involve revenge, giving you what you deserve, rather than just keeping society safe.

This is why determinism is a hot steaming pile of shit and anyone who thinks you're 'predestined' to do what you do is a fucking retard. Seriously, it's just the age old idea of Fate wrapped up in pseudoscience. Sorry guys, you do make your own decisions so make them count.

and a more effectual argument that criminal punishment serves as a deterrent.
whether you're responsible for your actions or not; if you know that killing someone means you die maybe you think twice b4 you kill someone

>implying that you, too, wouldn't be driven to murder under the right circumstances

please explain why materialism is retarded? its certainly not science but it sure is a philosophical ideology that espouses science.

so if you can't prove or disprove materialism or the more specific determinism why would you be dumb to hold that belief?

The world is just a chain of physical and chemical reactions. Every action has a predetermined outcome, and the actions caused by those outcomes also have a predetermined outcome. So that means that, in the grand scheme of things, everything is predetermined. Free will is just an illusion, in that a person's choice will always be subconsciously affected by numerous things (such as past experience, current circumstances, etc.). However, from a human perspective, there are so many variables that affect even a single action that it is impossible to predict and you might as well say we have free will.

just because its ridiculous doesn't mean it can't happen.
the point is that saying someone who did a bad thing is predetermined to be bad the rest of their life but neglecting the possibility that they're predetermined shows a complete misunderstanding of determinism.

>Seriously, it's just the age old idea of Fate wrapped up in pseudoscience.
all the science is correct. human understanding of any physical phenomena depends on the concept of causality, it's just arrogance to assume it doesn't apply to us equally

>Sorry guys, you do make your own decisions so make them count.
yes, i do make them, and who i am is just the product of a long chain of cause and effect

Oh I agree, I was just making the point that free will does factor into people's views on this.

But the broader issue here is that moral responsibility, something most act as though they believe in, is nonsensical without free will

Who are you talking to?

i left out some shit this is what i meant to post

just because its ridiculous doesn't mean it can't happen.
the point is that saying someone who did a bad thing is predetermined to be bad the rest of their life but neglecting the possibility that they're predetermined to be good the rest of their life shows a complete misunderstanding of determinism.

and while im at it. so that you don't resort to attacking what i mean by turn into a good person i mean doesn't do any more illegal or bad shit for the rest of their life

>the point is that saying someone who did a bad thing is predetermined to be bad the rest of their life
your life isn't something that can be broken into parts. "you" are the sum of all your actions. if you murder once, you are a murderer for all time.

We live in a non-deterministic universe so why would you assume consciousness is 100% deterministic? Hard determinism is not a valid philosophy any more.

what the fuck are you trying to say?
we're talking about free will

okay now try materialism and the assumption that consciousness is 100% materialistic

> if you murder once, you are a murderer for all time.

That is literally true, by definition, but you know that's not what anyone is talking about.

>We live in a non-deterministic universe so why would you assume consciousness is 100% deterministic?

The existence of random chance on the quantum level doesn't mean people are freely making choices. It just means the quantum randomness factors into the equation.

Humans are a part of nature.

I did? I never said anything about the nature of consciousness. Just that since we live in a probabilistic universe not a deterministic one it means your decisions are not necessarily part of a cause and effect chain, that chain only creates a series of probabilities from which you can pluck out a decision. Now the process by which you choose from a variety of possibilities is called free will.

dude you can't pluck out a decision from quantom randomness.
describe this process by which you make your choices. you can't because it's fucking insane.

are you working from the framework of materialism or no? note that this probabilistic universe def falls under materialism.
this is important because if you do we can use the assumptions of materialism.
if you don't then there's no point arguing because your philosophy revolves around making shit up

>series of probabilities from which you can pluck out a decision. Now the process by which you choose from a variety of possibilities is called free will.
you don't choose from a list of possibilities, you are led to one of them by chance. there being probability involved doesn't mean there's free will

Do you understand what determinism is? The idea that free will is not real hinges on it. If the universe is deterministic then it follows for every A that B must follow. If we live in a probabilistic universe it follows that for every A that B or C must follow based on probabilities. Determinism rejects the idea of free will because if you knew the complete physical brain state of someone you should be able to, with 100% certainty, predict all of their actions forever. A probabilistic universe says that just because you have a complete brain state it doesn't follow that you'll know that given A the subject will do B or C it's not set, which means there is absolutely room for free will. The fact that we don't know the exact process doesn't mean anything, we're basing our ideas on whether there is or is not free will entirely on whether the brain is deterministic or probabilistic.

>there being probability involved doesn't mean there's free will
But there could be. Free will is definitely still on the table, just because you don't understand the process by which a brain selects between actions based on probabilities doesn't mean there isn't one.

I am, but it's strange that you think materialism necessarily rules out free will. It does not, materialism has nothing to do with this.

>imagine he was predetermined to be a bad person but in the same vain he was predetermined to change into a good person
from a criminal justice viewpoint this is irrelevant

it's unknowable what he'll do in the future, what's known is he's committed a crime. if you stop yourself from imprisoning him for caution over what he may become, your justice system will collapse within a week

for fucks sake dude look up the difference between materialism and determinism.

okay, i do believe that materialism rules out free will, but im not a close minded faggot.
why is this strange?
what do you mean materialism has nothing to do with it?
what is the free will argument really about?

Materialism does not dispute the concept of free will existing. Determinism does. I'm sorry, I assumed you were arguing from a valid and accepted philosophical view. Materialism has nothing to say on whether free will exists or not, so I'm confused about why you're using it as the basis for your argument that free will does not exist. Materialism is literally irrelevant. You don't need to believe the mind is some ephemeral thing to believe that we control the decisions we make to some degree.

>what is the free will argument really about?
Determinism vs Indeterminism. That's it. The entire 'free will does not exist' argument relies on determinism to make the point that brain states are entirely dependent on causal chains and that knowing brain states entirely means you can PREDICT the behavior of the subject with certainty. Indeterminism means that you can't make predictions based on complete knowledge of brain states and there is fuzzy area to assume free will exists within.

Materialism doesn't enter into it at all.

>just because you don't understand the process by which a brain selects between actions based on probabilities
how is this free will, then, if people don't even understand their process of choosing their own actions? the process you describe is just a series of chemical reactions.

you have no control. some things are causal, others are random chance. are you saying this dice roll is the same thing as free will?

>ur shit is irrelevant
irrelevant to what? the the role of the criminal justice system
please direct me to where i commented on the role of the criminal justice system

that entire argument is about how you can justify a criminal justice system without beliving in free will

The fact we don't understand doesn't matter. We don't understand how the brain gives rise to consciousness. You're making your argument based on the underpinnings of those processes, as am I.

>are you saying this dice roll is the same thing as free will?
No I'm saying it gives the possibility of free will. The point is we don't know, and it's really weird to be so slavishly against the concept when it goes against actual conscious experience. We don't understand enough yet, but free will is definitely still a very real and strong possibility. Just because you desperately want to believe you have no actual agency doesn't mean that we're automatons, you'll just have to come to terms with that.

Sure we do. We have the ability to say "fuck reason"
Which is why religion was always the answer.

okay this logic is fucked. assume indeterminism. now imagine that after one cause A there are two possible effects B and C. Whether B happens or C happens is completely random. this isn't free will.
so indeterminism doesn't imply free will

Materialism states that only matter/energy exists. Since matter and energy are bound by the laws of physics and every action has a predictable reaction (provided you know all the variables). Your brain will also be subject to these laws, meaning that any decision it makes is also technically predictable.

Assuming there is no selection process occurring and that B and C are actually just random outcomes, yes. There's no reason to believe that the brain cannot select between outcomes however. The randomness gives rise to agency. I agree indeterminism doesn't necessarily imply free will, but it does give the possibility. You're free to believe you're an automaton if you want, I think it would be smarter to wait until we have a clearer picture of consciousness though.

it doesn't. some processes are deterministic, others are probabilistic. you choose neither. thus, there is no choice involved.

no the argument is that determinism doesn't imply that a criminal will always be a criminal
which i guess is a response to how we can justify a criminal justice system without believing in free will I see you
Consider this thought experiment as justification:
Assume free will doesn't exist
now imagine two worlds, one where you get punished for murder and one where you don't
now imagine a man on the fence about killing his brother for whatever reason.
In the world where murder is punished the man decides its not worth and doesn't murder his brother
In the world where murder is not punished he murders his brother.
its easy to say not murdering his brother is the better outcome and so the world with criminal justice is better.
the point is that even if you don't have free will, that doesn't mean the criminal justice system won't affect your actions.

fuck off lucifer

>every action has a predictable reaction
This is determinism and we know it's wrong. Not everything in the universe is predictable, some things are inherently unpredictable. Unpredictability opens the door to free will.

>There's no reason to believe that the brain cannot select between outcomes
sure there is. your brain is the culmination of physical processes. does your brain choose its own physical processes? No that doesn't make sense.
Do these physical processes determine how your brain behaves? yes that does make sense and is studied extensively from physics to chemistry to biology to neuroscience to psychology

>no the argument is that determinism doesn't imply that a criminal will always be a criminal
it's about the idea that "free will is a prerequisite to criminal responsibility", which you can see if you scroll up

your post has really nothing to do with, nobody's trying to justify the existence of a justice system on a utilitarian basis, the argument is whether you can morally justify imprisoning a criminal if he has no control over his criminal nature

noone is arguing for determinism fuckwad

all unpredictability means is that we don't know what will happen, not that we have a say in it

>that entire argument is about how you can justify a criminal justice system without beliving in free will

literally from the post i was replying to

>does your brain choose its own physical processes?
Uh, yes? The ability of biological molecules to control and mediate chemical processes is essential for life. Cells are not at the mercy of chemical processes, they control those chemical processes for specific purposes. The brain is a biological structure that uses physical processes to process information. It's a feedback loop where the brain is able to react to stimuli and respond by activating neural pathways. It's not a purely chemical reaction, it's mediated by a complex set of processes that transform a chemical reaction into information that is used to then activate and mediate other chemical processes.

Good, then nobody should be saying retarded shit like free will doesn't exist.

>i've always felt as though the "free will is a prerequisite to criminal responsibility" is retarded
yes, and this is from the post that spawned that entire discussion to begin with

you're trying to tell me that your brain influences unpredictable quantum outcomes? as well as predictable laws of nature
niggerwhat

please explain to me how indeterminism proves free will

i've already got one counterexample prepared

but that wasn't the part of the post I was responding to
>a person who behaves criminally due to causes going back to the beginning of time behaves that way because it's his nature. he's analogous to a rabid dog that needs to be put out. his nature is ultimately the product of causes beyond his control, but that's irrelevant, because he can't change
>on the other hand, a hypothetical person with free will who behaves criminally could actually be redeemed and taught to act differently, and thus theoretically deserves the possibility of rehabilitation

this is the bullshit i respond to here
I'm down to consider the whole is free will necessary for criminal responsibility but thats not what was being argued

anyways since this is a literature boards what are some good works on the topic

what does it matter if free will exists or not since it feels like it does anyways?