Brainslaves

What if there was a treatment that could act as a deterrent and also cure them at the same time? something like a Clockwork Orange would that be ethically responsible? Also do you mean in prevents interaction after the punishment or before? because it's proven criminals have a better response to their punishment if they keep interacting with society.

Sounds like bullshit. You could claim this for anything, muh ur a brainslave because you have a strong imperative to eat and drink.

>Can you blame and punish someone who is forced to feel that way or do you need to treat them?
Forced by what?

>their free will is very limited
Free will is binary

their impulses that make them feel a need to murder, fuck kids or steal etc
>muh ur a brainslave because you have a strong imperative to eat and drink.
you're absolutely right, your brain forces you to eat and drink to keep itself alive.

People with full blown OCD and similar disorders are "brain slaves" - they feel strongly compelled to perform certain actions even if they don't want to. I think it's possible that some classes of criminals could fall under a similar category, like maybe kleptomaniacs, but those others you mentioned don't sound like they'd fit at all, not to mention that just saying "murderers" like that's a unified group with a consistent psychology is simplifying things to the point of uselessness.

ok, let's not put them in jail any more - let's just perform surgery on their brains!

you are of genius, OP

I know it sounds scary but if that surgery would make them completely normal human beings wouldn't that be 100 times than to put them in jail and let them rot there forever?
yeah, my mistake I meant serial murderers, people who feel a strong need to murder.

yeah, cost is a factor, but they would have a right to a most precise surgery, of which we lack the knowledge

which is why we need more research into this subject :^)

The urges of your brain and your choices to act on those urges are separate.

In this life and the next we are punished for choices not urges.

You might actually be autistic

I disagree, feelings aren't static
unlike rationality and logic

>what is the OF/DL PFC
>what is the ACC
>what is the amygdala
>what are MAOI alleles that govern the sympathetic nervous system through serotonin
>what is lead poisoning
>HURRRR

brain damage exists but the concept of your moronic "brain slave" idea is a dead-end like everything else that brings ethical philosophy into science
fuck off
>b-b-but muh free will!!!

>let's just perform surgery on their brains!

>Implying we shouldn't bring back amydelectomy

There is nothing wrong with a little psychosurgery

Do some reading into the philosophy of free will as this very much comes into your questions on the topic. Here is a good wiki to get you started. plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#pagetopright
Harry G Frankfurts, "Alternative possibilities and moral responsibility" is worth a look as well. pacherie.free.fr/COURS/AGREG/Frankfurt-Alternate_Possib_JP-1969.pdf

I'd call you a brainlet but it's kind of moot when you were predetermined to say that anyway.

>The path the universe takes is predetermined and destined
that's not true. free will probably isn't real anyways

This. With even more knowledge about connectsomes, we can do highly precise psychosurgery to delete problematic elements of biodetereminism of your brain.

Free will isn't real because it's easier to blame the universe.

>Can you blame and punish someone who is forced to feel that way or do you need to treat them?
Why do the rest of us (normal functioning brains) have to pay for the heinous acts of faulty buggy brains? That's where modern society has gone wrong: everybody's main concern is the comfort and rights of the criminal while the victims who have no blame whatsoever and are hurting are forgotten and being brushed aside

Prove it.

>grant me more money
no fuck off scam artist

Not him, but here's the "standard argument against free will", which disproves it's metaphysical possibility (unless you define free will in some new way):
1. All processes are either deterministic or indeterministic.
2. If a decision is made as a result of deterministic processes, the outcome was predermined and free will doesn't apply.
3. If a decision is made as a result of indereministic processes (or a mix of both), the outcome was random and free will doesn't apply.
4. As no other scenarios are possible, free will can't exist.

how about some neurosurgery that gives me free will? could use some of that ...

Come to my clinic in China and I'll hook you up.

>that's not true
Elaborate

>If a decision is made as a result of indereministic processes (or a mix of both), the outcome was random
Does not follow.

Prove it.

>1. All processes are either deterministic or indeterministic.
>3. If a decision is made as a result of indereministic processes (or a mix of both), the outcome was random and free will doesn't apply.
>4. As no other scenarios are possible, free will can't exist.
Prove it.

Please explain. Indeterministic means truly random (with some probability of each of the outcomes occurring).

1. Provide me an example of a process that's neither dependent on the past, nor random(probabilistic). You can't.
3. By definition of "indeterministic".
4. Follows from 1, 2 and 3.

What makes you say that

not many vidya are about rape precisely, think about the outrage an AAA rapist simulator would cause

circular logic couched in niceties, 3 and 4 assume free will doesn't exist before the explanation is even over
>either it's predetermined or random, there is no third option where you get to choose, that's why free will doesn't exist

I don't blame them for how they feel, I blame them for choosing to act on it

>3. If a decision is made as a result of indereministic processes (or a mix of both), the outcome was random and free will doesn't apply.

My definition of free will is a self-aware host process which uses an indeterminate/randomness subprocess in order to generate potential solutions to indeterminate problems. The above rule is in direct conflict with my definition. Is there some other refutation for this?

So you're saying that free will is the application of randomness to decisions making? By this definition "free will" is likely true because of quantum randomness in the brain.

>either it's predetermined or random
In other words: it's either determined by the past or not determined by the past. What's the third option? How can something not determined by the past be non-random? Even if you assume some sort of non-physical ego/soul, it still can't choose anything both independently of the past and not arbitrarily.

I had assumed randomness application was the common definition. How are other people defining it?

>how do other people define it?
Nothing more specific than "the ability to make choices." Apparently they think chess engines and animals have free will too

Why wouldn't one definite free will in a similar manner to intelligence? It's commonly accepted that animals have varying levels of intelligence, why would one not also assume varying amounts of free will? (Which, in the case of the randomness application definition, would be more limited application of randomness in decision making, or inefficient algorithms for turning said randomness into effective solutions)

It seems like everyone assumes "free-will" is some binary trait that you either have or don't have. Based on pretty much everything else in psychology, it doesn't seem like such a simple definition is likely or tenable.

It's quite vague, generally free will is just the thing you are supposed to have to be able to take responsibility. Hard free will implies that your ego/soul has the ultimate say in decision making; more modern compatibilist definitions redefine it as the process of conscious decision making in general (which doesn't make any claims on whether it's deterministic or not, and therefore is compatible with the argument against classic free will BUT doesn't in any way disprove the deterministic/random nature of decision making). I have never heard anybody define free will as application of randomness - we aren't "responsible" for which random outcome happens, but quantum randomness was used as an argument against the deterministic position on free will.

While I don't see any problems with your definition, why bother with the term at all? A much less bloated term could be used, like "degree of randomness" or something. Also, how do you envision algorithms using randomness to figure out efficient solutions? Genuinely curious, it seems to me that a fully deterministic method should be more or at least as effective.

Not me btw.

I think it might be a misunderstanding of the idea of "responsibility" rather than "free will". In the scheme of free will I'm proposing, responsibility would be defined as an acknowledgement that a particular set of actions or decisions originated from a particular system (I.e. a particular person). "Taking responsibility" would just be admitting that the decision/action came from your physical processes, and possibly self-modifying the algorithms which use randomness as a kernel to better conform to the average responses of society (within a set of bounds, obviously)

>While I don't see any problems with your definition, why bother with the term at all? A much less bloated term could be used, like "degree of randomness" or something.
Because it's an already established term, because I don't want to add more unnecessary vocabulary to an already overly-verbose line of study, and because I'm tired of edgy teens and edgy adults saying "no consequences for my actions b/c free will don't exist lol"

>Also, how do you envision algorithms using randomness to figure out efficient solutions? Genuinely curious, it seems to me that a fully deterministic method should be more or at least as effective.
Fully deterministic methods are not necessarily more faster or more accurate. It depends on the circumstances.

Consider this: you are presented with two fruits with the same shapes and the same color scheme. One of them is poisonous, one of them is delicious. Which one do you choose? How would you even make a deterministic choice between two seemingly identical options?

I agree (except a minor thing: ), in my view some extraordinary "ability to make choices that are not externally determined" (dictionary definition) is not required for responsibility, justice, praise etc. as some claim.

>more faster
I'm a fucking moron.

My point still stands though

>Because it's an already established term
That's fine I guess, though in my opinion free will is overly vague. Then there's the thing where it's traditionally exclusive to humans. Doesn't really matter in the end.
>tired of edgy teens and adults
Me too( ). There are plenty of actually valid (and pretty obvious) reasons for punishment/praise/etc.
>It depends on the circumstances.
Agreed, semi-random sorting algorithms come to mind.
>How would you even make a deterministic choice between two seemingly identical options?
By taking the one closer to me. Or the one on the right, because that's closer to my dominant hand, etc. The choice can be predetermined while not having any input at the moment when it's taking place. Again, this is pretty irrelevant - as long as we agree that randomness is optional for reasoning/consciousness/"humanity"/whatever superiority criteria.

The guy to the reply to whom you replied here.
What is you point exactly?
?
I answered directly.

(Fucking moron here)
My point is that deterministic processes are not always viable or efficient decision making systems in the real world, that randomness-based algorithms can be more efficient/effective in certain contexts, and that these randomness-based decision algorithms can and should be defined as free will.

It's not the 1800s

I'm sorry, I misread that as "You fucking moron". Time to go to sleep soon, it's 2 am here.
Anyways, after thinking about this for a bit: yeah, probably depends on the circumstances, I'm not educated on algorithms enough to dispute this. The rest of my opinion:Unless you have anything to add good sir, I'm off to bed.

Nope! I enjoyed this discussion quite a bit. Thank you, and sleep well :)

>determinism