If free will was not real

[RozKek]

It's bs. They believe in determinism, yes, but they've dumbed down free will to exclude determinism. E,g they might say"Free will is freely forming and acting on ones intent", thing is, it's not free if it's already determined is it? How do you determine something that is already determined?  You form and act on intent but the way you form your intent, the way you act on your intent, none of it is free. Compatibilist "free-willers" believe in determinism but ignore determinism when they're talking about free will. Their definition of free will for some reason doesn't take determinism into account.

We haven't dumbed it down or ignored determism. We've just defined free will as, "What mentally healthy agents exercise when they are free from duress/coercion by other agents."

That's what I'm talking about. You, for some reason, in your definition of free will, exclude all the other "factors" that determine whether we have a free will or not. And I'm asking, why? It's similiar to cherry picking verses from the Bible in order to turn it into a peaceful religion. You cherry pick everything that allows for some kind of severely reduced/dumbed down free will. Your definition of free will is not intact with reality. If you judge a criminal in court based on your definition of free will, you've judged him wrongfully.

[Edwardo Piet]

You hit me right in the [redacted].

Yum. I love it when you say that. I'll have a good hard think about that later.

Couldn't agree more. (LOL I have to watch what I say or I'm gonna get forum banned. It'll blame you if I do, Hammy!)

That gives me a form of evil sexy power.

+1

In the mouth.

I'm like a teenager over here, going, "OMG Hammy is talking to me! Squee!"

It's because basically I'm fantastic.

You make me feel better about being pretentious.

Good.

And this is the sexiest argument about free will to have occurred in the multiverse.

It is indeed but is it really an argument? I prefer to think of it a "primary exchange of sexiness with an additional exchange of ideas being a mere paltry secondary epiphenomenon."

Hmm. I really enjoy being a pretentious cunt. It's fun helping cultivate one's own intellectual curiosity by pretending to be more incisive and erudite than one actually is until it becomes truly the actual case pragmatically and experientially within the phenomelogicality of all intellectually worthy actors on this stage we call "the world".

Then I had better remain a compatibilist!

Yes. I call that: "The Argument By Phenomelogical Turtley Flirtyness."

[Edwardo Piet]

They believe in determinism, yes, but they've dumbed down free will to exclude determinism. 

You meant "include" right?

[Edwardo Piet]

If you judge a criminal in court based on your definition of free will, you've judged him wrongfully.

Criminals in court are already judged based on the compatabilist sense of free will. The compatabilist sense is the legal sense.

[RozKek]

They believe in determinism, yes, but they've dumbed down free will to exclude determinism. 

You meant "include" right?

No. In their definition of free will they say it's free if they're not coerced from an agent. If they'd include determinism they'd know it's not free whether they're coerced by another agent or not because it's already determined.

[RozKek]

If you judge a criminal in court based on your definition of free will, you've judged him wrongfully.

Criminals in court are already judged based on the compatabilist sense of free will.  The compatabilist sense is the legal sense.

And I don't think it's correct if I'm trying to be as rational as possible. I dislike the idea too, but e.g if a murderer is being sentenced I don't think it's correct to give them a lifetime prison, or the electric chair etc. I don't think it's correct to ultimately blame him/her for it. I think it's correct to recondition them/their brain in order to turn them into a good person that contributes to society in a positive way. And that's not what's happening at the moment.

[Gemini]

That's what I'm talking about. You, for some reason, in your definition of free will, exclude all the other "factors" that determine whether we have a free will or not.

The "some reason" is that all the other "factors" are metaphysical bullshit which are basically meaningless.

And I'm asking, why? It's similiar to cherry picking verses from the Bible in order to turn it into a peaceful religion.

It would be comparable to that if you actually shredded the violent/bigoted parts of the bible and ceased publishing them. You realize that could actually do that to the bible, if you didn't give a fuck about preserving the cannon? That's where compatibilists are. We don't give a fuck about incompatibilist free will. Shred it.

You cherry pick everything that allows for some kind of severely reduced/dumbed down free will. Your definition of free will is not intact with reality. If you judge a criminal in court based on your definition of free will, you've judged him wrongfully.

See legal pragmatism. Any determinist can explain that to you. Suffice it to say that a legal system operated by a compatibilist would be identical to one operated by an incompatibilist determinist.

[Edwardo Piet]

You meant "include" right?

No. In their definition of free will they say it's free if they're not coerced from an agent. If they'd include determinism they'd know it's not free whether they're coerced by another agent or not because it's already determined.

But the compatabilist's definition of free will includes determinism. Compatabilism means "Free will is compatible with determinism." It's incompatabilists that exclude determinism from their definition of free will.

[RozKek]

That's what I'm talking about. You, for some reason, in your definition of free will, exclude all the other "factors" that determine whether we have a free will or not.

The "some reason" is that all the other "factors" are metaphysical bullshit which are basically meaningless.

And I'm asking, why? It's similiar to cherry picking verses from the Bible in order to turn it into a peaceful religion.

It would be comparable to that if you actually shredded the violent/bigoted parts of the bible and ceased publishing them. You realize that could actually do that to the bible, if you didn't give a fuck about preserving the cannon? That's where compatibilists are. We don't give a fuck about incompatibilist free will. Shred it.

You cherry pick everything that allows for some kind of severely reduced/dumbed down free will. Your definition of free will is not intact with reality. If you judge a criminal in court based on your definition of free will, you've judged him wrongfully.

See legal pragmatism. Any determinist can explain that to you. Suffice it to say that a legal system operated by a compatibilist would be identical to one operated by an incompatibilist determinist.

I don't think there are metaphysical ideas that go against free will. I was talking about determinism.

Sure, go try to shread the fact that the universe, or at least our brains are deterministic and that it plays a role in if our will is free or not.

I'll check into it, thanks.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think it's correct to recondition them/their brain in order to turn them into a good person that contributes to society in a positive way. And that's not what's happening at the moment.

I agree completely but only if it can be done.

I'm against the death penalthy. I'm not sure where I stand when it comes to lifetime imprisonment for murderers but I guess permanent detainment for people capable of murdering someone is a good idea if and only if attempting to rehabilitate is too risky.

I would expect rehabilitation for murderers to have a very very very high success rate if we are to allow them back into the community and consider them now to be fully reformed non-murderers.