We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18638141.

There are two points which may appear contradictory but may not be contracditory.

1) People act according to past experience, environment and internal biology. 2) People environment also consist of the knowledge that "For any given situation there are many options and if one looks hard and tries one may choose an appropiate response". If the society emphasize on this aspect a person might be more willing to make a "choice". Of course not everyone will respond the same way to this knowledge.

1) doesn't imply that there is no "choice" and 2) doesn't imply that we are not "programmed" to behave in certain ways. Actually it might be that 2) is helping us to "program" people in certain way.

In the context of "crime and punishment", as we get better at 2) or someother scientific development we can reduce the need for "punishment".

The best analogy I could think of explaining the above language play on mind is following. Say you are training a new chess player to improve the game. You can say one of the two things: 1) For a given board position there are limited options. 2) For a given board position there are many options.

While both being true on thinking deeply they can have different effect on the person. It also matters what we emphasize. For a person thinking less 2) may be better thing to emphasize. For a person thinking lot 1) may be better to emphasize.

People do not make choices. The programming we inherit from society, produces different outcomes because the events are in a linear order and the different orders between persons matter! Everyone seems to not grasp how important "order of knowledge" is when digested and how it will alter the person in comparison to another person who has the same knowledge but in a slightly different order of the linear input system we all share being the brain.

Punishment is the cruelest and most dehumanizing thing in this world by mankind. I view "original sin" being born into humankind "assuming free will" is correct. The barbaric justification for punishment is we will construct a deterrent for other humans. Yet, it's ignoring how we are punishing a person who had no control by "the universe not favoring the person" and resulting in others "being favored by the universe" from punishing the person resulting in deterrent to others. The whole thing is madness because it's the system that is flawed not the individual.

If criminals can't be blamed for their crimes because they had no choice, then by the same reasoning authorities cannot be blamed for punishing them.

Yes and what is your point? We should still try to push humanity further. It's like how people once viewed the world as flat. We need to keep dismantling illusions and get closer to where humanity can be the very best to all.

How can we choose to push humanity further if we can't make choices?

Acknowledging illusion and reality is pushing humanity further. Society is currently structured based on an illusion.

I also feel the Punishment is "cruel" but I am unable to give alternative to society yet. Saints/religion has given some alternative but not everyone follows.

If you assume free will is an illusion, then it would make more sense to treat those who threaten society as faulty machinery and scrap them.

Assuming people can admit and learn from their mistakes means you can focus on rehabilitation and treat them with dignity.

> If you assume free will is an illusion, then it would make more sense to treat those who threaten society as faulty machinery and scrap them.

If you have a system that produces defects, you could continuously scrap them, but you could also just fix the system so it doesn't produce defects.

> ...you could also just fix the system so it doesn't produce defects.

Big if true!

No, it makes more sense to fix the broken system that resulted in the faulty machinery and to fix the faulty person as well. If one cannot fix the person, it doesn't make sense to scrap them if we put humanity at the highest regard with understanding free will is an illusion. We would just have to prevent the person from being able to do the wrong and understand punishment is against humanity in the equation with handling the person.

Wouldn't the choice to fix a broken system require free will not to be an illusion?

Whatever comes is destiny in our reality and when you understand free will is an illusion.. I did not have the ability to a different person and communicate something different today (same as you). Basically the needed events have to occur and similar to anything that humanity adopts as knowledge & way of life.

Not sure what you're trying to say here at all. Apparently you can't keep your extreme position logically coherent.

I agree that the idea of "free will" might have been exaggerated too much especially in the US tradition, and I think people here generally agree. But taking a position of complete denial is likely not sound either. No need replying to everybody trying to defend your point. That in itself is a bit weak.

One sentence is missing a word and I didn’t edit it in time because I took a break.

Basically the gist of it is whatever is destined will occur. However long until the social norms adjust for people to understand & see the illusion of today. How the belief is a substantial impact in how society functions but doesn’t even have any backing such as from science/reason. It’s similar to how the times are shifting of belief towards a god existing and how life must be played out from text associated with the belief. I even compare it to when humans all believed the world is flat. The possibility exists of the time to never come where the majority realizes free will is an illusion but I think contrary because I can understand from my experiences the positives. I can also imagine benefits from the realization of the majority understanding it and how the majority would need to function to still keep humanity as the highest regard.

You cannot take the stance that an illusion is how people in society needs to live under and seem rational to me. Similar to the stance of writing it as “in complete denial” and assuming likelihood. The topics on hacker news that have something to do with free will belief are my favorite because

I enjoy replying to everyone. It was destined for me and with others that reply. The main difference between me & others is probably how I have positive emotions towards the understanding because it made me able to not break in a very low time.

Let's by clear why this is very flawed reasoning.

First, the argument is that if people do not have free will, they have no moral worth, yet society has moral worth. But no reason is given why society, composed of individuals rendered worthless, isn't also rendered worthless.

Secondarily, learning doesn't require free will, as empirally demonstrated by our pitiful machines today.

You have to state your axioms up front, and frankly the "news" of no free will is the greatest carte blanche to redesign morality anyways.