Victor Chang's killer released from prison

[Killian Kalthorne]

As an aside, violent crime rates seem to be dropping since 1994.

 

I blame video games.

[lord of flies]

They still have free will, Flyboy. If they make the same bad choice that is their fault and no one else's. You know, have them take some personal responsibility for their lives.

Whelp, best pack it in. Killian is resorting to making the "free will" argument, wherein he pretends like human behavior has nothing to do with outside stimulus. No point in discussing how to make a better society with people who make this dumb ass argument.

 

However, I'd like to make a quick last-minute snipe:

 

"I ****ing get a boner every time somebody goes to jail!"

- Killian Kalthorne

 

Human behavior is influenced by outside stimulus, I agree, but it does not CONTROL human behavior. No matter how much outside stimulus effects a human being, that human still has free will to choose. That is the difference between us and animals. Thanks for playing, Flyboy, but you lose once again.

Thanks for playing, Kalthorne, but you still don't understand the most basic aspects of how to run a functional society. Here's a quick tip: don't go with your knee-jerk revenge fantasies in deciding or supporting government policy.

[alanschu]

They made their choice. They pay the consequences for that choice.

 

And, given the discussion about recidivism rates, so do the people that are harmed after they are released.

 

 

but it does not CONTROL human behavior.

 

One of the most famous Behavioural Psychologists, and arguably most famous psychologist, B.F. Skinner, would challenge that statement. He pondered whether or not free will is actually an illusion or not.

 

The unfortunate thing is that it's not something that's really falsifiable (and like good little scientists, it tends to be a belief rather than statement of fact). Here's some fun metaphysical thoughts to think about. I just mentioned that there's the idea that free will is an illusion. One could quickly argue that that statement isn't true, and demonstrate it by actively choosing to do something that you typically would not do. Hence, you freely chose to do something. However, cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing. In order to preserve your belief that free will exists, you perform an action to demonstrate that your free will chose you to do something. A determinist would argue that your decision to choose the action that you did stems from a variety of influences, from all sorts of operant and classical conditioning, to the cognitive dissonance that you'd be facing. As such, the action that you choose to do to demonstrate your free will is actually affected by the norms and mores of society (in addition to its Laws), your interpretation of what you consider typical behaviour for yourself, your own motivations and so forth. As such, you likely wouldn't choose to perform an action that would create further cognitive dissonance (like say, murder someone just to prove a point), and that the precise action that you choose at that time is the sum of all the influences and processes going on in your mind.

 

 

I found it interesting to discuss this stuff in school, though in the end I personally do not believe that free will is an illusion. I can understand the thought process though, and I think it would have been interesting to take more than elementary courses on it. But alas.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Revenge fantasies? Hardly, Flyboy. I don't give a rat's ass about revenge. I understand that there is right and wrong. There is the Law and there are those who choose to disregard the Law. Those who break the law should be punished, not rewarded. Rehabilitation is a waste of time and money, because all the rehab in the world will not change the fact the criminal can still choose to break the law.

 

As for recidivism rates, if the criminal chooses to break the law again then it is unfortunate he or she didn't learn that breaking the Law has consequences. So he or she should receive harsher penalties the second time around. I am all for the three strikes rule. On the third felony, life in prison without parole. Those who choose not to live by society's laws should not be free in society.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

Revenge fantasies? Hardly, Flyboy. I don't give a rat's ass about revenge. I understand that there is right and wrong. There is the Law and there are those who choose to disregard the Law. Those who break the law should be punished, not rewarded.

Alright, I'll try a different tact: where does "the law" come from, and why is it made a particular way? Please no "gays in Iran are breaking the law!!!" logic.

 

Rehabilitation is a waste of time and money, because all the rehab in the world will not change the fact the criminal can still choose to break the law.

All the rehab in the world will not change the fact that an innocent can still choose to break the law! My god... why bother teaching children morals with ironclad logic like this?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Why ask questions you already know, Flyboy. Nice fishing expedition, but you will need better bait.

[lord of flies]

Why ask questions you already know, Flyboy. Nice fishing expedition, but you will need better bait.

Well, it would appear that you have decided not to respond to my posts, so I must bid you adieu. If you'd prefer to have a conversation, try answering the questions.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I only answer questions those pose to me when the person asking does not already adamantly believes he is right on all things. Answering questions from such a person would be pointless and a waste of time.

[alanschu]

I find the most recent post ironic haha.

[lord of flies]

I only answer questions those pose to me when the person asking does not already adamantly believes he is right on all things. Answering questions from such a person would be pointless and a waste of time.

Translation: I use the apparent character of my opponents to arbitrarily dismiss their arguments when they are too difficult for me to address. I believe that it is my opponent, however, whose position will never waver.

[Hurlshort]

Actually I've seen Killian concede arguments quite a few times over the years, or at least he has been willing to admit he is just being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness. That is a big thing to do and I have a lot of respect for him in that regard.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Flyboy, your arguments are as transparent as glass as is your flame baiting. In terms you may understand, we have two opposing irreconcilable opinions in which neither side can be proven without the use of biased information and studies, therefore the end result is irrelevant bickering in which will only degrade into name calling.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[213374U]

One of the most famous Behavioural Psychologists, and arguably most famous psychologist, B.F. Skinner, would challenge that statement. He pondered whether or not free will is actually an illusion or not.

Quite a few people in academia are challenging the traditional notions of free will. It appears that unconscious memory plays a huge role in decision-making, and an experiment showed that the process can begin as early as a full ten seconds before we actually get the impression we are making a decision... which would mean that the sensation or thought train we experience when making choices is actually a consequence of a hidden process we have no control over.

 

I read that in Germany there are initiatives to change the penal code based on these findings, on the premise that culpability rests on the concept of free will, but the page I where read it is an interview in Spanish and lacks references.

 

Fun, fun.

 

@ lof: Can you give some references to the Con game thing you posted? Looks interesting.

Edited October 29, 2009 by 213374U

[lord of flies]

@ lof: Can you give some references to the Con game thing you posted? Looks interesting.

This is my source, he's got a bibliography.

 

PS: Krezack, friendly warning: make an alt or something... just in case.

[213374U]

Your source sure seems well informed. Some of the references are from subscription-only journals, shame. Knowledge should be free!

 

Thanks man - I have some serious reading to do.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I do not completely agree with it, but an interesting read nonetheless.

[Rostere]

but it does not CONTROL human behavior.

 

One of the most famous Behavioural Psychologists, and arguably most famous psychologist, B.F. Skinner, would challenge that statement. He pondered whether or not free will is actually an illusion or not.

 

The unfortunate thing is that it's not something that's really falsifiable (and like good little scientists, it tends to be a belief rather than statement of fact). Here's some fun metaphysical thoughts to think about. I just mentioned that there's the idea that free will is an illusion. One could quickly argue that that statement isn't true, and demonstrate it by actively choosing to do something that you typically would not do. Hence, you freely chose to do something. However, cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing. In order to preserve your belief that free will exists, you perform an action to demonstrate that your free will chose you to do something. A determinist would argue that your decision to choose the action that you did stems from a variety of influences, from all sorts of operant and classical conditioning, to the cognitive dissonance that you'd be facing. As such, the action that you choose to do to demonstrate your free will is actually affected by the norms and mores of society (in addition to its Laws), your interpretation of what you consider typical behaviour for yourself, your own motivations and so forth. As such, you likely wouldn't choose to perform an action that would create further cognitive dissonance (like say, murder someone just to prove a point), and that the precise action that you choose at that time is the sum of all the influences and processes going on in your mind.

 

Oh, back to philosophy class in high school. I really must add the following commentary which I feel neatly summarizes the subject: "You need only assume causality to refute the notion of "free will" (in the na

[213374U]

Oh, back to philosophy class in high school. I really must add the following commentary which I feel neatly summarizes the subject: "You need only assume causality to refute the notion of "free will" (in the na

[alanschu]

Maybe you should start by thinking about experiences in life that would make you more LIKELY to do one thing or another, before you embrace the idea that biological and social factors (among others) determine our actions?

 

You said Killain before this, but it seems addressed to me.

[Rostere]

Yeah, but in the age of quantum physics and complex systems, that isn't good for much anymore. Hume may have been more right than he would have imagined...

 

Before we continue this discussion I would like to ask you a question: do you know (or do you think you could easily read up on) Clifford Algebra? (Also: complex systems is not really worth taking up here. The fact that the world is deterministic would not imply that you can't make good approximations of more complex processes you can't describe in detail (which Newton's law of universal gravitation proves))

 

Different experiences affect different people differently, no?

 

Absolutely correct.

 

Maybe you should start by thinking about experiences in life that would make you more LIKELY to do one thing or another, before you embrace the idea that biological and social factors (among others) determine our actions?

 

You said Killain before this, but it seems addressed to me.

 

It was meant to be addressed to Killian, but you are of course free to respond to it if you want

[Walsingham]

The problem is that the honourable forum member (who I usually call Sand) refuses point blank to have more than one policy on everything at once. Hence his attitude to an individual case of murder is the same as his attitude on teh entire concept. This is as crazy as my having the same view of lions whether one is in my bathroom or not.

[213374U]

Before we continue this discussion I would like to ask you a question: do you know (or do you think you could easily read up on) Clifford Algebra?

No, I don't think I can "easily" read up on advanced algebra, lol. I can read summaries and hopefully gain a superficial understanding of how one concept relates to another, but don't expect much more. I knew sooner or later I'd wish I had finished either of my degrees! Oh well.

 

What exactly do you want to discuss, anyway?

 

 

(Also: complex systems is not really worth taking up here. The fact that the world is deterministic would not imply that you can't make good approximations of more complex processes you can't describe in detail (which Newton's law of universal gravitation proves)

Yes. Statistics can describe the behaviour of complex systems, but that's still far from the classical concept of determinism.

[Guard Dog]

One of my best zinger posts ever got chopped up because LoF can't help being a nasty condescending jerk in his posts. But if he hadn't I'd have had nothing to zing.

[lord of flies]

One of my best zinger posts ever got chopped up because LoF can't help being a nasty condescending jerk in his posts. But if he hadn't I'd have had nothing to zing.

You think that your post was actually a zinger. That's quite sad. Sorry, everything you said was either never backed up with even a shred of evidence, or was whining about my tone.

 

The fact that I am a "nasty condescending jerk" in my posts (by the way, cry some more about that, it's quite amusing) is irrelevant. One can be correct and rude. One can be incorrect and rude. I am the former; you are the latter.

[Guard Dog]

You are one sour and humorless dude aren't you. I'm guessing you don't get laid much?

Edited October 31, 2009 by Guard Dog