> You just seem to have a problem with making that process more efficient.
No, I have a problem with that process being done without the consent of the person, even in cases where there the person has not harmed anyone else. I have asked you about that elsewhere in this discussion; your response will tell me whether it actually is an fundamental difference in our viewpoints or whether you are just describing things using very different terminology than I would use.
In cases where a person has harmed someone else, it's the fact that they have harmed someone else (more precisely, that they have harmed someone else without an extremely good reason, such as self-defense, for doing so) that creates the consequences I have talked about. There are consequences for people's choices regardless of whether we have a society or not. Sometimes, as a society, we alter the consequences from what they would be in a state of nature (for example, we put murderers on trial and then imprison them if they are found guilty, instead of just letting the families and friends of the murder victim take private vengeance, which is what would happen in a state of nature with no society). But it is simply ridiculous to say that respecting people's freedom of choice is inconsistent with there being consequences for people's choices. If you choose to jump off a cliff, you will die. If you choose to harm other people for no good reason, they will retaliate. Calling that "limiting freedom to choose" is just sophistry.
It isn't sophistry, it's showing that your own reasoning fails to hold because a word like choice is meaningless when you really analyze it. If free will doesn't exist, then there are no choices, only the illusion that you made a choice.
You keep getting hung up on the word "choice" instead of addressing the actual substance of what I'm saying. I don't see any point in further discussion on those terms.
Because you keep referring to choice and free will in a completely different definition than anyone coming along and reading this conversation understand it to me. It's intellectually dishonest and preys on minds that won't be able to distinguish the subtly and instead just see, "pdonis mention free will, me likely, updoot."
No, it isn't. The definition of free will that I am using is common in the literature on free will and cognitive science, i.e., among people who have actually worked on understanding how human brains work based on exactly the same physicalist principles that you say you believe. I also have disagreed several times with your claims about what "anyone coming along and reading this conversation" would understand.
I have responded to your misleading comment elsewhere, but in fact the commonly accepted definition of free will as known to the general English speaking population is that free will is not an illusion of choices but a direct ability to influence the world without prior cause, something that is IMPOSSIBLE according to the know laws of physics, both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Even the Copenhagen interpretation permits the universe is infinitely "splitting" to handle different "choices" or "events" happening.
As for your blatant attempt to misrepresent the cognitive science communities belief on the subject, again, put up or shut up by linking to anything that backs up your claim that current cognitive scientists support your point of view. I know for a FACT, that you can't because papers and talks on the subject are FREELY available to watch and/or read!
No, I have a problem with that process being done without the consent of the person, even in cases where there the person has not harmed anyone else. I have asked you about that elsewhere in this discussion; your response will tell me whether it actually is an fundamental difference in our viewpoints or whether you are just describing things using very different terminology than I would use.
In cases where a person has harmed someone else, it's the fact that they have harmed someone else (more precisely, that they have harmed someone else without an extremely good reason, such as self-defense, for doing so) that creates the consequences I have talked about. There are consequences for people's choices regardless of whether we have a society or not. Sometimes, as a society, we alter the consequences from what they would be in a state of nature (for example, we put murderers on trial and then imprison them if they are found guilty, instead of just letting the families and friends of the murder victim take private vengeance, which is what would happen in a state of nature with no society). But it is simply ridiculous to say that respecting people's freedom of choice is inconsistent with there being consequences for people's choices. If you choose to jump off a cliff, you will die. If you choose to harm other people for no good reason, they will retaliate. Calling that "limiting freedom to choose" is just sophistry.