Raw LLM Responses

I've tried to elaborate a more detailed response, but at least for now I couldn't organize my ideas properly. I'll try to summarize some main points for now though. 1. I extracted from your thoughts that you understand free will as a self-determined choice, which in turn can be understood in neuropsychological terms you properly described. I encourage you to make several distinctions, based on this definition. a) a computer also processes information, and emits outputs based on algorithms. Do computers have free will? If not, how are their processors any different than our brains, and their algorithms any different than the psychological factors that informed our choices (" past events, the amalgamation of memories, information, emotional state, hormones etc")? The only difference I can think of, is metacognition. We make our choices in some way, and we think about them. To cut to my point, free will, it appears, could merely be a narrative that certainly emerged in a specific socio-historical context which I do not have the knowledge to elaborate upon. 2. I suggest you try to decenter yourself from such an essentialist view of crime/deviance (read, for instance, Durkheim, or literature on the sociology of deviance). Society constructs norms and precribes them in the form of laws. Whether or not someone is punished can then be defined regardless of free will, as someone else has already commented: you punish to set the example or to eliminate undesirable behaviours from society, whether or not the deviant had a choice. But even if we are to consider addictions and mental health. Substances, diseases, or psychological unbalances can distort the processes which lead us to our decisions; and we might reach different decisions if not because of these influences. However, we can only say this is an instance of attenuated accountability if we assume there is a well-defined, single, coherent, continuous Self which is our true "Self". I do not believe this is true, and