I never INTENDED to hurt anyone.

Um... yes, yes you can - and yes, yes you can predict bias. You can, in fact, here's an entire paper over the concept:

https://alphaomegaalpha.org/pharos/PDFs/2017-1-Byyny.pdf

Reliable computer-based tests have been developed tomeasure implicit and unconscious bias. The most commonly used is the IAT, which measures differential association of two target concepts—male or female, black orwhite, good or bad—and relies on differences in responselatency to reveal unconscious bias. The larger the performance difference, the stronger the unconscious bias.Between 1998 and 2006, more than 4.5 million IAT testswere completed on the IAT website. The project foundthat:• Implicit bias is pervasive.• People are often unaware of their implicit biases.• Implicit biases predict behavior.• People differ in levels of implicit bias.21The IAT is a powerful and useful instrument to exploreand document the impact of bias on behavior. It can beused to increase awareness of cognitive bias, and helpindividuals and groups to compensate and learn about influences on decision-making and social interactions. TheIAT is available online at implicit.harvard.edu. It is freeand takes about 10 minutes to complete a test.

Not to mention deduction and induction, you empirically do not know what you are talking about

Except.... you can actually test for bias, you made a claim and it was demonstrably false - and you can use the same principles, PEOPLE DO IT ALL THE TIME

You can continue with your assertions and I won't bother you, but don't expect to convince other people without it.

(1) which of these hypothetical crimes is more of a danger to the public?

(3) are we really trying to punish people for thinking ahead and NOT being impulsive?

THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.

Let’s try something simpler. If I order a pizza, and then when the pizza came I ate it, could you say with reasonable confidence that my intention for calling the pizzeria was to eat pizza for dinner?

I would really love to hear your response to post #50

(1) which of these hypothetical crimes is more of a danger to the public?

We don’t punish crimes, we punish the people who commit them so your question is logically fallacious. The question is; which person is more of a danger to the public.

Answer: Person A

Person B is of course a danger as he demonstrated, but the difference is that Person B committed the robbery purely as a result of the circumstances surrounding him. Had an opportunity not presented itself to him, the crime would have never been committed.

Person A however ensured that the crime was committed. The status of the guard was irrelevant to him. He would not have allowed months of planning to go to waste.

(3) are we really trying to punish people for thinking ahead and NOT being impulsive?

Yes. The fact that someone thought ahead tells us a lot about their character, which tells us allot about the level of danger one presents to society.

Person A had months to think about it and never pulled back, this shows that it was not a mistake...

...as could be argued with Person B, rather this was something that Person A demonstrated to be in alignment with his/her core values as a human being.

Again, both of these are bad. No one is saying that Person B gets off the hook. Person A might get 20 years while Person B gets 15.

The point is that they’re not the same.

There are so many likely exceptions to your food based example.

Person (A) also committed the robbery (or more likely burglary) purely as a result of the circumstancessurrounding them.  Had an opportunity not presented itself to them, the crime would have never been committed.

The key difference here is that person (A) planned out their heist presumably with the goal to mitigate potential harm to bystanders and bank employees if for no other reason than to increase their perceived chances of not being eventually captured by the authorities.

Isn't it obvious that someone who is able to demonstrate restraint and actually takes the time to think about something before they do it, isn't it obvious that this is behavior we should generally encourage in our citizens?

I'm not sure you can distill someone's "core values" simply by observing a single snapshot of their life experience.

The fact that some people lose their appetite is irrelevant. My wife does this to me all the time, she asks me to heat something up for her and then she ends up not eating it. But so what? It is still clear that she intended to eat it when she asked for it.

I just don’t get it. Do you really live your life never thinking that you know someone else’s intent? Do you not question when someone acts uncharacteristically nice to you and try to figure it out? If someone asks to borrow something from you, do you not consider whether you think they plan to give it back? Do you trust anyone in your life? If so, what is trust if not a high degree of confidence that someone else has good intentions? This is as basic as human interaction gets. It’s nearly impossible for you to have any working relationship with another human being if you don’t.

The key difference here is that person (A) planned out their heist presumably with the goal to mitigate potential harm to bystanders and bank employees if for no other reason than to increase their perceived chances of not being eventually captured by the authorities.

This is just semantics. Everything we do can be said to be a result of our circumstances, they don’t apply equally here.

Isn't it obvious that someone who is able to demonstrate restraint and actually takes the time to think about something before they do it, isn't it obvious that this is behavior we should generally encourage in our citizens?

Of course it is, that’s why the crime is not excusable regardless of whether it was premeditated.

I'm not sure you can distill someone's "core values" simply by observing a single snapshot of their life experience.

That’s the whole point. For Person B this was just a snap shot. For Person A it wasn’t.

That’s the whole point. For Person B this was just a snap shot. For Person A it wasn’t.

How does "ordering food" increase the penalty for "eating food" when "ordering food" itself is NOT punishable at all when the "food is NOT eaten".

I used to think I could predict someone else's actions by their intentions alone.

It's easy to think that people who disappoint you were never sincere in the first place.

But experience has taught me this is not the case.

How is my example disqualified as "just semantics" and your example (which is functionally identical) is somehow immune to the exact same objection.

Why would premeditation INCREASE punishment?

Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?

Predicting actions had nothing to do with this. Our conversation is about whether we can tell someone’s intent, and whether intent matters when judging someone’s actions.

It's easy to think that people who disappoint you were never sincere in the first place.

But experience has taught me this is not the case.

How do you know this? Judging ones sincerity is judging ones intent.

This was in reference to my pointing out that Person B acted purely out of his circumstances. I was talking about immediate circumstances. The day to day things that change on a dime, like the route you happened to be walking. You then equated that to person A’s circumstances, as in his position in life and the environment he lived within. Those are entirely different things. The former tests your impulses, the latter tests your character as a human being.

Why would premeditation INCREASE punishment?

Have you never done something in the spur of the moment and immediately regretted it? Have you never taken time to think about something and then realized whatever you were thinking is a bad idea?

Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?

Phenomenal question

Is a "bad" person capable of "good" deeds?

Is a "good" person capable of "bad" deeds?

Impulse control is quantifiable and is a primary predictor of anti-social and aberrant behavior.

Just because the program isn't INTENTIONALLY unfair, this immunity to INTENTIONALITY does not mean that the computer program IS ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY FAIR.

Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?

We judge individuals based on the totality of their actions with regards to their intent. Why does intent come into the equation? Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident. Or, at least I used to think we could all agree on that...

Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident.

Impulse control is quantifiable and is a primary predictor of anti-social and aberrant behavior.

Yes, it is also a skill that can be learned.

Therefore the difference between someone who suffers from impulse control has a path to improvement.

Someone who acts badly with malice and forethought has no path because they don’t want one.

Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident.

Perhaps it would facilitate the conversation to state plainly exactly what that difference is, how we can FUNCTIONALLY tell the difference between the two states of affairs and what, if any, specific course of action this would seem to dictate.

Just because the program isn't INTENTIONALLY unfair, this immunity to INTENTIONALITY does not mean that the computer program IS ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY FAIR.

That depends on how you are determining what is fair. The program calculates based on the premises imported into it, so late payment will cost you X amount of points no matter who has one. Whether X is fair is an entirely different question.

I fail to see how this relates.

Human decision making and action is NOT fundamentally distinguishable from the "purely neutral" computer program.