Revolution in Thought

[Belinda]

I was going to reply but instead I decided to be advised by Ahimsa Summary.

[Atla]

This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism.

There isn't anything locked behind the door of determinism. Even if we see the world as fundamentally deterministic, most people will just go on as if they had free will, because why not. Life is better that way.

[peacegirl]

This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism.

There isn't anything locked behind the door of determinism.

Yes there is; how to overcome the implications of determinism which, when understood and applied, will put us on a new trajectory in terms of human conduct.

Even if we see the world as fundamentally deterministic, most people will just go on as if they had free will, because why not. Life is better that way.

Acting as if we are free is perfectly fine, but the problem arises when we use this belief to punish and blame, which is the cornerstone of all civilization up to this point. I am not saying that this hasn't been necessary as a deterrent. But there is a better way.

[Atla]

This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism.

There isn't anything locked behind the door of determinism.

Yes there is; how to overcome the implications of determinism which, when understood and applied, will put us on a new trajectory in terms of human conduct.

Even if we see the world as fundamentally deterministic, most people will just go on as if they had free will, because why not. Life is better that way.

Acting as if we are free is perfectly fine, but the problem arises when we use this belief to punish and blame, which is the cornerstone of all civilization up to this point. I am not saying that this hasn't been necessary as a deterrent. But there is a better way.

Like what? Most people will behave as they always have, so punish and blame will have to remain more or less the same as well.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

Acting as if we are free is perfectly fine, but the problem arises when we use this belief to punish and blame, which is the cornerstone of all civilization up to this point. I am not saying that this hasn't been necessary as a deterrent. But there is a better way.

I agree. The ethical implication of determinism is that it's irrational to blame.

[Logik]

I agree. The ethical implication of determinism is that it's irrational to blame.

It is the same ethical implication as non-determinism also.

Blame is always retrospective. A posteriori of an error being made and a consequence being suffered. You are still faced with Hanlon's razor.

If it was accidental mistake and assigning blame (which is nothing more than a shaming/remorse tactic) does not reduce the error-rate it doesn't work.
If it was an intentional mistake and punishment doesn't reduce the error-rate it doesn't work.

Post-hoc intervention is always about reducing future reoccurrence, not punishing past mistakes.

[Belinda]

I agree. The ethical implication of determinism is that it's irrational to blame.

It is the same ethical implication as non-determinism also.

Blame is always retrospective. A posteriori of an error being made and a consequence being suffered. You are still faced with Hanlon's razor.

If it was accidental mistake and assigning blame (which is nothing more than a shaming/remorse tactic) does not reduce the error-rate it doesn't work.
If it was an intentional mistake and punishment doesn't reduce the error-rate it doesn't work.

Post-hoc intervention is always about reducing future reoccurrence, not punishing past mistakes.

What is non-determism ? Do you mean Free Will?

[Logik]

What is non-determism ? Do you mean Free Will?

The contra-positive of determinism.

The status quo.

The assumption embedded in our legal systems today: agency and blame-allocation.

[Belinda]

What is non-determism ? Do you mean Free Will?

The contra-positive of determinism.

The status quo.

The assumption embedded in our legal systems today: agency and blame-allocation.

I don't know how else law and order can be maintained other than by this pretence.

[Logik]

I don't know how else law and order can be maintained other than by this pretence.

There's a baked in assumption in your claim.

You think law&order is maintained BECAUSE we punish people.
Or is it because people fear being punished?

Would law&order still work if people were fearless?

It creates a rather perverse inequality - those who fear punishment and adhere to rules are kept under control.
Those who don't - benefit unfairly from breaking the rules.

Women are more risk averse than men... would explain the prison demographic.

Another example: countries which impose the death penalty have absolutely no measurable effect on violent crimes.

[peacegirl]

There isn't anything locked behind the door of determinism.

Yes there is; how to overcome the implications of determinism which, when understood and applied, will put us on a new trajectory in terms of human conduct.

Even if we see the world as fundamentally deterministic, most people will just go on as if they had free will, because why not. Life is better that way.

Acting as if we are free is perfectly fine, but the problem arises when we use this belief to punish and blame, which is the cornerstone of all civilization up to this point. I am not saying that this hasn't been necessary as a deterrent. But there is a better way.

Like what?

That's what this discovery is about. It can't be explained in a few words. Why don't you read the first three chapters? Then you'll understand what I'm talking about.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek

Most people will behave as they always have, so punish and blame will have to remain more or less the same as well.

Most people will behave the way they always have unless there is a change in the environment. Punishment and blame are aspects of our present environment, but as I said, there is a better way. This discovery brings about a huge paradigm shift.

[-1-]

I don't know how else law and order can be maintained other than by this pretence.

There's a baked in assumption in your claim.

You think law&order is maintained BECAUSE we punish people.
Or is it because people fear being punished?

Would law&order still work if people were fearless?

It creates a rather perverse inequality - those who fear punishment and adhere to rules are kept under control.
Those who don't - benefit unfairly from breaking the rules.

Women are more risk averse than men... would explain the prison demographic.

Another example: countries which impose the death penalty have absolutely no measurable effect on violent crimes.

Logic, you quasi-applied an equivocation fallacy.

To fear the law, to fear god, is not necessarily fear; it is a willingness to obey, in most instances.

I am willing to obey the law because I wish to avoid being put in jail. I am not afraid of being put in jail, because I make sure I avoid the situation in which that would be the end result or the potential end result.

So if all people were fearless, then most of them still would not commit crimes, because fearlessness is a lack of fear, but not a lack of foresight.

Otherwise I agree with you.

[-1-]

Peacegirl, are you the same user as prof, in sheep's clothing?

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek

Prof's been pushing his publication forever about a better, brighter tomorrow by victory of his theory over all evil in this world.

I would like to read this book you are promoting, but I can't read more than three sentences stuck together, end-to-end.

[Logik]

To fear the law, to fear god, is not necessarily fear; it is a willingness to obey, in most instances.

Semantics. I am talking about measurable consequences from a holistic point of view.

If the most draconian laws do not result in reduction of crime rates - they don't work.

So punishment is only for punishment's sake.

I am willing to obey the law because I wish to avoid being put in jail.

You are reasoning in absolutes.

I also wish to avoid being put in jai like I wish to avoid getting cancer.
There is steps and measures I can take to minimise my risk of both.

Both a priori AND a posteriori diagnosis/arrest.

So if all people were fearless, then they still would not commit crimes, because fearlessness is a lack of fear, but not a lack of foresight.

That argument only works if the legal system was perfect. And every crime resulted it punishment.

It doesn't. Depending on the country you live in the efficiency of the legal system is between 8 and 40%. So there's still 60% to 92% chance of getting away with murder!

It's a numbers game - like all life choices. In the end - some people will always be more comfortable with taking risks than others.
That is why laws have undesirable consequences on the risk-averse.

What prevents me from murdering is I don't want to. Not the fear of jail. I know how to game any system to my advantage.

You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em...

[-1-]

I know how to game any system to my advantage.

I doubt you know how to beat the biggest odds... two sure things in life. I beat one of them. By not earning any money ever.

The other one is an empirically expected outcome, which can only be proven true by its happening... but hey, it's too late then to cognitively process the inevitability of the challenge.

Ha!