New Discovery

[Atla]

Yet, here, you are believing, and claiming, absolutes. Does 'this' make 'you' a so-called, 'Sith'?

And, what even is a "sith", to 'you', exactly?

Then quote me claiming absolutes, quoting shouldn't be all too hard for God.

1. What is the word, 'Then', even in relation to, exactly?

2. I asked you two clarifying questions, and AGAIN you failed ABSOLUTELY to answer them.

3.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

What's the matter God, can't quote me claiming absolutes? You don't want us to think that you can't back up your word, do you?

[Ansiktsburk]

Read the text with a little help of a digtal friend who summarized it for me as well as translated that summary to a language more readable for me.

Sounds pretty stringent, Spinoza like.

Any ideas how this is supposed to happen? Why should I not go to a pub, get pissed and run over a pedestrian on my way home driving my card way too fast?

But, 'the text' is telling you that you had no other choice other than to go the pub, which you did, got pissed, drive way too fast, and run over a pedestrian. And, you were always pre-destined to do so, anyway.

Well, if you’ve read it word by word I have to take your word for that. It seemed to me rather be a way of thinking, reading the ”shorter version”. If it indeed really does advocate for belief in hard core materialism I will point to Bergson and leave the subject at that.

[peacegirl]

Once more, 'you' are believing, absolutely, your own made up assumptions. Which from the very outset are absolutely False and Incorrect.

And, it is for this very reason why you are, relatively, getting absolutely nowhere, here.

I suggest you become open, first, and then begin discussing, here.

I think our discussion is over Age. You keep telling me I'm wrong when you ask no questions. It's not worth it to me to continue on.

Lol Here 'we' have another prime example of what happens to one when they assume and believe things.

I have asked questions, although 'this one' believes I have not. And, it is was, obviously, by me asking questions 'this one' questions why 'this one' was providing responses.

No you haven't. You are not truly interested. You're on the warpath.

Now, 'this one' believes absolutely that its responses are absolutely right, without even just considering what any one points out and shows. As can be clearly seen by 'this one's' responses to others, here

What seems to be bothering you is that you don't like that I won't admit that it's not a discovery, which then entitles you to argue.

[FlashDangerpants]

Poor peacegirl. Her only workable option against Atla is to take Blackburn's lead and point out that we are definitionally - tautologically and a priori indeed - required to view his choice as the one which conformed with the sum of his mental states at the time (beliefs, desires etc) and that the alternative is not to view it as any sort of rational choice at all, but simply a random moment of brain-fart, temporary possession by the devil, or the beginnings of a mental illness or something like that.

I don't think that any alternative choice is irrational. It's about gathering information, and choosing what you believe is the best choice based on that information, after weighing the advantages or disadvantages of each potential choice. That's how most of us come to the decisions we make, especially if they are important ones. Deciding what we are going to eat for breakfast isn't one of them.

I get it. Talk of philosophical concepts like "a priori" is too technical for you. Thus you don't understand that whatever is rational is the output of a reasoned process, while everything that could have been, but is not the result of a reasoning process is irrational.

The problem I described is accurate. You would need to argue that it is inescapable that his choice must be the result of his desires and beliefs even if his own reasoning was partially unconscious, because we use the belief/desire/motivation as our 'a priori principle of explanation'. We know before the decision is made that it will be interpreted this way, we have no way to interpret otherwise. The only problem is that you cannot discover such a principle, nor use it as the basis for discoveries.

You ventured betwixt rock and hard place.

[Age]

Then quote me claiming absolutes, quoting shouldn't be all too hard for God.

1. What is the word, 'Then', even in relation to, exactly?

2. I asked you two clarifying questions, and AGAIN you failed ABSOLUTELY to answer them.

3.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

What's the matter God, can't quote me claiming absolutes?

LOL I just did. So, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of just how closed one becomes when they hold beliefs.

'This one' believes, so much or absolutely, that I could not present a quote of it claiming an absolute that it actually could not recognize and see when I actually did it. Again, while one is believing some thing, then they are deaf, blind, and closed off, to any thing contrary or opposing their belief. As 'this one' just proved absolutely True, for me, once more.

You don't want us to think that you can't back up your word, do you?

'I' do not care what 'you' adult human beings think. In fact I love it when you present what 'you' think, assume and believe. As 'you' doing so proves what 'I' say and claim.

[Age]

Read the text with a little help of a digtal friend who summarized it for me as well as translated that summary to a language more readable for me.

Sounds pretty stringent, Spinoza like.

Any ideas how this is supposed to happen? Why should I not go to a pub, get pissed and run over a pedestrian on my way home driving my card way too fast?

But, 'the text' is telling you that you had no other choice other than to go the pub, which you did, got pissed, drive way too fast, and run over a pedestrian. And, you were always pre-destined to do so, anyway.

Well, if you’ve read it word by word I have to take your word for that. It seemed to me rather be a way of thinking, reading the ”shorter version”. If it indeed really does advocate for belief in hard core materialism I will point to Bergson and leave the subject at that.

Why did you use the word, 'materialism', here for, exactly?

'The text' has been claiming that there is 'determinism', only, and no 'free will', at all. Which therefore means you would have absolute no other choice than to to go the pub and run over that pedestrian.

[Age]

I think our discussion is over Age. You keep telling me I'm wrong when you ask no questions. It's not worth it to me to continue on.

Lol Here 'we' have another prime example of what happens to one when they assume and believe things.

I have asked questions, although 'this one' believes I have not. And, it is was, obviously, by me asking questions 'this one' questions why 'this one' was providing responses.

No you haven't. You are not truly interested. You're on the warpath.

Again it is beliefs that prevent and stop you people from learning and understanding newer and more things.

I, obviously, asked 'this one' questions, yet because it believes otherwise, it is not even able to see that I clearly have. As proved by the questions that I have actually asked it.

And, 'this one' is so blinded by its belief that 'I' am against 'it' and on some so-called 'warpath', that it would not matter how 'I' questioned 'it' or responded to 'it', 'it' would always see that 'I' am on 'a warpath'.

Unless, of course, I said that I agreed with 'the one' that it worships, here, and praised 'that one'.

Now, 'this one' believes absolutely that its responses are absolutely right, without even just considering what any one points out and shows. As can be clearly seen by 'this one's' responses to others, here

What seems to be bothering you is that you don't like that I won't admit that it's not a discovery, which then entitles you to argue.

What are you even on about, here, now?

I have not even got to what the 'it' is, yet, let alone wanting you to admit that 'it' is not 'a discovery'. you appear to have 'me' mixed up with 'someone else', here.

[Atla]

1. What is the word, 'Then', even in relation to, exactly?

2. I asked you two clarifying questions, and AGAIN you failed ABSOLUTELY to answer them.

3.

What's the matter God, can't quote me claiming absolutes?

LOL I just did. So, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of just how closed one becomes when they hold beliefs.

'This one' believes, so much or absolutely, that I could not present a quote of it claiming an absolute that it actually could not recognize and see when I actually did it. Again, while one is believing some thing, then they are deaf, blind, and closed off, to any thing contrary or opposing their belief. As 'this one' just proved absolutely True, for me, once more.

You don't want us to think that you can't back up your word, do you?

'I' do not care what 'you' adult human beings think. In fact I love it when you present what 'you' think, assume and believe. As 'you' doing so proves what 'I' say and claim.

You haven't quoted me claiming an absolute yet you claim the opposite, which shows that God is a blatant liar.

[Age]

What's the matter God, can't quote me claiming absolutes?

LOL I just did. So, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of just how closed one becomes when they hold beliefs.

'This one' believes, so much or absolutely, that I could not present a quote of it claiming an absolute that it actually could not recognize and see when I actually did it. Again, while one is believing some thing, then they are deaf, blind, and closed off, to any thing contrary or opposing their belief. As 'this one' just proved absolutely True, for me, once more.

You don't want us to think that you can't back up your word, do you?

'I' do not care what 'you' adult human beings think. In fact I love it when you present what 'you' think, assume and believe. As 'you' doing so proves what 'I' say and claim.

You haven't quoted me claiming an absolute yet you claim the opposite, which shows that God is a blatant liar.

LOL 'This one' just proved, once again, how beliefs blind people, absolutely.

And, once again, 'this one' resorts to about the only thing it can do, here, in "discussions", with me, and this is just resort to calling 'me' "a liar". Besides, of course, its continually attempt to ridicule and humiliate 'me'. Which has never ever worked, I will add.

[Age]

What's the matter God, can't quote me claiming absolutes?

LOL I just did. So, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of just how closed one becomes when they hold beliefs.

'This one' believes, so much or absolutely, that I could not present a quote of it claiming an absolute that it actually could not recognize and see when I actually did it. Again, while one is believing some thing, then they are deaf, blind, and closed off, to any thing contrary or opposing their belief. As 'this one' just proved absolutely True, for me, once more.

You don't want us to think that you can't back up your word, do you?

'I' do not care what 'you' adult human beings think. In fact I love it when you present what 'you' think, assume and believe. As 'you' doing so proves what 'I' say and claim.

You haven't quoted me claiming an absolute yet you claim the opposite.

Is there any other human being, in this forum, who also can not see where I quoted "atla" claiming an 'absolute'.

[Atla]

LOL I just did. So, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of just how closed one becomes when they hold beliefs.

'This one' believes, so much or absolutely, that I could not present a quote of it claiming an absolute that it actually could not recognize and see when I actually did it. Again, while one is believing some thing, then they are deaf, blind, and closed off, to any thing contrary or opposing their belief. As 'this one' just proved absolutely True, for me, once more.



'I' do not care what 'you' adult human beings think. In fact I love it when you present what 'you' think, assume and believe. As 'you' doing so proves what 'I' say and claim.

You haven't quoted me claiming an absolute yet you claim the opposite, which shows that God is a blatant liar.

LOL 'This one' just proved, once again, how beliefs blind people, absolutely.

And, once again, 'this one' resorts to about the only thing it can do, here, in "discussions", with me, and this is just resort to calling 'me' "a liar". Besides, of course, its continually attempt to ridicule and humiliate 'me'. Which has never ever worked, I will add.

But I'm not in a discussion with you. I'm just pointing out the fact that you butted in and started lying, because that's all you can do.

[peacegirl]

This only relates to first blows. The reason knowing in advance that you will not be blamed which prevents you from striking this first blow is that in order to strike a first blow (to gain at their expense of someone else) needs a justification. That is how conscience works. In a free will society, our conscience does not reach the temperature required to prevent this hurt to others. We know that if we do something to hurt someone and are questioned by the authorities, we can come up with excuses by telling them why it wasn't our fault or by shifting our responsibility to someone or something else as the cause for what we know we did. Knowing in advance that we will be blamed gives us the necessary justification to carry through with what we have been contemplating. If our excuses fall on deaf ears and we can't get off the hook, we are punished, which is payment in full for what we did, which also eases conscience. But when we are not being blamed or being held responsible (since everyone knows our will is not free), then we can't pay a price because it's beyond our purchasing power since our responsibility cannot be shifted away from ourselves. IOW, a free will society of blame and punishment gives us the advance justification to do the very thing these threats of punishment are trying to prevent. But when we know in advance that no one in the world, not even the one to be hurt, will question or blame us or hold us responsible, when we know that we would be responsible (the two-sided equation), then we cannot proceed with what we are about to do, because our conscience would never permit it, thereby preventing the act.

Again, it's beyond me why you think that people want to pay for their crimes. Most murderers today try to hide their tracks, in order to not be blamed. What would stop them is that if we had better surveillance, they would get caught and be blamed, punished. I'd say many of those murderers fall within the range of average human conscience. Their satifaction outweighs their guilt, so they must commit the crime, it's your law.

People don't want to pay for their crimes. They want to satisfy their desires free of charge, which is what threats of punishment allow them to do because the price has already been paid. It just so happens that having better surveillance would not only not help the issue, but it would hurt it and allow them to get away with their crimes with no remorse or hesitation of what they have done or are about to do.

Again, why do you think that my justification to strike a first blow, depends so thoroughly on whether or not I'll be blamed?:{/quote]

Blame gives us a way to shift responsibility. The advance knowledge that we will be blame and punished if caught [paradoxically] gives us the very justification to do that which we are being accused.

I don't think it does, at all. I still think that knowing in advance that I won't be blamed, would actually slightly increase my justification to do the crime, but either way it's not a major factor.

It is a huge factor, for without any justification to hurt others, we cannot do it. This is how conscience works and there is no getting around it.

Maybe you really think that people with fully functioning consciences WANT to be fully punished for their crimes, they think that they deserve to be fully punished?

Of course not. No one wants the burden of responsibility for causing harm without justification. This is how conscience works. This is why knowing in ad ance we will be blamed gives us the very justification we need because it is the price we are willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires and regardless of who gets hurt.

And again, in a fairy tale world where everyone has such high conscience, so people won't initiate crimes anyway, what need is there to mess with blame in the first place?

Conscience works on the principle of fairness. When we can get around conscience by paying for what we have done, conscience will not have a problem. It is only when we cannot pay a price that conscience says, "No way is this acceptable." IOW, when all blame is removed, this also removes our ability to excuse what we have done because no one is blaming us or holding us responsible. This is something conscience cannot tolerate.

[Atla]

This only relates to first blows. The reason knowing in advance that you will not be blamed which prevents you from striking this first blow is that in order to strike a first blow (to gain at their expense of someone else) needs a justification. That is how conscience works. In a free will society, our conscience does not reach the temperature required to prevent this hurt to others. We know that if we do something to hurt someone and are questioned by the authorities, we can come up with excuses by telling them why it wasn't our fault or by shifting our responsibility to someone or something else as the cause for what we know we did. Knowing in advance that we will be blamed gives us the necessary justification to carry through with what we have been contemplating. If our excuses fall on deaf ears and we can't get off the hook, we are punished, which is payment in full for what we did, which also eases conscience. But when we are not being blamed or being held responsible (since everyone knows our will is not free), then we can't pay a price because it's beyond our purchasing power since our responsibility cannot be shifted away from ourselves. IOW, a free will society of blame and punishment gives us the advance justification to do the very thing these threats of punishment are trying to prevent. But when we know in advance that no one in the world, not even the one to be hurt, will question or blame us or hold us responsible, when we know that we would be responsible (the two-sided equation), then we cannot proceed with what we are about to do, because our conscience would never permit it, thereby preventing the act.

Again, it's beyond me why you think that people want to pay for their crimes. Most murderers today try to hide their tracks, in order to not be blamed. What would stop them is that if we had better surveillance, they would get caught and be blamed, punished. I'd say many of those murderers fall within the range of average human conscience. Their satifaction outweighs their guilt, so they must commit the crime, it's your law.

People don't want to pay for their crimes. They want to satisfy their desires free of charge, which is what threats of punishment allow them to do because the price has already been paid. It just so happens that having better surveillance would not only not help the issue, but it would hurt it and allow them to get away with their crimes with no remorse or hesitation of what they have done or are about to do.

Again, why do you think that my justification to strike a first blow, depends so thoroughly on whether or not I'll be blamed?:{/quote]

Blame gives us a way to shift responsibility. The advance knowledge that we will be blame and punished if caught [paradoxically] gives us the very justification to do that which we are being accused.

I don't think it does, at all. I still think that knowing in advance that I won't be blamed, would actually slightly increase my justification to do the crime, but either way it's not a major factor.

It is a huge factor, for without any justification to hurt others, we cannot do it. This is how conscience works and there is no getting around it.

Maybe you really think that people with fully functioning consciences WANT to be fully punished for their crimes, they think that they deserve to be fully punished?

Of course not. No one wants the burden of responsibility for causing harm without justification. This is how conscience works. This is why knowing they will be blamed gives them the very justification they need because it is the price they are willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires and regardless of who gets hurt.

And again, in a fairy tale world where everyone has such high conscience, so people won't initiate crimes anyway, what need is there to mess with blame in the first place?

You are right. Blame will not be a factor when people don't do those things where blame was previously necessary in a free will society. But when the world knows there will be no blame henceforth no matter what a person does --- especially when they are given a guarantee that they will always have a basic standard of living (which prevents their need to hurt others in order not to be a loser) --- there will be a drastic change in human conduct.

Okay I think we can conclude this, let's agree to disagree.

I know why there won't be a drastic change, and this is again the main reason why imo the book is nonsense. As I said you and your father have no idea about people, psychology. The conscience of the average human, the guilt felt by the average human, is maybe half as strong or third as strong as you two imagine it. The paradoxical effect you talk about will be nowhere near enough to stop most people from committing crimes, dropping blame will more often than not just make things worse.

There is only one way, for any utopia first you'll have to make people's consciences a lot stronger (and also make them more intelligent btw):

Now that we have both Age and peacegirl here, I shall reveal how we could actually get a chance at the Golden Age of humanity. Get a chance at survival, really.

By increasing the average IQ of humans by 20-30 points, while also increasing their average EQ/empathethic ability by 20-30%. Using genetic engineering, gene expression modification, and other techniques.

That's it, that's the only way. Aside from that, all we can do is pray for a huge technological miracle, or maybe that aliens will save us, or maybe that God will intervene.

But reinterpreting blame, or learning Age's openness technique? Grow up.

After which we won't need any more grand utopistic program anyway. The whole thing about determinism and blame is largely irrelevant.

[Age]

You haven't quoted me claiming an absolute yet you claim the opposite, which shows that God is a blatant liar.

LOL 'This one' just proved, once again, how beliefs blind people, absolutely.

And, once again, 'this one' resorts to about the only thing it can do, here, in "discussions", with me, and this is just resort to calling 'me' "a liar". Besides, of course, its continually attempt to ridicule and humiliate 'me'. Which has never ever worked, I will add.

But I'm not in a discussion with you. I'm just pointing out the fact that you butted in and started lying, because that's all you can do.

Okay, if 'this' is what you want to believe is true, then 'I' will leave 'you', to 'it'.

[peacegirl]

Again, it's beyond me why you think that people want to pay for their crimes. Most murderers today try to hide their tracks, in order to not be blamed. What would stop them is that if we had better surveillance, they would get caught and be blamed, punished. I'd say many of those murderers fall within the range of average human conscience. Their satifaction outweighs their guilt, so they must commit the crime, it's your law.

People don't want to pay for their crimes. They want to satisfy their desires free of charge, which is what threats of punishment allow them to do because the price has already been paid. It just so happens that having better surveillance would not only not help the issue, but it would hurt it and allow them to get away with their crimes with no remorse or hesitation of what they have done or are about to do.

Again, why do you think that my justification to strike a first blow, depends so thoroughly on whether or not I'll be blamed?:{/quote]

Blame gives us a way to shift responsibility. The advance knowledge that we will be blame and punished if caught [paradoxically] gives us the very justification to do that which we are being accused.

I don't think it does, at all. I still think that knowing in advance that I won't be blamed, would actually slightly increase my justification to do the crime, but either way it's not a major factor.

It is a huge factor, for without any justification to hurt others, we cannot do it. This is how conscience works and there is no getting around it.

Maybe you really think that people with fully functioning consciences WANT to be fully punished for their crimes, they think that they deserve to be fully punished?

Of course not. No one wants the burden of responsibility for causing harm without justification. This is how conscience works. This is why knowing they will be blamed gives them the very justification they need because it is the price they are willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires and regardless of who gets hurt.

And again, in a fairy tale world where everyone has such high conscience, so people won't initiate crimes anyway, what need is there to mess with blame in the first place?

You are right. Blame will not be a factor when people don't do those things where blame was previously necessary in a free will society. But when the world knows there will be no blame henceforth no matter what a person does --- especially when they are given a guarantee that they will always have a basic standard of living (which prevents their need to hurt others in order not to be a loser) --- there will be a drastic change in human conduct.

Okay I think we can conclude this, let's agree to disagree.

I know why there won't be a drastic change, and this is again the main reason why imo the book is nonsense. As I said you and your father have no idea about people, psychology. The conscience of the average human, the guilt felt by the average human, is maybe half as strong or third as strong as you two imagine it. The paradoxical effect you talk about will be nowhere near enough to stop most people from committing crimes, dropping blame will more often than not just make things worse.

There is only one way, for any utopia first you'll have to make people's consciences a lot stronger (and also make them more intelligent btw):

Now that we have both Age and peacegirl here, I shall reveal how we could actually get a chance at the Golden Age of humanity. Get a chance at survival, really.

By increasing the average IQ of humans by 20-30 points, while also increasing their average EQ/empathethic ability by 20-30%. Using genetic engineering, gene expression modification, and other techniques.

That's it, that's the only way. Aside from that, all we can do is pray for a huge technological miracle, or maybe that aliens will save us, or maybe that God will intervene.

But reinterpreting blame, or learning Age's openness technique? Grow up.

After which we won't need any more grand utopistic program anyway. The whole thing about determinism and blame is largely irrelevant.

You are very premature in your understanding, but that's okay. You can move on. I won't blame you.