New Discovery

[peacegirl]

If you’re so positive he was wrong, then we’re done

Peacegirl is the internet's most abundant source of empty threats to stop talking to people.

Boring.

[Atla]

You never even read Chapter Three which shows how this principle works in real life.

You mean how your father claims it would work in real life, but actually wouldn't. Good thing I didn't read it then.

Looks like your father started from the paradeterminism and then looked for something additional, so he came up with the conscience thing. But that looks pretty forced, does he really know the conscience of humans? No he doesn't, he just absolutely needed something in addition to the paradeterminism. Never mind that his discovery doesn't actually work.

[peacegirl]

You never even read Chapter Three which shows how this principle works in real life.

You mean how your father claims it would work in real life, but actually wouldn't. Good thing I didn't read it then.

You cannot be for real. Did you look at it? You all are seriously ruining it for yourselves and for people tuning in. I am not invested here anymore because you are only out to crush this author by false conclusions. It's a no-win for me and it's exhausting with nothing to show for it.

Looks like your father started from the paradeterminism and then looked for something additional, so he came up with the conscience thing.

What is paradeterminism? Do you mean parametric determinism? BTW, he didn't look for anything additional coming up with a conscience thing. He extended the knowledge that we have no free will to see where it took him. NO ONE HAS DONE THAT. From this exploration, he saw how conscience works under these changed conditions of a no blame world. It is true that someone who has been hurt in the past could use this hurt as a justification to strike, even at random, which is just misplaced rage. This is why at the end of chapter two he wrote how this law can prevent the perpetrator from ever repeating his crimes again. Conscience is God given, not something thought up as some filler. It is a central piece and why it is the very thing that will stop a person from hurting another if it cannot be justified. We are born with a rudimentary conscience but, as I wrote earlier, it hasn't been able to reach the temperature necessary to prevent the very crimes that can be now prevented with this new knowledge.

[Atla]

He extended the knowledge that we have no free will to see where it took him. NO ONE HAS DONE THAT.

No one has done that? That would mean that every other determinist is mentally retarded. They can't think.

Conscience is God given

I see I missed the crucial final ingredient.

[FlashDangerpants]

Conscience is God given

I see I missed the crucial final ingredient.

Pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy and pseudoreligion all wrapped up in one flaming bag of dog turds.

But if you check out this thread....
viewtopic.php?p=788574#p788574
Eggnog7 just awarded himself an IQ of 200

I don't think peacegirl can compete with the inhouse loons we already had. She needs to share that gooey posthuman afterlife goodness if she wants to keep up with the turbonutters.

[peacegirl]

He extended the knowledge that we have no free will to see where it took him. NO ONE HAS DONE THAT.

No one has done that? That would mean that every other determinist is mentally retarded. They can't think.

What is with you? Why are you so defensive? Philosophers could not get beyond the implications and still can't. You say you're a determinist even though it's good to hold people responsible. Of course we have to protect the public from criminal behavior, but when you use the word "punish" it indicates that this blame is justified because it implies that the person could have done otherwise. Would you punish a person with a brain tumor? Of course not but that's the disconnect. Compatibilists, for example, make up their own definition of what is considered a free act vs an act that is beyond control, not realizing that all determinist acts are beyond control. Scientists know that harsh punishment doesn't change the recidivism rate. Determinists would then say that holding people accountable is not punishment; it's rehabilitation, which is a kinder form of incarceration that is more compassionate. It still doesn't solve the deeper problem. Look at this world and tell me if you think our system of justice is working.

This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals the infinite wisdom guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought standard and touchstone of truth and reality but also that elixir of alchemy, for with it the baser metals of human nature are going to be magically transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on this planet and for all generations to come. Please be perfectly honest, who can object to relinquishing the belief in free will when the key to the decline and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies behind the door of determinism?
In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop.

The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial.

Conscience is God given

I see I missed the crucial final ingredient.

Yep, it is a crucial ingredient. Take it up with God if you don't like it.

[peacegirl]

Conscience is God given

I see I missed the crucial final ingredient.

Pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy and pseudoreligion all wrapped up in one flaming bag of dog turds.

But if you check out this thread....
viewtopic.php?p=788574#p788574
Eggnog7 just awarded himself an IQ of 200

I don't think peacegirl can compete with the inhouse loons we already had. She needs to share that gooey posthuman afterlife goodness if she wants to keep up with the turbonutters.

I don't know who these people are, and I don't care to know. In every forum I've been to, I've seen the likes of you FD, and it's rotten to the core. It must give you a great deal of satisfaction putting others down, which puts you on a fake pedestal. There is no way in hell I would share this chapter with you. You wouldn't understand it first attempt, and then you would weaponize it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't know who these people are, and I don't care to know. In every forum I've been to, I've seen the likes of you FD, and it's rotten to the core. It must give you a great deal of satisfaction putting others down, which puts you on a fake pedestal. There is no way in hell I would share this chapter with you. You wouldn't understand it first attempt, and then you would weaponize it.

Also I haven't purchased it, and you are only here to sell merchandise.

[peacegirl]

I don't know who these people are, and I don't care to know. In every forum I've been to, I've seen the likes of you FD, and it's rotten to the core. It must give you a great deal of satisfaction putting others down, which puts you on a fake pedestal. There is no way in hell I would share this chapter with you. You wouldn't understand it first attempt, and then you would weaponize it.

Also I haven't purchased it, and you are only here to sell merchandise.

Repeat repeat repeat. That's all you have left.

[Atla]

What is with you? Why are you so defensive? Philosophers could not get beyond the implications and still can't. You say you're a determinist even though it's good to hold people responsible. Of course we have to protect the public from criminal behavior, but when you use the word "punish" it indicates that this blame is justified because it implies that the person could have done otherwise. Would you punish a person with a brain tumor? Of course not but that's the disconnect. Compatibilists, for example, make up their own definition of what is considered a free act vs an act that is beyond control, not realizing that all determinist acts are beyond control. Scientists know that harsh punishment doesn't change the recidivism rate. Determinists would then say that holding people accountable is not punishment; it's rehabilitation, which is a kinder form of incarceration that is more compassionate. It still doesn't solve the deeper problem. Look at this world and tell me if you think our system of justice is working.

Irrelevant, childish, idiotic hogwash. Who cares about the lack of free will when it's psychological will, psychological control that matters? Punishment doesn't need free will, and of course the blame is justified. You don't have psychological control over a brain tumor. Who said anything about harsh punishment?

And just who do you think you are that just because we all happen to live in a shit world, AND EVERYONE IS SUFFERING, you have the right to waltz in and proclaim that you and your father's obviously bullshit theory would save us, and it's our fault for not listeing? That's called victim blaming, you holier-than-thou little shit. YOU are part of the reason why this world can't get anywhere.

Which is of course something I already covered, as I said we also need to enhance the average IQ of humans using genetic engineering etc. It's not possible to get anywhere with people like you.

Yep, it is a crucial ingredient. Take it up with God if you don't like it.

Lol

[peacegirl]

What is with you? Why are you so defensive? Philosophers could not get beyond the implications and still can't. You say you're a determinist even though it's good to hold people responsible. Of course we have to protect the public from criminal behavior, but when you use the word "punish" it indicates that this blame is justified because it implies that the person could have done otherwise. Would you punish a person with a brain tumor? Of course not but that's the disconnect. Compatibilists, for example, make up their own definition of what is considered a free act vs an act that is beyond control, not realizing that all determinist acts are beyond control. Scientists know that harsh punishment doesn't change the recidivism rate. Determinists would then say that holding people accountable is not punishment; it's rehabilitation, which is a kinder form of incarceration that is more compassionate. It still doesn't solve the deeper problem. Look at this world and tell me if you think our system of justice is working.

Irrelevant, childish, idiotic hogwash. Who cares about the lack of free will when it's psychological will, psychological control that matters? Punishment doesn't need free will, and of course the blame is justified. You don't have psychological control over a brain tumor. Who said anything about harsh punishment?

Didn't you read anything that was written in this entire thread? I know your idea that punishment doesn't need free will but how is this psychological control working? It is obvious that punishment is necessary because it's the only thing we got, but it's only a partial deterrent. It doesn't stop those who don't want to be stopped. Think hard before responding: Is locking people up making our society more safe, more peaceful, more kind, more just, or is it just a game of Whac-A-mole? You refuse to give Lessans a chance because you're so adamant that he was wrong. He wrote:

This discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it upsets the apple cart and disrupts the status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer. The fact remains that these individuals are trying to solve problems that are very much over their heads, and what is being revealed to them is only a method of accomplishing the very things they have been attempting to do, without success. Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra; the more psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals, and armies we have, the greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the situation, we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this? Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask you the following questions: Do you prefer war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to unhappiness and health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge that no one will be able to deny, provided the relations are understood. While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature? If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost, would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to complain about someone showing them a better way — the only way to accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of protest would simply expose an illusion of knowledge, which Stephen Hawking claimed “is the greatest enemy.” I shall now set sail on a voyage that will perform this virtual miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach that mountaintop — the Golden Age of man — that we have all hoped and dreamed would one day become a reality.

And just who do you think you are that just because we all happen to live in a shit world, AND EVERYONE IS SUFFERING, you have the right to waltz in and proclaim that you and your father's obviously bullshit theory would save us, and it's our fault for not listeing? That's called victim blaming, you holier-than-thou little shit. YOU are part of the reason why this world can't get anywhere.

Your bluster will get you nowhere Atla. It is disproportionate to the discussion. I think it's because you've been disappointed many times before and you can't let down your guard. I never blamed you and I certainly don't think I'm holier than anyone. Now you're hitting below the belt telling me that I am part of the reason this world can't get anywhere. You've gone off your cotton pickin rocker.

I think this forum tops off as being the nastiest of them all. It makes perfect sense if people here think that they are all that; the cream of the crop, which gives them the right to be the guardians of truth.

Richard Milton writes: Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank. In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom. And empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted derision.

The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of line by publicly embracing taboo ideas. The taboo reaction in such simple cases is eventually dispelled because the facts — and the value of the discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it ‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the idea of mixed bathing.

The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they may contain are denied us. Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference, especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any contribution to knowledge in terms of rational analysis, or resulting from the different perspective of those outside the field in question, is lost to the community. In its most extreme form scientific tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that are the object of the community’s worship.

Such guardians feel themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in adopting any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the community who profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to have a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is permanently dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on all future occasions. It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the convicted man’s plea of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or why else is he in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first place? This ‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes more and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands of important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

Which is of course something I already covered, as I said we also need to enhance the average IQ of humans using genetic engineering etc. It's not possible to get anywhere with people like you.

People who have very low IQ's still have a conscience. You're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these so-called low I.Q. individuals don't have a mean bone in their body. You sound like a white supremacist. Do you believe in eugenics? God help us if that's your solution.

https://www.actonscholars.org/wp-conten ... t-Test.pdf

And what do you mean "it's not possible to get anywhere with people like me." How about reversing the order: "it's not possible to get anywhere with people like you." How about that can of worms.

Yep, it is a crucial ingredient. Take it up with God if you don't like it.

Lol

[Atla]

Didn't you read anything that was written in this entire thread? I know your idea that punishment doesn't need free will but how is this psychological control working? It is obvious that punishment is necessary because it's the only thing we got, but it's only a partial deterrent. It doesn't stop those who don't want to be stopped. Think hard before responding: Is locking people up making our society more safe, more peaceful, more kind, more just, or is it just a game of Whac-A-mole? You refuse to give Lessans a chance because you're so adamant that he was wrong. He wrote:

Of course locking up some people is making our society more safe. Only someone insane would claim otherwise. Conscience isn't God given, many of those locked up have little to no conscience and would continue to cause harm. They have little to no internal deterrent.

Your bluster will get you nowhere Atla. It is disproportionate to the discussion. I think it's because you've been disappointed many times before and you can't let down your guard. I never blamed you and I certainly don't think I'm holier than anyone. Now you're hitting below the belt telling me that I am part of the reason this world can't get anywhere. You've gone off your cotton pickin rocker.

I think this forum tops off as being the nastiest of them all. It makes perfect sense if people here think that they are all that; the cream of the crop, which gives them the right to be the guardians of truth.

Of course you keep blaming people, you don't have to use the word 'blame' for it.

Good thing your whole shtick isn't that you're a guardian of truth, eh?

People who have very low IQ's still have a conscience. You're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these so-called low I.Q. individuals don't have a mean bone in their body. You sound like a white supremacist. Do you believe in eugenics? God help us if that's your solution.

When you consider the big picture, stupidity is the most common form of "unintentional evil". Mainly because stupid people will forever elect the wrong leaders, everywhere.

No I don't actually believe in eugenics. Eugenics and genetic engineering would be the only way to save the world, but eugenics is too inhumane (not worth it), so the world is (probably) determined to be destroyed. That's what determinism actually says so I don't know why people think that determinism will unlock wonders. (Really our best hope could be to sell genetic engineering to the planet, and even if that might work, that process could take centuries and we may only have decades.) But hey I'm sure your God will save us.

[Age]

Didn't you read anything that was written in this entire thread? I know your idea that punishment doesn't need free will but how is this psychological control working? It is obvious that punishment is necessary because it's the only thing we got, but it's only a partial deterrent. It doesn't stop those who don't want to be stopped. Think hard before responding: Is locking people up making our society more safe, more peaceful, more kind, more just, or is it just a game of Whac-A-mole? You refuse to give Lessans a chance because you're so adamant that he was wrong. He wrote:

Of course locking up some people is making our society more safe. Only someone insane would claim otherwise. Conscience isn't God given, many of those locked up have little to no conscience and would continue to cause harm. They have little to no internal deterrent.

Your bluster will get you nowhere Atla. It is disproportionate to the discussion. I think it's because you've been disappointed many times before and you can't let down your guard. I never blamed you and I certainly don't think I'm holier than anyone. Now you're hitting below the belt telling me that I am part of the reason this world can't get anywhere. You've gone off your cotton pickin rocker.

I think this forum tops off as being the nastiest of them all. It makes perfect sense if people here think that they are all that; the cream of the crop, which gives them the right to be the guardians of truth.

Of course you keep blaming people, you don't have to use the word 'blame' for it.

Good thing your whole shtick isn't that you're a guardian of truth, eh?

People who have very low IQ's still have a conscience. You're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these so-called low I.Q. individuals don't have a mean bone in their body. You sound like a white supremacist. Do you believe in eugenics? God help us if that's your solution.

When you consider the big picture, stupidity is the most common form of "unintentional evil". Mainly because stupid people will forever elect the wrong leaders, everywhere.

No I don't actually believe in eugenics. Eugenics and genetic engineering would be the only way to save the world, but eugenics is too inhumane (not worth it), so the world is (probably) determined to be destroyed. That's what determinism actually says so I don't know why people think that determinism will unlock wonders. (Really our best hope could be to sell genetic engineering to the planet, and even if that might work, that process could take centuries and we may only have decades.) But hey I'm sure your God will save us.

LOL 'Really our best hope ...'.

Which goes to show just how little 'these ones' actually knew, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

[Belinda]

He extended the knowledge that we have no free will to see where it took him. NO ONE HAS DONE THAT.

No one has done that? That would mean that every other determinist is mentally retarded. They can't think.

What is with you? Why are you so defensive? Philosophers could not get beyond the implications and still can't. You say you're a determinist even though it's good to hold people responsible. Of course we have to protect the public from criminal behavior, but when you use the word "punish" it indicates that this blame is justified because it implies that the person could have done otherwise. Would you punish a person with a brain tumor? Of course not but that's the disconnect. Compatibilists, for example, make up their own definition of what is considered a free act vs an act that is beyond control, not realizing that all determinist acts are beyond control. Scientists know that harsh punishment doesn't change the recidivism rate. Determinists would then say that holding people accountable is not punishment; it's rehabilitation, which is a kinder form of incarceration that is more compassionate. It still doesn't solve the deeper problem. Look at this world and tell me if you think our system of justice is working.

This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals the infinite wisdom guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought standard and touchstone of truth and reality but also that elixir of alchemy, for with it the baser metals of human nature are going to be magically transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on this planet and for all generations to come. Please be perfectly honest, who can object to relinquishing the belief in free will when the key to the decline and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies behind the door of determinism?
In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop.

The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial.



I see I missed the crucial final ingredient.

Yep, it is a crucial ingredient. Take it up with God if you don't like it.

Peacegirl, are some human 'wills' more free than others? Or are all human 'wills ' equally free?

Determinism implies that each and every event is a necessary event. It follows that every case of rape ,or genocide, was a necessary event. How then might we be free?

One deterministic answer that could appeal to you and others is that Christ is built into nature/ Cosmos/God. The Cosmic Christ offers a way to save us from our cognitive and affective deficiencies.

[Belinda]

Didn't you read anything that was written in this entire thread? I know your idea that punishment doesn't need free will but how is this psychological control working? It is obvious that punishment is necessary because it's the only thing we got, but it's only a partial deterrent. It doesn't stop those who don't want to be stopped. Think hard before responding: Is locking people up making our society more safe, more peaceful, more kind, more just, or is it just a game of Whac-A-mole? You refuse to give Lessans a chance because you're so adamant that he was wrong. He wrote:

Of course locking up some people is making our society more safe. Only someone insane would claim otherwise. Conscience isn't God given, many of those locked up have little to no conscience and would continue to cause harm. They have little to no internal deterrent.

Your bluster will get you nowhere Atla. It is disproportionate to the discussion. I think it's because you've been disappointed many times before and you can't let down your guard. I never blamed you and I certainly don't think I'm holier than anyone. Now you're hitting below the belt telling me that I am part of the reason this world can't get anywhere. You've gone off your cotton pickin rocker.

I think this forum tops off as being the nastiest of them all. It makes perfect sense if people here think that they are all that; the cream of the crop, which gives them the right to be the guardians of truth.

Of course you keep blaming people, you don't have to use the word 'blame' for it.

Good thing your whole shtick isn't that you're a guardian of truth, eh?

People who have very low IQ's still have a conscience. You're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these so-called low I.Q. individuals don't have a mean bone in their body. You sound like a white supremacist. Do you believe in eugenics? God help us if that's your solution.

When you consider the big picture, stupidity is the most common form of "unintentional evil". Mainly because stupid people will forever elect the wrong leaders, everywhere.

No I don't actually believe in eugenics. Eugenics and genetic engineering would be the only way to save the world, but eugenics is too inhumane (not worth it), so the world is (probably) determined to be destroyed. That's what determinism actually says so I don't know why people think that determinism will unlock wonders. (Really our best hope could be to sell genetic engineering to the planet, and even if that might work, that process could take centuries and we may only have decades.) But hey I'm sure your God will save us.

Peacegirl, are some human 'wills' more free than others? Or are all human 'wills ' equally free?

Determinism implies that each and every event is a necessary event. It follows that every case of rape ,or genocide, was a necessary event. How then might we be free?

One deterministic answer that could appeal to you and others is that Christ is built into Nature/ Cosmos/God. The Cosmic Christ offers a way to save us from our cognitive and affective deficiencies.

(This is the version with the proper quotation boxes)

From ChatGPT:-

Spinoza (17th century) – God-or-Nature (Deus sive Natura)

Spinoza is a pure determinist: everything follows necessarily from the nature of God.

But “freedom” is redefined as understanding necessity: when you see how your actions flow from the eternal order, you participate in the divine intellect.

Some Christian interpreters (e.g., Schleiermacher, later process theologians) see in this the shadow of a “Christ principle”: liberation through clear sight of the Logos within necessity.