I know what compatibilism is. It’s trying to make determinism and free will compatible using their definition of free will.
That is not it Ecmandu, especially as it relates to the free will/determinism debate. Why are you skirting the real issue? Free will, according to compatibilists (self will, if you like), means that as long as a person did not have a gun to their head, and did not have a serious addiction or OCD like behavior, then a person has the “free will” to be held responsible.
Calling it by another name doesn’t change what it is.
I didn’t know this is the definition of compatibilism. Compatibilism, based on what I know, tries to use a version of “free will” that gives some people a free pass depending on whether a person was constrained by a mental illness such as OCD, drug addiction, or was being forced at gunpoint. Others, who were not constrained in this way are considered to have the “free will” (according to their made up definition) to make the right choice based on reason. Isn’t that the theme? In other words, their definition is no different than the libertarians in that they are saying if a person has a choice (other than the constraints already mentioned), they have free will. Actually, no one has free will. It’s just that it’s easier to see that a person who has these compulsions have a more difficult time making the “right” choice while those who don’t have these compulsions could make the “right” choice, or the choice that the moralists consider to be right.
When you are judging someone … not always, but for the most part, you let them go …
It’s a catch and release program.
Some of these people will feel immense gratitude for mercy.
Many will not. Those people don’t feel the humility of mercy, rather, they think in their mind that they have dominated you, just like they dominated in ways that brought them to justice in the first place… I come within seconds of seeing their reaction to mercy like a ton of bricks on them.
Forgiveness is not some dominance game, it’s a sacred trust.
There are three basic things you must be to gain respect in life: you must be logical, reasonable and sympathetic
Ecmandu: However, it is infantalizing (disrespectful) to them to not give them the full reprocussions (not no reprocussions) of that agency if they want it.
Peacegirl: You mean consequences? If that’s true why do people do everything to avoid consequences? It’s true that some people may feel bad about something they caused and may want to be punished.
Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.
These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don’t try to avoid it, they’ll be like, “yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile”
They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine … it’s almost a nothing, they’ve prepared their entire lives to being caught.
For them, it’s better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.
I’d say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not “been around the block” once yet, let alone many times.
Phyllo brought sociopaths up as well, and you scoffed at him.
Peacegirl: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.
Ecmandu: These people consider it a calculated risk to terrorize human beings, and many who are caught don’t try to avoid it, they’ll be like, “yeah, I guess you caught me, but I had a good run for awhile”
Peacegirl: You are right. Some people are willing to take the risk.
Ecmandu: They accept the consequences if they come to bear, like eating a nectarine … it’s almost a nothing, they’ve prepared their entire lives to being caught.
Peacegirl: They probably know eventually they’ll get caught.
Ecmandu: For them, it’s better to go to prison for 50 years than to not have killed one innocent.
Peacegirl: Yes that’s true. They have no feelings.
Ecmandu: I’d say in general about you, you are very sheltered and have not “been around the block” once yet, let alone many times.
Peacegirl: This isn’t my first rodeo! I’ve been around for quite awhile! lol
Every single reply that you made to my post that you replied to, demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven’t even been around the block even once.
I’m not even going to bother with all of it, but I’ll just take this part:
Peacegirl stated: I didn’t scoff at him. I just told him he’s looking at what occurs in today’s environment.(in response to phyllo)
Ecmandu’s reply: phyllo is telling you that because this is today’s environment, nobody will be deterred in your system. Your system is psychopath heaven!!!
Literally, you’re entire philosophy, this silly book, is nothing but psychopath heaven.
So you state something like: “well if everyone obeyed me, the world will be at peace!!”
Billions of people have tried that argument before!!
It doesn’t work!
If I WANTED TO WRITE (as a psychopath) the book that would bring me psychopath heaven, and the psychopathic children of my children of my children psychopathic heaven as well… I’d write this book!!!
People who haven’t been this sheltered are not that dumb.
Actually, if they didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt of just not being life wise… they’d have to conclude that YOU !! Are a psychopath!! Trying to trick all of us !!
I can’t waste my time responding to your lack of insight as well as your lack of robust investigation. Like I said, compatibilists think they have disclosed something great therefore they’re extremely defensive but all they’ve done is repackaged free will with the same problems that we have dealt with for centuries, but also in terms of having nothing new to bring to the table that could actually be of benefit to our world!
There is nothing remotely offensive about her reply to you at all
Address what she is saying instead of making such silly assertions
For this is a serious topic that deserves contributions of substance
She’s stating: don’t judge anyone, especially psychopaths, because they need the least judgement of anyone …
That’s a line that you don’t cross in any species.
She literally thinks that if you are kind to psychopaths, that world will be at peace, and that the world not being at peace, is because we aren’t kind to psychopaths, that it’s OUR fault if we get tortured by psychopaths.
This is not the way existence works.
It’s extremely inflammatory.
She is completely negating the concept of boundaries.
Besides, she already lost the debate by calling it the highest natural law, when nobody follows it.
That is not what I’m saying AT ALL! It’s your lack of understanding that’s getting in the way!!
This book is about preventing the psychopathic mind from developing in the first place, not in condoning behavior that none of us want. You are displaying extreme ignorance Ecmandu!
OMG, you’re out in left field! Our fault if we get tortured by psychopaths? Did I say that? I am only trying to show, as much as you can’t stand to hear it, that determinism prevents the very acts of crime that all of the punishment in the world could never achieve. I already said that during the transition to this new world, if there are people that are so far gone, so mentally deranged, that they have no conscience at all, then this principle may not help them and they will need to be institutionalized. But as a new generation is born, the kind of environment that created these psychopaths will no longer be a factor. Mental illness will be virtually wiped out!! No more psychopaths and no more sociopaths. Wouldn’t that make you happy, or does it hurt your pride to think that your precious compatibilism (that you believe you’ve proved) only perpetuates the same old status quo?
You are right, this is not the way existence works as long as we are living in a free will environment. Our entire civilization is based on the belief that will is free. It’s inflammatory because you don’t understand this knowledge one whit.
Just read the second chapter and there are some serious flaws in it that have to be addressed :
The distance of the Earth from the Sun was not a determined event [ it actually took 200 million years for the Earth to form ]
It was a random event whereby all possible outcomes had an equal chance of occurring which is the opposite of determinism
So using the strong anthropic principle and fine tuning arguments as a reason to justify human existence is entirely fallacious
There is no mathematical certainty at all that God exists - proofs are for hypotheses and conjectures not metaphysical beings
There is no evidence to suggest that the elimination of a genuine reason for blame will actually result in there being no more
Just because someone is not responsible for something does not mean they will not be blamed anyway - that will still happen
For the reasons as to why someone gets blamed for something are not always logical - sometimes it is something else entirely
The foundation of the book is very flawed if these first two chapters are anything to go by
They also ignore the fact that before a final choice is made the will of man is actually free
Apart from you and your father has anyone - especially philosophers - ever accepted the entire premise of the book unconditionally ?
If the answer to this question is no that might be telling you something important so have you ever considered any of the criticisms ?
That was not his discovery. If he was wrong about how long it took for the Earth to form, it’s an incidental. Please keep that in mind.
"
WOW! He never said God was a personal being. That was made very clear early on.
[i]
By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of all
forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that
each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do.
Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation
of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide
rule which God has given us as a guide.
By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not
satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving
that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke.
To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and
regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the
fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a
difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the
description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of
the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and
say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain things
that God is a reality, correct?”
We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed. [/i]
You’ll need to read the whole book at least twice. You’re jumping to a premature conclusion. Obviously, we can’t just stop blaming. That would make every crook happy as a lark. There will be a transitional period from one world to the other, which may be very gradual. As people become citizens, the police force will be reduced in just proportion.
If you are so sure the book is flawed then you must really understand it, so for starters what is the two-sided equation in your own words?
[quote="They also ignore the fact that before a final choice is made the will of man is actually free[/quote]
Absolutely not. Before a final choice is made man has a choice, but how can it be free when he cannot move in any other direction but “greater” satisfaction, not less? Your analysis so far is completely flawed and lacking depth.
What difference would that make surreptitious? Srsly??? I’ve been criticized by lots of people who are doing what you’re doing, making quick judgments without carefully reading the book or asking questions. They skim, can’t tell me what the discovery is, and then have the chutzpah to tell me it’s flawed! People rush to judgment especially when it doesn’t jive with their worldview. And even if it does, they will jump to the conclusion that it’s a religious work because he uses the word God. Amazing!
I think over time we will become a more moral species although we will both collectively and individually always be a work in progress
I can see the thinking in the book being applied to artificial intelligence that will be able to think in absolute terms but not to humans
I think that you have to accept criticism even if you do not agree with it as such which you seem unable to do
You cannot have the book discussed on a philosophy forum and not expect any because all works get criticised
I have read the first two chapters as you asked and gave you my take on them
If I was being close minded then I would not have bothered to read them at all
My opinion should not matter to you anyway but you should not dismiss it just because it is critical
You should print more extracts from the book as you did above because that way you may get more feedback from the posters here
Its actually easier to read in the forum format anyway - I think I will read the final chapter next as its a bit too repetitive otherwise
The main problem is that there is no way of knowing if what the book claims will come to pass as it will be long after anyone now reading it is dead
We will become a more moral species when hurting people stop hurting people, and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the hurt to those who have been hurt first which then causes them to strike back and on and on it goes…
I don’t mind being criticized if the criticism is valid. It’s not.
I’m glad you read the chapters, but you did not read them carefully enough. You probably skimmed them because you couldn’t even tell me what the discovery is. I can easily tell when someone hasn’t read the book in a way that would allow the concepts to sink in, but only to criticize and find loopholes that don’t exist. Your critique is scant and it’s certainly not balanced. Unfortunately, because of your comments people will decide that it’s not worth reading. Sad.
The principles are valid and sound. The criticism you made about the Earth is trivial. It would be like telling Einstein he was wrong because he made a mistake regarding a date. That’s what tells me you weren’t reading to grasp the knowledge but rather searching for anything you could find that would cause doubt. As I said, these trivialities have nothing to do with the validity and soundness of the discovery itself.
We can’t know how long it will take (it depends how quickly this knowledge can spread) but one thing is for sure, it must come about in time due to the fact that the discovery is sound and people will want what they see. Once it is recognized by science it won’t take but a relatively short period of time for the Great Transition to begin and the leaders of each nation to become our first citizens. Global peace will then be within our reach.
Even if we die before the Golden Age is here, we will know that our children or their children will benefit just as we have benefited from the generations that have come before us. Finally, if you begin to understand his chapter on death you will know that we (our consciousness) will be here to enjoy this new world, not our posterity.
More contradictions. So we have to judge before we become judgeless?!?!?
I see where you’re going here…
If everybody just acts perfectly, there’ll be no reason to judge, so you or this author sees, "well that means if we don’t judge, everyone will be perfect.
We have no choice but to judge… we are biological beings. Judgement is hardwired into DNA.
Psychopaths are determined to be born in this species, without jobs like soldiers or firemen or police officers, they just kill innocent people, that’s what they do. To get rid of them, you need a very sophisticated knowledge of the human genome.
Not someone who is themselves psychopathic saying, “if everyone obeys me the world will be at peace, obey me now!!”
Excellent point you make about psychopaths Ecmandu and one that peacegirl would have failed to factor in to her Utopian vision
Psychopaths do not understand the difference between right and wrong and would behave exactly the same in a blameless world
They would not understand why such a world would be any different for them because they would still do whatever they want to
In a perfect Utopia the criminally insane would still be themselves so everyone else being altruistic would have zero impact upon them
Psychopaths are not all of a sudden going to stop being psychopathic just because every one else has become entirely non judgemental