oh cool here’s a rough analogy for ya. take an animal (poverty stricken criminal) that’s infested with a parasite (capitalism). the parasite hijacks the mind of the animal (philosophy of freewill and objective morality) and makes the animal believe that not only was his crime of stealing ‘immoral’, but also that he had a choice not to steal.
in doing this the parasite is able to regulate and keep manageable the dysfunctional behavior of the animal that it has caused through its infestation. the animal becomes a zombie that the parasite can continue to feed off of.
For the above reason i suspect that pro-forma, the positivist group is not only a defensive approach , but a harbor for instigating a reduction into an absurd epoch, literally!
There is no sense in entertaining data, that belies the sense of certainty through which it can make sense of it.
Here an intensional structural requirement develops , leading to a supposed and overblown arsenal of political power.
It will continue the conflation until it needs no further justification, because it will become independent of
It.
It all fell apart where the social power through authority lost credence.
Loss of political power is replaced by it’s figurative counterpart.
So go and figure$
However, the ‘parasite’ is the generic middle man, without which absolute.control would need to be exercised, it would morph into the auto-immune virus that brings the systemic ‘evil’ back into an unsustainable feedback system.
Which is factored in, where the epoch is sustainable only by utilizing an absolutely variable resource system.
The ones who are expected to loose innoscence, do not include the last two. Babies , of course to puberty are included. So let’s not put all in one grab bag. The gloom and doom of disqualification is a natural process, not a categorical imperative.
It’s been awhile since I’ve been here. It seems this thread got completely off track from the original intent to explain why man’s will is not free and what this means for the benefit of all mankind.
Because responsibility for one’s actions is increased, not decreased. The impact of this knowledge is huge because it prevents what blame and punishment could not accomplish.
Blame and punishment even in a free will state is still not useful though. Why do those things only seem useless when “operating out of determinism” and not a will that is free to the extent of its understanding?
Artimus: So how would that have a benefit to mankind if it were true? My stance is still that both exist and operate from each other.
Peacegirl: Because responsibility for one’s actions is increased, not decreased. The impact of this knowledge is huge because it prevents what blame and punishment could not accomplish.
Artimus: Blame and punishment even in a free will state is still not useful though. Why do those things only seem useless when “operating out of determinism” and not a will that is free to the extent of its understanding?
Blame and punishment in a free will state can be justified because it is believed a person who did wrong had a choice to do otherwise and now has to pay. The belief in free will is the cornerstone of our present justice system. Under determinism, punishment cannot be justified knowing that will is not free. How can you justify punishing a person for that which he had no control over?
We still have the ability to choose between options (which many people define as free will), but the choice, once made, was never a free one.
Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s
nature, but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all.
“We still have the ability to choose between options (which many people define as free will), but the choice, once made, was never a free one.”
Peacegirl says the above: quantum distinctions can be likened to Leibnitz’ imperceptible differences as two spheres approach identity, therefore if we cannot differentiate them, our responsibility for choosing the wrong path is worthy of absolution.
Our responsibility for choosing whatever path we choose, from the imperceptible differences to the largest is done not of our own free will. Therefore we are not in the position to judge which behaviors are worthy of absolution and those that are not. No one is to blame if will is not free. Paradoxically, the advance knowledge that there will be no consequences presents consequences that are still worse. I know you don’t understand why choosing the “wrong” path (the path that hurts others) is prevented, thereby no need for absolution which is still a judgment by others as to who deserves no pardon in a free will society of blame and punishment.
May be of a hidden caveat that some miss. “dont do as I say”.( sticks and stones can not rise to the level of literal harm.)They stay unfounded and paradoxically sink back to the bottom if raised, maybe leaving readers confounded.