And what is proposed instead of capitalism?
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.
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.
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?
You mean in a determined existence people have the freewill to decide whether actions are determined or not? Whether punishment is correct or not?
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.
Not really!
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.
Paradoxical to the point that it seems to make no sense.
Why wouldn’t some people just do a bunch of atrocious things?
(Justified by “I’m not to blame for what I do”.)
And I’m not even talking about the 5% of the population who are psychopaths and sociopaths.
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.
Some people can sink back to the bottom if raised, but many people would have a hard time especially if they are retaliating against harm (imagined or real) done to them. The motto “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” is inaccurate because words can cause serious harm.
I suppose Peacegirl, yet they can’t rise from mere unfounded libel to a staged framed up criminal act. They’d be carried out of court by kangoroos.
Peace girl says: ( cut out of context and the page is not left blank intentionally)
“to move in a different direction for needed satisfaction.”
What if no satisfaction of either kind is to be had, pleasurable or other wise,
Can you just hear one of the 3 musketeers mumble - en garde- incessantly?
He will have no retort but to impinge all negative rage to within himself, and sacrafice that cut away part of himself , positioned in the inner sanctum of his consciousness.
And thus become as god, were invited in…
That is what this whole discovery is about. I am asking people to read the first three chapters in sequence. To give you a short answer that will not be satisfactory, the reason the advance knowledge that there will be no consequences (no blame or punishment because the world knows, if you hurt someone intentionally or unintentionally it was beyond your control since will is not free) creates a situation that would give you no satisfaction in moving in the direction of striking this first blow.
You must have some kind of justification to hurt someone (even if that justification strikes out at random people due to built up rage from years of being hurt). Obviously if there is some sort of provocation, the justification to strike back would be a normal reaction that most of us have experienced. Turning the other cheek, although a noble effort, is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about preventing the first cheek from ever being struck thereby preventing the need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face.
When all hurt is removed from the environment (don’t jump to conclusions that this is impossible) that justifies hurting others, along with the knowledge that regardless of what is done, there will be no blame or punishment (e.g., even if you steal a million dollars), you are compelled (of your own free will or desire; this does not mean will is actually free) to move in a different direction for needed satisfaction.
If anyone is interested, it is imperative to give the author the benefit of the doubt before prematurely concluding that his claims can’t be true. That would not be a fair investigation. Just because he was an unknown does not mean his work isn’t credible.