Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

Homepage Forums Science Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

This topic contains 85 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 76 through 86 (of 86 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45856

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, if i understand the lady she is arguing long chain or predeterminism. Start at about 1:30 and just listen a wee bit.

    #45857

    Unseen
    Participant

    What chaotic or random events do is set up a new deterministic chain.

    That can be upset by a new random event? That makes no sense at all.

    One random event/change in the deterministic series of events can’t be followed by another one. It seems to me that if such events do happen (and I’m sure they do because, for one thing, that is one way that genetic mutations occur), they can happen again and again.

    Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?

    #45859

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, if i understand the lady she is arguing long chain or predeterminism. Start at about 1:30 and just listen a wee bit.

    She’s just describing plain vanilla determinism there. Yes, from a certain complete description of a circumstance and with enough computing power to follow it, you can predict on to eternity…theoretically of course. She simply doesn’t get into the circumstance where something chaotic or random changes things like on a train line where pulling a switch takes a train off the tracks to Chicago and instead sends the train to Indianapolis.

    The point is that once that happens. Once a gamma ray modifies a DNA in a viable way, for example, we are off on a new trajectory.

    Events always happen based on what happened before, even if what happened before was something exceptional.

    At any rate, it’s not like whether you accept this or not suddenly gives people free will.

    We talk about free will on the level of everyday experience as the abilit8y to intend actions and make things happen and we feel free in doing so. It’s only when you look under the hood and realize that there’s an engine of physical laws working that you realize how these decisions are made.

    #45861

    Davis
    Moderator

    She specifically says that you cannot do B, C, D…Z instead of A. If A is the only possible outcome, choice, alternatives, even decisions are illusions. If free will (as she describes it) is an illusion, so are all of the above. You cannot have both. A rock isn’t responsible for falling in a particular direction, nor is a person who cannot but do A, all the time without fail, be responsible for doing A.

    In fact, any negation of free will, negates meaningful choice which negates responsibility. If you cannot have done otherwise, how are you meaningfully responsible?

    All of this is nonsense anyways. If we don’t have free will, I had not choice but to type out this text, and you will not be able to have done other than the text your reply with (if you do…for which you will have no choice but to do). Our entire dialogue is choiceless replies. This isn’t a reason to claim or negate free will. But it is simply another consequence of negating free will. But then, if there really is no free will, you have no choice but to take the position on free will that you have.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #45868

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Jake,

    I have indicated that if one takes the position that the universe has unfolded in a determined and unerring path (10 billion light years ago sufficient knowledge of physics would show that Enco would be in a store interrogating liberals on a pale blue dot while a black widow is soon to cause him excruciating pain and is now hidden in a drawer behind the counter) then moral responsibility is impossible.

    That’s a weird scenario you came up with, but if such happened to me or any person of good will, I know I would volitionally be keeping the wound above heart level, hand-sanitizing the bite, applying a tourniquet if necessary, incising and suction-cupping out the poison with one hand while speed-dialing 911 with the other and singing the calming ditty “Does Your chewing Gum Lose It’s Flavor On The Bed Post Overnight?”

    That’s proof of Volition and Moral Responsibility.

    By the way, you really, really need to get a grip on that anger you spoke about earlier.

    The whole process of mudding up, taping up, drying, curing, sanding, Kilz-ing, and painting over sheetrock holes is bitch and a half! And if you knock out a whole wall, it’s even worse carrying the whole sheets of sheetrock around door corners and upstairs. Those “sheets” are not like light-fluffy 600-thread Egyptian Cotton, lemme tell ya!

    Instead of tearing up things when you get angry, get into music, whether as catharsis or just as a fun distraction. There’s many topical selections to choose from!

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spacing and punctuation
    #45872

    Unseen
    Participant

    She specifically says that you cannot do B, C, D…Z instead of A. If A is the only possible outcome, choice, alternatives, even decisions are illusions. If free will (as she describes it) is an illusion, so are all of the above. You cannot have both. A rock isn’t responsible for falling in a particular direction, nor is a person who cannot but do A, all the time without fail, be responsible for doing A.

    Yes, from a certain set of initial conditions, and given the laws of the universe on the non-quantum level, the outcomes pursuant to it are very much predictable in principle (because doing the predictions is an impossible task). Simply because she didn’t get into the intrusion of choatic or random intrusions doesn’t mean she’s arguing against them. Duh!

    In fact, any negation of free will, negates meaningful choice which negates responsibility. If you cannot have done otherwise, how are you meaningfully responsible?

    I’m puzzled as to what you mean by “meaningfully responsible.” If you’re arguing that without free will people aren’t actually responsible for what they do, and that therefor free will must exist, that’s a fallacious argument I can parody by replacing the terms: “Without God, the wicked would go unpunished and the good unrewarded. Therefore, God must exist.” So, if free will exists, so must God.

    All of this is nonsense anyways. If we don’t have free will, I had not choice but to type out this text, and you will not be able to have done other than the text your reply with (if you do…for which you will have no choice but to do). Our entire dialogue is choiceless replies. This isn’t a reason to claim or negate free will. But it is simply another consequence of negating free will. But then, if there really is no free will, you have no choice but to take the position on free will that you have.

    We do have choices. We just have no control over what’s “under the hood.” I go into a restaurant and are faced with a dozen entree choices and I choose the Hungarian Goulash. I have no trouble making the choice other than a few moments deliberation. I make the choice. However, how that choice is made must conform to the laws governing the brain and nervous system. Mustn’t it?

    Or not?

    I’m responsible for the choice because I made it. I’m not responsible for how the choice was made. At some level deep down in my psyche and brain, the choice was made. I know not how. And I do know about as well as I know anything is that being human doesn’t make one capable of making exceptions to natural laws or the processes that follow them.

    Maybe you’re arguing against natural laws and for miracles. Are you?

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #45881

    Unseen
    Participant

    @davis

    Can you explain please why you’re so hung up on forcing me to accept predeterminism as a consequence of determinism?

    Let’s for a moment assume you are right and determinism actually means predeterminism, does that ipso facto rescue free will somehow? Or are you thinking it’s an idea so reprehensible that people will ignore the facts and “vote with their gut,” as it were?

    Or, if somehow predeterminism would give us free will, explain. Otherwise, it seems you are just creating a distraction.

    #45883

    Davis
    Moderator

    I am not forcing you to accept anything. You posted a video saying she speaks for you better than you could, where she defines non-free will as the inability of an agent to do other than they have done. This by the way, does not necessarily infer predeterminism. It does exclude an agents ability to have done anything else.

    She clearly says someone can only have done A and not have done anything else. Do you not agree with how she frames free will as illusion?

    If you disagree…how?

    If you don’t…then explain how choice and responsibility is possible in such a universe?

    ============

    I do not find us not having free will as reprehensible. Unlike you I am not certain about anything on the topic. I actually do not take a position on it. However, if I was certain that there was no free will, I would have the intellectual integrity to admit that responsibility (and therefore moral responsibility) is an illusion and would drop ethics as meaningful field of study. I would also stop telling people why it’s okay we don’t have will. Though…I wouldn’t have a choice over any of this anyways…would I?

    #45885

    Unseen
    Participant

    I am not forcing you to accept anything. You posted a video saying she speaks for you better than you could, where she defines non-free will as the inability of an agent to do other than they have done. This by the way, does not necessarily infer predeterminism. It does exclude an agents ability to have done anything else.

    She clearly says someone can only have done A and not have done anything else. Do you not agree with how she frames free will as illusion?

    If you disagree…how? If you don’t…then explain how choice and responsibility is possible in such a universe?

    I agree, of course, that free will is ultimately an illusion, and yet we do make choices. We choose whether to have the pepperoni pizza or the veggie pizza or the Hawaiian pizza. We make those choices as is evidenced by the fact that we order one of the above.

    I’m using the same concept of responsibility the law uses, which includes responsibility without going into how choices are made. If Joe sexually abuses his nephew, and barring a small selection of excusing circumstances (e.g., he did it at gunpoint, he had a psychotic break, etc.), he’s responsible for doing it just because he did it. Doing something, in general, makes one responsible for what one does.

    And indeed, while this is the way the law uses the term, it’s also the way you and I use it in daily life.

    If free will is an illusion, it’s just one of many in the natural world.  Color is an illusion. The solidity of physical objects is illusory. Time itself isn’t exactly how we experience it. Free will is on the same list, if by free will you mean being able to make choices in spite of and in defiance of the natural goings on inside the brain and nervous system.

    ============

    I do not find us not having free will as reprehensible. Unlike you I am not certain about anything on the topic. I actually do not take a position on it. However, if I was certain that there was no free will, I would have the intellectual integrity to admit that responsibility (and therefore moral responsibility) is an illusion and would drop ethics as meaningful field of study. I would also stop telling people why it’s okay we don’t have will. Though…I wouldn’t have a choice over any of this anyways…would I?

    I have explained above how responsibility works and that putting the word “moral” in front of it adds nothing. If Mike steals from his union’s retirement fund, showing that he did it is all that’s needed to establish his responsibility, barring some hard to imagine excusing conditions. If you want to say he was wrong, fine. If that makes you happy. He’s still responsible for his deed whether you speak up or remain silent.

     

    #45905

    Davis
    Moderator

    Unseen, you haven’t explained anything. You’ve just stated that we make decisions because we do one thing rather than another (huh?), despite the fact that we could not have done otherwise. Such a decision is empty of responsibility. Sorry you cannot see that. I don’t think we will go any further with that. If you want to eat the whole cake and yet still have left-overs, so be it. Whatever, you win.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #45907

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, you haven’t explained anything. You’ve just stated that we make decisions because we do one thing rather than another (huh?), despite the fact that we could not have done otherwise. Such a decision is empty of responsibility. Sorry you cannot see that. I don’t think we will go any further with that. If you want to eat the whole cake and yet still have left-overs, so be it. Whatever, you win.

    We do some things reflexively and involuntarily and recognize that such deeds aren’t free. There are other things where we feel free (uncompelled), but there are reasons for doing even those things and reasons have causes, and then become causes with effects of their own. Choices don’t happen ex nihilo.

    It seems to me that you need to be a dualist. At least then you could argue that the mind (spirit/soul) has a contingent relationship to the physical world which would allow for making the sort of exceptions that could be used for a theory of free will.

Viewing 11 posts - 76 through 86 (of 86 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.