Total posts: 816
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
@3RU7AL
@Reece101
I'll reply to you all with this parting shot, for I have said all I intend on this subject, but one: Refer to Hamlet, Act III, scene 1's soliloquy "To be, or not to be..." read it completely, then consider one question. Rhetorical, if you will. Think about it. What is it, after all, that is said and done, that says Hamlet was denied any option but that which he pursued, knowing, perhaps even just subconsciously, that his own life would be forfeit in the process? ‘To be, or not to be,’ he said. Was it limited to that? Had he surrendered all other possibilities, just to justify humanity and its free will?
Oh, but, no, you may think, he offered two options: life or death. And I respond: just so, but, then, what does he turn to? A walk in the park? A rendezvous with Ophelia? Her prayers, he concludes, contain all his sins. Or, is it another heart-to-heart with his father’s ghost? No, he sleeps, he dreams; meaning… other options than just two… and what, then, but free will’s justification of imagination over what would else be determined for him?
Shakespeare allows for your determinism as a discussion [considering that Hamlet and his two friends are philosophy students, after all], but concludes, himself, through Hamlet, that it is Hamlet, and not his stars, that, in the end, make the decisions that make the entire play a discussion of this very topic; and the conclusion is the blue moon's variable all along, the variable that man is capable of determining his own destiny, and, at that, self-fulfilling, or tragically self-destructive. It is what the paragon of animals do: "That patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?"
Created:
Posted in:
Terry McAuliffe's failure may turn out to be his step into the poo of discounting the presence and vital merit of parents in public education in favor of teachers' unions. They, too, have a place, but not at the exclusion of the PTA. Everyone knows the acronym, and what the first letter signifies, and the order of placement is not an accident. Founded in the late 218th century, the PTA's purpose and objective has not changed: "PTA's mission is to make every child’s potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children. https://www.pta.org/home/About-National-Parent-Teacher-Association/Mission-Values
McAuliffe's dismissal of the vital role parents have in their own children's education cannot be replaced by the Communist Manifesto, which I cited yesterday [#17], which McAuliffe embraced in his campaign. Maybe he's learned something
Created:
Posted in:
I have the answer for Dems. Get Nancy Pelosi to impeach Youngkin. And maybe Ciattarelli, too, if his lead holds. She can do it. Doesn't mater that her impeachments of Trump were not legit, either, so, why not? It's how Dems deal with reality: ignore it.
Created:
Posted in:
From the Marx/Engels Communist Manifesto [and Terry McAuliffe]:
"The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder..."
Progs can mess with us, but, when. you mess with "the hallowed co-relation of patent and child" to disrupt that co-relation, you awaken the giant, the box of deplorables, deplored only by those who oppose family, orchestrated by parents, and prefer family orchestrated by government. You will fail.
Created:
Posted in:
Time for Dems to assign blame; it's what you do.
So, who do you blame for this disaster harbinger for '22? You should have not only won, but won big. Nope. Do you blame the guy in the Oval [who happens to be missing in action, and, literally, asleep at the switch]?
Created:
Posted in:
The message tonight in VA & NJ, almost regardless of the outcome, although it appears the upset is in play in VA with a Youngkin win, but also because of a very strong showing in NJ by Ciatterelli that is currently ahead; and even if by some miracle, Youngkin loses; the Biden agenda [that was never his in the first place, but imposed on him as a deal made to let him be in the Oval] is dying and dead:
Woke is broke.
Couldn't happen to a more ill-conceived moniker chosen by sleepy people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you mean the Abrahamic God, this is in fact a curious contradiction in his design.
No, because nothing in his design was intended to be perfect as created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If something is natural, can it not harm the ecosystem... Naturally?
It can, but there are economies of scale that are virtually impossible to predict as to actual effect. Plus, there are positive actions we can take, and don't, to alleviate some problems, like building an aqueduct to the southwest US from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to help prevent frequent flooding in the Mississippi Valley downstream, and provide more need water to the southwest, and desalinization plants along the coasts. plus recognizing that natural and cultivated waterways [including rice paddies] that contribute more methane to the atmosphere than do cows, and that paying carbon credits to alleviate cloud contamination does no more that did payment of indulgences in the 14th century for sins.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
RM: correct. Thanks for following the hint. Apparently, oromagi & Ramshutu can't be bothered, and then complain about it. Sure, right wing conspiracies. It's an easy excuse. Isn't that getting a little old? You've been complaining about that since before the Constitution was ratified, and before there were political parties. Rarely does a person smell their own flatulence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The difference between your god and us is that your god knows what will happen, but we don’t.
Therefore, knowledge known by one person, and ignorance by another person means that the latter's life is determined by the former? That's not even true among ourselves as a mortal species. That implies a slavery of the latter to the former, and that is not an absolute, either. The difference is not the knowledge, but the experience coupled with that knowledge that makes God who he is; enhanced by wisdom [knowledge + experience]. God has already been through a complete mortal life; he did not start as a god, but grew into one, as we will ultimately grow. As we are now, God once was; as God is, we may become, dependent on our choices made in mortality to be obedient to God, or not. It is precisely the same situation in comparing a parent to a child. A parent may teach a child that to touch a hot stove is going to hurt, badly, or that avoiding touching the hot stove while still making use of it will not hurt. The parent knows by experience what will happen when the child does touch the hot stove, while the child knows by education, but lacks the experience. The child may choose either action, and will reap the result, but the result is not forced by God or by determinism. It's a simple matter that, even to child, once of an age of accountability, i.e., the child is aware of right action and wrong action, generally, but in earlier years, that knowledge of good and evil is a bit vague. Mistakes are made, and sometimes those mistakes have tragic results. But we observe that, whether we are responsible for our actions, or not, the consequences of our actions are, in vthe high majority of cases, allowed to proceed without God's intervention.
You see, we complain that God is omnipotent, and makes things happen to us without our choices, and we complain that he does not act omnipotently if we get ourselves into trouble except in vary rare exceptions in all of human history. Your determinism insists that that is exactly what happens. Both conditions. Nope. Obviously, if we our actions were always determined in advance, God would cease to be God. As I have stated before, while many believe that God is totally responsible for everything that ever happens, I believe he is not totally responsible for anything that happens. There are other forces at play, here; usually ourselves and our choices, right or wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
Is any word racist if no one is offended? And if no one is offended, why are we trying to take words out of the dictionary? And if words offend, does anyone ponder why they are offended, and is it only because some Facebook friend was also offended? Let us note for the record the passing of that word: Facebook, according to the Zuck himself.
Personally, I am hugely offended by "woke," since it tends to exhibit the direct opposite, but I'm perfectly happy it remain in the lexicon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Right on. And add that people who never work hard never figure out how to work smart, and earn even more.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Swear not by the faithless moon.
- another Bard
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And to you. Wear the hat proudly, and to hell with speed limits. Aren't brooms turbo-charged tonight? I'll be watching for you and wave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, I suppose they are if eating sushi is also racist. I did, today. As it happens, I had Chinese, yesterday, so sue me.
But I don't suppose any such thing, because who is being harmed physically, mentally, spiritually, culturally, linguistically, or any -ly you want, by my burning tiki torches, which I have also done frequently this summer on my deck.
Further, I had no complaints, even by my conscience.
I' don't even think its a global warming issue because my torches are a natural expression of Earth's elements, namely, fire. And I'm prepared with a fire extinguisher.
Created:
You will have to guess my topic. For the last few years, the incident of this topic has been around 800,000 repeats, but is suddenly up again to its historic average of 1M per year, and we're only 5/6 of the year complete. What is it?
Created:
Posted in:
While it is not clear by H.Res 109 [the non-binding resolution that planted a stake in the ground by the House] in 2019 that there is a firm deadline of 10 years, nor what, exactly is to be accomplished by that clock, it is a commonly known deadline, none-the-less. What is expected to be done, one might ask A. Occasional Cortex?
Where are we now, 3 years into that 10 years?
The state of energy consumption in the U.S. can be summed as follows: the equivalent of 14.6 billion BOE [equivalent of barrels of oil consumed] have been consumed to date this year, 2021. With 60 days left to the year [5/6 of the year] it is extrapolated that the final tally will be pprox. 17.6B boe.
Of the 5.4B actual barrels of oil consumed this Y.T.D the total contribution of renewable sources of energy amounts to a whopping 22%. At that level of contribution, if that 22% is doubled annually, it will still require 4.5 of those 7 years to achieve net zero. Clearly, given the recent past's growth, we will not make 10 years and have anything close to net zero.
Renewables [hydro, biofuels, wind, geothermal, solar] increasing are not increasing annual use by 22% per annum. Consider that from, 1970 to now, 50 years, the total use of renewables has doubled, at a rate of 2% per year. The numbers just do not stack fast enough. That's not to say it shouldn't be done; I'm all for projecting greater use of renewables as time goes on. I'm saying setting the goal of net zero so quickly was careless and irresponsible. By the way, I have been running on a 39-panel array of solar panels since 2016. What have you done? And I'm far from a GND proponent, but for other reasons having nothing to do with renewable energy, which is a lousy description if one thinks about it, since petroleum is renewable, too, and has been renewing for billions of years, and will continue renewing until every life on Earth is extinguished.
Created:
Posted in:
Something I just encountered completely outside the topic of this string - dream states - made a wild connection to determinism. A Scientific American article from 11/1/2010, almost literally 11 years ago [Happy Halloween, goblins], titled "Dream States: A Peak into Consciousness." It makes the statement, "Dream consciousness is not the same as wakeful consciousness. We are for the most part unable to introspect—to wonder about our uncanny ability to fly or to meet somebody long dead. Only rarely do we control our dreams; rather things happen, and we go along for the ride."
That would seem to align with determinism - just along for the rise, that we have no will to do otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
determinism is nothing more than another attempt to disavow God; it is atheism in science jargon; including philosophic thought as science
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
That spiel about humanity has the potential to be divine is contrary to the argument you’re trying to make if you believe in a omniscience and omnipotent god that created the universe. Sorry but he would be deterministic if he knew everything before it happens.
There are just a couple of things wrong with this statement. I'll start with the most obvious first: What God knows is not what we know, and you're trying to say there is no difference; that if God knows all things we must, as well, because determinism says so. Nope. We do not know what God knows until we learn it for ourselves by our own research with its drawn conclusions, or God reveals it to us.
Nest, that God knows and that we do not is resolved simply by God's third great gift to us. The first is life, itself. The second is the atonement of Christ, which is given to all of mankind to accept or reject. And that accept/reject potential is the third great gift: our free agency, or free will, to determine for ourselves what's what, and what to do about it.
The imagination which propels scientific intrigue has been stifled countless times
That is no argument that defeats free will. Yes, the power of others to be oppressive, which I have previously discussed, and added that oppression is the first result of determinism, to combat free will. But that does not discount that we each, individually, have the power if we will use it to think for ourselves, and act according to our own thinking, regardless of oppression.
determinism isn’t a scientific theory
It is based upon scientific theory, namely, quantum physics, and B-theory time.
how you’re getting finite knowledge from determinism
Re-read my first sentence, "Any doctrine..." By its nature, determinism is a limiting philosophy, because it would disallow imagination beyond what it determines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, not really even that. Freedom to seek redress from tyrannical government. That's the promise of the 1A. I know you may think that is semantics, but it is truly the better way to look at freedom, since freedom really imposes a responsibility to act in and by virtue of freedom, and not just passively expect it.
You see, the constitutional language is carefully constrructed, and James Madison was no dummy. He knew what he was saying. One may think that because there is a freedom of religion [the phrase is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which is not merely "freedom of religion," because the unwritten logic is that a citizen may also engage an attitude of not exercising religious practice at all, and there will be no coercion by government otherwise.
The same thing occurs with [Congress shall make no law] "abridging the freedom of speech," whose unwritten logic includes that citizens are free to be offended by anyone's speech, but neither Congress, nor any citizen, may censure. It also implies that just because speech is unbridled, it does not mean anyone is compelled to speak anything at all. Thus the Miranda right, "...you have the right to remain silent..." which is something I wish the press would remember. with its constant harassment of people to get a story. The fact is, the press does not have a right to get a story if a possible witness to an even wishes to remain silent. "No comment" is often ignored by them.
Created:
Posted in:
This post has everything to do with the outrageous consequence of attitude expressed by the Loudoun County School Board cover up of a sexual assault in order to advance a transgender bathroom policy.
That was my first sentence. Does it really need a translation? T%he Loudoun County, VA School Board is more interested in protecting a policy of gender neutrality of bathrooms than admitting to having had a sexual assault occur on their ground. Their fault is not the rape, itself, but the cover-up of it.
rape is primarily motivated by sexual desire.
No, all sexual assault [separate legal issue from sexual harassment] is a matter of oppression wherein sex is used as a weapon against a non-consenting adult, or a minor, who cannot give consent at all due to age.
Created:
Posted in:
Any doctrine that insists that all events, including human thought and action, are externally determined and ordered to occur, externally driven at odds with free will to think and act autonomously, infers that no person can be held responsible for their thoughts and resulting actions. Such a doctrine limits and belittles the grandeur that humanity has the potential to be divine. Such a progression of ability defies this contrary doctrine of limitations and personal insult.
Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all that there ever will be to know and understand."
The theory of determinism, that contrary doctrine of limitation of human potential, amounts to even less than knowledge; i.e., just what we think we know for sure. As Mark Twain once said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Yes, determinists can turn this on me for my assurance that man has free will, but it cannot be avoided that determinists may "know" that which is not so, as well.
Another view: Look in side a quantum particle, delve in to its deepest, secreted places so small, the word is too big for it, you will find...
strings.
And this says nothing for imagination, i.e., "all that will ever be to know and understand," which determinism dismisses out of hand, because it decrees that all has already been determined. That would seem to indicate that knowledge, itself, is finite, along with humanity. Whereas, with the argument of free will, imagination can explore what is not known and reveal it. Determinism has no definition, nor any contemplation of such imagination, and it's vehicle is on a dead-end road. Imagination is the driving force of free will, and humanity is, and can be, and will be in the driver's seat of that vehicle, and the road ahead is eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
Freedom from tyranny is meaningless without freedom too act on your own will.
Says the guy who argues for determinism
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Biden's age? He's 78. Age is not necessarily a factor in loosing faculty of mind. My mother-in-law is 95, and her mind is as sharp as a tack. It's a matter of choosing to remain alert, or letting go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That it is a warped person who plays at gender identity through clothing to take advantage of a school boards policy to allow gender choice in bathroom use to commit rape. Besides the social injustice of rape, always, the whole idea of using a bathroom to engage sex belittles the act to a scatological joke. Worse, rape is not a sexual act at all, but one of power-grabbing at another's expense. But, since the government does it all the time, what's a warped kid to think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No one has to say that it is illegal to be homeless
Yet, the number of cities making homelessness illegal is on the rise. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-it-illegal-to-be-homeless/
There was a time when the government was not in the business of providing low-income housing as an entitlement. once an entitlement is offered, we find that people will abdicate their personal responsibility to be personally productive and self-sustaining. Why work when you can feed off the public trough? As of the end of Q22021, over 9M jobs have gone unfilled. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LMJVTTUVUSQ647S
Gee, I wonder why?
I think you will find that it is the the benefit of people to stop feeling entitled and get to work. What, you don't want to be a dishwasher in a restaurant to bet back on your feet. Who said our wants superimpose over our needs? One should do what is needed, then deal with what is wanted. So, need a job? Take one. Need a better job. Be educated to fill it.
But, you complain that I am naive. I believe in personal responsibility, and fulfilling that responsibility. But, Obama told you that there comes a time when you have made enough money. Seems he forgot he told you that, doesn't it? His wealth is increasing, but he doesn't want you to do that, too. Hypocritical is the salient word here.
Call me crazy, and make all your excuses why people should not have that attitude or personal responsibility..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
war on drugs............
Cite the policy specifics.
does not have to be explicit to be racist.
To be systemic, yes, it does need to be explicit.
doesnt have to be in force.What happened yesterday affects today
Yes, it must be specific, and it must be current, because old policies and statutes are no longer documenteed and in force, therefore, it is people within the system, i.e., individuals, who act with racial animus, but they have no leg to stand on legally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Policy that disproportionately effects people of color is systemic racism.
Yes, but show me a current government or private industry policy that expresses systemic racism. That has been an open challenge by me in forum and in debate. No one, to date, has been able to demonstrate a single policy, let alone a legal statute, that expresses racism, which means that the racism you observe is by individuals in the system but not the documented system, itself. You can show numerous citations where academic, political, and journalist people charge systemic racism, but none of them can point to a currently documented, in-force policy or statute.
So much for the validity of the claims of CRT. So, why are yahoos clamoring to teach it to our kids?
Not to mention that the payment of reparations for slavery visited upon ancestors, but that currently is nonexistent, is unconstitutional. Article I, section 9: No ex post facto law shall be passed.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Biden sniffs the children of strangers
Strictly in a political perspective, that may be the least of Biden issues
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
or this crazy notion that you can love and help people and end up in the same place as someone who lies, steals, and kills, which concept makes more sense to you? The former by far.
Agreed. The scriptures are fairly plentiful in description that there is not one heaven, nor one hell, but that there are several kingdoms in to which people will be judged to fit, depending on their relative obedience such that all will be comfortable in the relative kingdom into which they will be sent. This also answers Ramshutu's idea that morality among all cultures is not identical, but shifts in perspective from culture to culture. This does not mean that murderers/rapists end up with more civil people, b y which description there are variables, as well. Good thing God is judge, because leaving that to human understanding will fail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
From? What a pessimistic attitude. Consider the use of "free" or "freedom" in the Constitution, It is not "freedom from," but rather, "freedom for." It is a positive, not a negative sense. Freedom for, not from, the opportunity to have personal will to think and act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
@bmdrocks21
Both of you need to consider that, of all subjects, more constitutional amendments discuss various aspects of voting rights than any other subject. In fact, all variations of the word "vote" occur 37 times in the Constitution, but the first mention of citizen voting does not occur until the 15A in 1870. Until then, all "voting" discussion is limited to Congress. Until then, it was "assumed" citizens had the right to vote, however, by that simplistic "assumption," women were not citizens since they did not yet enjoy voting rights. It begs the question of how to interpret Article I, section 2, because that section discusses the Census as a count of "whole persons, and 3/5 of all other persons." Women and girls were, indeed, counted, but as to their "personhood," because they could not vote, the question stood, and was not resolved until the 19A, ratified in 1920, which is baffling since emancipate slaves were given the right to vote by the 15A 50 years before the 19A.
Six different amendments discuss voting rights, and we still do not have it settled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My third point of my #243 answers that; all animals have souls, i.e., spirit bodies. You will note that Genesis appears to have description of two creation events, not just one. A lot of people are wrapped around the axle with that. I think it's simple: the first is a creation in spirit, and the second a creation of physical properties, thus my belief that all life is both of spirit and physical properties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
salvation is only required for humans because Adam fucked up.
I disagree totally that we are at all affected by Adam's free choice to disobey by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He and Eve became mortal as a result, but the atonement of Christ paid for that transgression, so we don't have to worry about it. I wish more Christians understood that; we do not suffer one whit due to Adan and Eve. In fact, you will note that Adam and Eve had no children until they were banished from the garden. I believe until they became mortal, they were unable to have children. As a result, the "Fall" was actually a rise in potential, because by the fall, we were able to be born on Earth and live mortal lives; a necessity to allow us to advance even further that as spirit children of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A person’s conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes—genes, childhood experience, etc.—for which no one, however evil, can be held responsible.
I realize you are citing from Sam Harris, so the criticism I have is directed to Harris.
The first sentence is an oxymoron to the second, because it makes no sense to me that things of which we are unaware ["deep causes"] can affect our conscious thinking and decision-making process, particularly assuming we register as "normal" by our friendly neighborhood psychobablist. In other words, we are dealing with an ignorance that, as Santayana explained, reduces us to a degree of savagery [see my #102]. The demands of justice dictate that we cannot be held responsible for things that occur beyond our control; otherwise, justice is mismanaged and is not satisfied. Worse, society cannot be satisfied it can be compensated for the unlawful actions of others in society. And that yields chaos, not civilization. Knowing that ignorance of the laws of society is not a valid defense against charges of violating those laws, how can we allow that deep causes can interrupt our lives without an ability to defend ourselves?
No, the means and ends of justice demand that we have free will, and that, even by free will, we can and should be responsible for our choices that run aground of social law and order. How else can society function, since we are all individuals with individual choices of behavior. Civilization depends upon our mutual free choice to be law-abiding, and we have no recourse of proper justice against actions that have deep causes outside of our control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You’re such bad faith.
No, you truncate my whole argument and address only half. You'll note in my original subject of justice and personal responsibility [#119], I cover both punishment and reward. Your reply cut-off reward to address only punishment, and at that, only by someone who is handicapped and may not bear full responsibility for actions since they lack, partially or completely, the ability to distinguish right and wrong. My explanation by answer to your question did not shift the focus as you charge. I explained why the handicapped should be allowed consideration of their handicap in the punishment phase of justice due to their mitigating circumstance which allows mercy to adjust the properly just decision. All of it, as I originally argued in my #119 is based upon a person's actions, so, where's the shift of focus you accuse me of making?
You're such bad comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Personal study, reflection, and subsequent revelation via prayer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
we are arguing that thought and intelligence is somehow non existent, or can’t exist.
Where have I ever suggested that? My argument is that our intelligence produces thought and action on our own ability of free will, not by any external determination.
As to your thought experiment, you first suggested an AI. Then you suggested instructions; determinist-derived instructions. In other words, a program. Then you asked if the program - you specifically called it that - not the AI, had free will. So, what does the AI have to do with anything in your posit? Since you raise an AI, then discuss the instructions/program, then ask if the program has free will, the AI becomes irrelevant to your exercise. So the exercise description is flawed since thought/programming is irrelevant without an entity to convert the thought/program to action, because thoughts/programs do nothing of the sort without an entity to perform the thought/program. So, you leave the thought/program dangling in the wind, and who knows where the person/AI has gone. If you really are asking if the thought/program has free will of its own, no, it does not, simply because it has no means to carry out the action stipulated by the program. What sense of purpose does free will or determinism have if there is no action that can be performed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
First, I believe all living things on Earth, and elsewhere, have souls, or spirits, and that when the physical body dies, the spirit lives on.
Second, I believe all living things will resurrect, that is, their spirit, and a new, perfect, immortal physical body in the likeness of the original mortal body will reunite to live eternally as a physical, perfect entity, and that the new, resurrected being has the likeness of their mortal bodies in the primer of that life, however long or brief mortal life was for that individual. For us humans, about 30 years of age. For a dog, about 4 [30 ÷ 7] I suppose.
Third, I believe that all living things, with the exception of humans, live perfect lives, fulfilling the full measure of their creation, and, therefore, will inherit heaven whether we do, or not. We are unique in that regard; we humans have the capacity to sin, to willfully disobey. All other lifeforms have no understanding of good and evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Sometimes those influencing factors are people with power dangling something over your head.
W/hat have those potential mitigating circumstances have to do with the original action of the person charged with a crime? Those are follow-on consideration in consequence of the charged person's actions. His original actions are still actions he, himself, performed. You're trying to tie these subsequent potential actions of others to the charged person's original act. No, it foes not work that way.
There’s a whole lot of nuance you’re missing.
And that nuance is...?
Humans are the universe. Humans are the universe being self-aware.
Humans area sub-set of the universe, not the universe, itself. All things are sub-sets of the universe, and the universe is the sum total of those sub-sets, not the collection, of a single part of it. My finger is just part of me, not the whole me. My finger operates for different purpose than my brain, as does my tongue, my foot, my lungs. The universe is the systems, containing, itself, many sub-systems and components.
But for vulnerable people such as the mentally-handicapped, should we tend to give them the same sentence as someone functioning?
This point you raise is the best of the lot; the most in line with my thinking, and appreciated since I did not raise the issue, but it does have merit. Yes, there are people who, through no fault of their own, are less capable of making decisions that must include allowing for mitigating circumstances of their abilities. But this consideration comes after an action by an individual has been done. First, has a criminal act occurred? Let's say it has. Therefore, justice demands to be served. However, the consideration of mitigating circumstances affecting a person's ability to take personal responsibility for their actions must now be considered. This is the alternative to meting out justice; it is meting out mercy. Mercy is the qualified atonement for a criminal act, strictly because that limited-ability person just not fully understand good and evil, or does not at all. It would, therefore, be unjust to exact the same punishment for the crime on that limited-ability person as on one who had full capacity of personal responsibility. Free will is still, therefore, in play, because both justice and mercy must always be considered when assessing the actions of individuals who act contrary to society's standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You just cannot avoid being un civil, can you? "...you engage in ridiculous straw man...?" That's me, not my argument, as you stated before was your method, so, no, it is, rathwer, your method to ridicule your opponents.
No matter, it's who you are, by your choice. Let's parse your original challenge
If we made an artificial general intelligence that was able to think, reason and create...but was running deterministic instructions on a CPUwould that computer program have free will?
You suggest having created an AI...
Then you give that AI deterministic instructions - a program to run...
And you ask if the program has free will?
And you counter that I am throwing up a stawman? Absurd. Let's use your word: ridiculous. That's your strawman , my friend. The answer? No. The program does not have free will, it is already defined as determinist.
Now, do you want to ask if the AI has free will?
Created:
Posted in:
Another perspective on free will vs. determinism: Justice and Personal responsibility.
Justice is the maintenance or administration of what is conforming to a standard of correctness, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.Since it is the actions of individuals that must be adjudicated in a legal charge of malfeasance, each individual’s actions are reviewed for merit of the charge[s]. As such, each person is individually, personally responsible for their actions.
It is an interrupt of logic to presume otherwise; that some other entity or force is responsible for the actions of an individual, regardless of the severity of threat imposed by any other entity or force to have that individual act in a specified manner. Were it not so, justice, itself, is impossible to mete out properly and justly.
Determinism would have it so; that an external force, and not the individual, themself, is ultimately responsible for their actions. To wit, were it a reality that the universe exerts a force on the brain chemistry of a person such that a person is denied the agency of choice, or even that the “choice” they make is not consciously determined and acted upon, but is the result of chemical alterations that individual did not personally and consciously effect, then justice cannot be properly exercised. The person is utterly absolved of personal responsibility, and mayhem is the ultimate result, not order.
Justice is the maintenance or administration of what is conforming to a standard of correctness, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.Since it is the actions of individuals that must be adjudicated in a legal charge of malfeasance, each individual’s actions are reviewed for merit of the charge[s]. As such, each person is individually, personally responsible for their actions.
It is an interrupt of logic to presume otherwise; that some other entity or force is responsible for the actions of an individual, regardless of the severity of threat imposed by any other entity or force to have that individual act in a specified manner. Were it not so, justice, itself, is impossible to mete out properly and justly.
Determinism would have it so; that an external force, and not the individual, themself, is ultimately responsible for their actions. To wit, were it a reality that the universe exerts a force on the brain chemistry of a person such that a person is denied the agency of choice, or even that the “choice” they make is not consciously determined and acted upon, but is the result of chemical alterations that individual did not personally and consciously effect, then justice cannot be properly exercised. The person is utterly absolved of personal responsibility, and mayhem is the ultimate result, not order.
If a person is not responsible for their choices, they are beings of complete entitlement, regardless of their actions, let alone their thoughts. Such a person is no better, nor worse, than anyone else else, and all lives lives of complete lack of personal accomplishment, for none are solely responsible, ever, for their thoughts, let alone their actions. Where there is no personal achievement for good, there is no reward, and where there is no personal lack of evil, they cannot be punished for it. Thus all live lives of purposelessness, and they are, as Santayana postulated, no better than savages of ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You cannot... you cannot... You cannot...
As I said, argument for your limitations; they're yours, not mine. You don't believe in free will? I don't believe in limitations.
Created:
Posted in:
Would you like to seriously engage the argument?
Posts:
#1. Launch of the topic with my initial argument.
#3. Rebuttal: "Since you argue that God cannot create imperfect things, how do you explain at least you? And the rest of us, as well..." But over 5 pages of posts, you have never met the challenge of this #3 post to explain your imperfection, or that God created imperfection on purpose while I have revisited the subject in #15, and #83.
#8. Non-living things do not direct thought and action of sentient beings. You're not compelling in your argument that electrons are living things.
#15 Challenged to put my argument into a syllogism, I offer one demonstrating the biblical day, month, year of creation which has not been directly rebutted.
That's just a small sampling of my "engagement." So, who isn't engaging the argument? Not Havoc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no freewill. Either your intelligence is caused (determinism/not free) or it is uncaused (random/not will)
Woulds you like to repeat that a few more times. I don't thin k we hear you, yet.
The argument stands in it's own and will continue to do so unless you have some alternative to these two states or some mix of the two
No argument stands on its own, which is why I have offered source citations along with my own argument.
What is the third option between caused and uncaused?
Who says there's only a third option? Argue for your limitations... And that option is just between the other two, cause and uncause? Do you love limitation, or what?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
how can spending more money bring down inflation?
If it's money the government has in excess, investment of that money can stimulate the economy and it will reduce inflation. But, that is not the case. Biden is proposing spending money he is going to have to create by quantitative easement [printing it], and that's what Bush and Obama did. As it only artificially boosts the economy, the economy will not self-sustain that boost, and the economy falls. This was the track of Obama's entire 8 years. Yes, the economy grew during those 8 years, but look at the graph of econ growth. Up-and-down, up-and-down. Eight years of a roller coaster. Yeah, the market generally grew by 10,000 poin ts, but it also lost 6,000 points, for a net of 8-year growth of just 4,000 points. That's dismal. Biden will attempt to repeat, and the same results will occur. To expect otherwise, they say, is insanity. Worse yet, Biden is not really planning much investment, just raw spending. Yeah, he talks the infrastructure bill, but only a pittance of that bill is going to fund actual infrastructure construction. Most of it is just spending; effectively to buy votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Hitler: I am firing X and Y. They are disloyal to me. They have shamed the nation.
Trump: You violate your oath of office. You are not following the Constitution. You are declaring war on democracy.
They are distinctly different commentaries:
1. Hitler is firing two members of his administration for disloyalty. His is the power of their continued service in office. Trump is not firing Pelosi, he is declaring her disloyalty to the Constitution.
2. If anyone's actions are similar to the two disloyal German officers, it is Pelosi. Before his inauguration, Democrats were already calling for Trump's impeachment.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-14/democrats-impeach-trump-beginning-of-presidency. They ignore that Constitutionally, federal officers, including the President, cannot be impeached and removed from office for any alleged high crimes and misdemeanors before the beginning of their term. This is because impeachment is not a legal, but a political act. However, contrary to what most people believe, a President can be indicted from crimes anytime, even while in office. The prohibition of that is merely DOJ policy, but not a statute. Read Article I, section 3, clause 7, with understanding of the meaning of the term 'nevertheless.' Also, within an hour of Trump's inauguration, WaPo called for his impeachment, when the only thing he had don e to date was to walk down the street hand-in-hand with his wife. Sorry, that's neither a high crime nor misdemeanor.
3. Pelosi violated her House rules in the first and second impeachment because she just stood at a podium in both cases and announced the House was going to begin impeachment proceedings. By Rule of the House, Rule X & XI, the entire House membership is supposed to vote in chamber for/against the proceeding before it is launched. Then it is the Judiciary, not the Intel Committee, that is supposed to conduct the investigation to ultimately compose the Articles of Impeachment. None of that occurred. Pelosi just announced it was happening, and it was the Intel Committee that conducted the investigation.
Helps to read this stuff to know how yu r government is supposed to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If we made an artificial general intelligence that was able to think,
according to your Secular buddy, that if-statement is a non-sequitur:
Also and not to beat a dead horse but it doesn't matter because intelligence is EITHER deterministic (not free) OR uncaused (not by will)
You've just offered AI as being determined or uncaused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Directly after you prove the same about individual electrons in your cerebellum
Neither electrons, nor other atomic particles, have intelligence. Come on, really? I have already equated free will with intelligence; that intelligence is a prerequisite of free will, and that it is not a property of inanimate objects.
Also and not to beat a dead horse but it doesn't matter because intelligence is EITHER deterministic (not free) OR uncaused (not by will)
I have yet to see your evidence of that claim. Show me. a scholastic source, pls.
Created: