A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Kindle
$4.99
Read with the Kindle App

Hardcover
from $65.25

Paperback
$41.00

$41.00 for a paperback is excessive, especially for a book that has no real value.

BTW, you can't even get the Kindle price correct, just like everything else you and your father got wrong.

Would you stop putting me down for no reason, which is all you ever do?

The paperback price is excessive. That isn't even the price I set which is $24.99. I'm not selling the hardback at this time. I don't know why they say this: Just so you know...
This view is of the Kindle edition (2014) from Safeworld Publishing Company. A preview of the print book (Paperback edition) is currently not available.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you stop putting me down for no reason, which is all you ever do?

Hardly for no reason, everything you get you have brought on yourself. If you had honestly responded to people from the beginning, you wouldn't be getting the hostility you are now getting because of your dishonesty and willful ignorance. People have tried to explain how the real world works and where your father got it wrong, but you have refused to listen or even consider the possibility that your father was wrong, even when it has been demonstrated to you beyond any question. You cling to your delusions and ignore reality, so you get the reaction you have earned from others. Think back to Dissident Philosopher, I was not putting you down there, you have brought this all on yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hardly for no reason, everything you get you have brought on yourself. If you had honestly responded to people from the beginning, you wouldn't be getting the hostility you are now getting because of your dishonesty and willful ignorance. People have tried to explain how the real world works and where your father got it wrong, but you have refused to listen or even consider the possibility that your father was wrong, even when it has been demonstrated to you beyond any question. You cling to your delusions and ignore reality, so you get the reaction you have earned from others. Think back to Dissident Philosopher, I was not putting you down there, you have brought this all on yourself.

Be quiet for a change. Your mouth is on overdrive!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this discovery is confirmed valid, hopefully they will give his other discoveries the attention they deserve.

In this thread alone Lessans' "discoveries" have already received all the attention they deserve, and then some.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Continue on Spacemonkey.

Thank you, I will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't expect me to answer.

No-one expects you to have the courage, honesty, or basic courtesy to answer reasonable and applicable questions - least of all me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not beat a dead horse.

I agree that efferent vision is a dead horse. Even you know full well by now that it cannot be made compatible with the known properties of light - which is why you lie, weasel, and evade instead of answering these simple questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by GdB

Provide the link, peacegirl. If you don't it is a clear confession that you were wrong all the time with your efferent vision.

And that you are a liar.

She can't provide any such link.

She was lying and she knows it.

[davidm]

Silly me, but lately I have not been following this riveting thread. I do note, though, that some of the current discussion is virtually indistinguishable from, and essentially verbatim of, discussion from -- oh, two, three, four years ago! “And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Some perhaps pertinent remarks/observations:

First: Has anyone ever specifically brought up Frankfurt cases? Because Frankfurt makes a pretty compelling case that we are morally responsible for our actions, even if we could not have done otherwise.

Second: “Could not have done otherwise” remains a modally loaded term. Would not have done otherwise (given identical antecedent conditions) is the most you can modally say, but, as GdB notes, this claim is empirically untestable, and hence arguably worthless to begin with, regardless of whether one employs the term “could not” or “would not.” But:

Third: In an extended discussion on causal determinism and free will in his book, The Concept of Physical Law, Norman Swartz rejects both “could not” and “would not”; i.e., rejects the notion of “same history, identical outcome (while admitting, of course, that no experiment could ever decide this issue).” But Swartz is neither a libertarian nor a compatibilist; this is because he rejects the standard definition of causal determinism with respect to free will. Swartz writes:

If a person is in a unique situation and chooses B, then his choosing something else that is logically inconsistent with B, for example, C, is physically impossible; nonetheless, his choosing C may well have been unconditionally possible.

The explication of his “paradoxical-sounding corollary” turns on the definition of “physical impossibility” as mooted in Swartz’s neo-Humean regularity theory of physical law. For those interested, the two relevant chapters from his book are:

Free Will and Determinism

Predictability and Uniformity

Fourth: It has been recently stated in this thread that “no one” argues for libertarianism; and that the concept of LFW is not cogent, or incoherent, or some such. I think both claims are false (though it may be true that no one is currently arguing for LFW in this thread.) Determinists and compatbilists owe a rebuttal to the Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will Theorem. The authors claim to have mathematically demonstrated that causal determinism is not part of the world, and hence that compatibilism is superfluous – “unneeded,” as they put it. (To be precise, their theorem could in principle accommodate determinism, but only at spectacularly implausible ontological price.) They conclude that what remains, after disposing of determinism and compatibilism, is not simply indeterminism, but free will, which an electron partakes of as much as a person: The choice of an experimental setup, and an electron’s response to it, is not a function of anything in the past.

Fifth: Recommended reading: Are We Free to Break the Laws? by David K. Lewis. This is considered a seminal paper on free will and determinism by probably the greatest analytic philosopher of the 20th century.

Sixth (and perhaps most important): Peacegirl is a big fat sack of lying donkey doodles and a hag, and she knows it but will never admit it; viz.:




Thank you all in advance for your attention to these important matters.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In this thread alone Lessans' "discoveries" have already received all the attention they deserve, and then some.

No Angakuk, that's not true. This is just the beginning.

[davidm]

One other point, with respect to this “identical history, identical outcome” business – that given antecedent conditions, I will choose A (and not something else) and would always deterministically chose A if we could rewind history with identical conditions: many people think the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. If it is correct, the aforementioned Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will Theorem does not apply, as I think the theorem is only compatible with Copenhagenism. But now a new issue arises: MW shows that given any set of antecedent conditions, I will indeed choose A, but I will also choose all other possible options. So if MW is correct, than “same history, one outcome” is illusory, and instead we get, “same history, all possible outcomes.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Silly me, but lately I have not been following this riveting thread. I do note, though, that some of the current discussion is virtually indistinguishable from, and essentially verbatim of, discussion from -- oh, two, three, four years ago! “And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Some perhaps pertinent remarks/observations:

First: Has anyone ever specifically brought up Frankfurt cases? Because Frankfurt makes a pretty compelling case that we are morally responsible for our actions, even if we could not have done otherwise.

Second: “Could not have done otherwise” remains a modally loaded term. Would not have done otherwise (given identical antecedent conditions) is the most you can modally say, but, as GdB notes, this claim is empirically untestable, and hence arguably worthless to begin with, regardless of whether one employs the term “could not” or “would not.” But:

Third: In an extended discussion on causal determinism and free will in his book, The Concept of Physical Law, Norman Swartz rejects both “could not” and “would not”; i.e., rejects the notion of “same history, identical outcome (while admitting, of course, that no experiment could ever decide this issue).”

Isn't that what Lessans wrote? Free will will always remain a theory because it requires going back in time, reversing what has already been done to prove a person could have chosen A instead of B, which we know can't be done.

Originally Posted by davidm

But Swartz is neither a libertarian nor a compatibilist; this is because he rejects the standard definition of causal determinism with respect to free will.

So does Lessans.

Originally Posted by davidm

Swartz writes:

Originally Posted by davidm

The explication of his “paradoxical-sounding corollary” turns on the definition of “physical impossibility” as mooted in Swartz’s neo-Humean regularity theory of physical law. For those interested, the two relevant chapters from his book are:

Free Will and Determinism

Predictability and Uniformity

Fourth: It has been recently stated in this thread that “no one” argues for libertarianism; and that the concept of LFW is not cogent, or incoherent, or some such. I think both claims are false (though it may be true that no one is currently arguing for LFW in this thread.) Determinists and compatbilists owe a rebuttal to the Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will Theorem. The authors claim to have mathematically demonstrated that causal determinism is not part of the world, and hence that compatibilism is superfluous – “unneeded,” as they put it. (To be precise, their theorem could in principle accommodate determinism, but only at spectacularly implausible ontological price.) They conclude that what remains, after disposing of determinism and compatibilism, is not simply indeterminism, but free will, which an electron partakes of as much as a person: The choice of an experimental setup, and an electron’s response to it, is not a function of anything in the past.

I don't know about electron's, but that's partially true, and why Lessans rejects the standard definition of determinism. So much for your understanding of any of Lessans' writings.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 53 It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free.

Originally Posted by davidm

Fifth: Recommended reading: Are We Free to Break the Laws? by David K. Lewis. This is considered a seminal paper on free will and determinism by probably the greatest analytic philosopher of the 20th century.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

One other point, with respect to this “identical history, identical outcome” business – that given antecedent conditions, I will choose A (and not something else) and would always deterministically chose A if we could rewind history with identical conditions: many people think the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. If it is correct, the aforementioned Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will Theorem does not apply, as I think the theorem is only compatible with Copenhagenism. But now a new issue arises: MW shows that given any set of antecedent conditions, I will indeed choose A, but I will also choose all other possible options. So if MW is correct, than “same history, one outcome” is illusory, and instead we get, “same history, all possible outcomes.”

You talk a big talk David, but all you do is spout of theories that have nothing to do with reality. Kind of like wormholes, time machines, and 4th dimensions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light can only travel about 30cm in a nanosecond. This is still not enough time for light to be at the eye for any object more than 30cm away from the observer's eye.

That's not an assumption. It is a straightforward fact so long as the light is getting from the object to the eye by traveling at a fixed speed. Increasing the distance increases the travel time. Can you offer any alternative means by which the light gets to the retina?

That doesn't explain HOW the light gets to be at the retina. (Stating conditions still isn't giving an explanatory mechanism.)

Then how does light get to be at the retina when viewing a distant object? Does the light come from the object or somewhere else? How does it get to the retina without traveling the intervening distance?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Content free responses. You're not even trying.

I'm missing the account because you haven't provided one. You still haven't explained where the light at the retina comes from or how it gets there.

The photons travel from where to where? And at what speed?

No, that doesn't fit either. All you're trying to say is that we'll see the Sun just as quickly as the candle. But the only explanation we have for the candle case is one which depends upon the travel time of light. So explaining the Sun case in an analogical way results in an 8min time delay.

Yes, you do need an alternative explanation for how the candle case works. Efferent vision hasn't explained it, and you have so far offered no reasoning for us to follow. The only explanation we have is that the light travels from the candle to the observers eye, and takes a measurable amount of time to do so, resulting in a time delay corresponding to the distance traveled.

If the light gets from the candle to the observer's eye by traveling at light speed, then explaining the Sun example in "the same way" results in an 8min time delay. You can't say that efferent vision works the same as the candle example AND that the candle example works exactly the same as science already says. That would mean efferent vision is no different to the current afferent account. To explain how time and distance cease to be factors in efferent vision, you also need to explain how this is achieved in the candle case.

Same question: Where did that light come from and how did it get there?

All you're saying is that the Sun case is just as fast as the candle case, but you still can't explain how time and distance aren't factors in either scenario.

You still haven't explained where this light came from or how it got to be at the retina. You still haven't answered any of my bumped questions, even after admitting that at least some of them do apply. This shows you to be an incredibly dishonest person.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Vivisectus, you are right. This thread is now an excuse to keep me stuck in a no win discussion. You offered an article that gives some insight that Lessans may be right after all. I would like to pursue your suggestions as time allows.

Spacemonkey, I really don't care if the eyes are a sense organ or not. Lessans believed the eyes were not a sense organ as a result of his observations. If he was wrong, so be it. I can accept that. I have no desire to argue with you.

Gdb, I agree with you that the definition of free will is not conducive to a productive conversation because we are talking at each other instead of to each other. If we can leave this term out, we could make progress. I am trying to show that responsibility goes up when we don't blame. Lessans demonstrates how a world of no blame will achieve a world of peace. Isn't that what we all want?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I really don't care if the eyes are a sense organ or not. Lessans believed the eyes were not a sense organ as a result of his observations. If he was wrong, so be it. I can accept that. I have no desire to argue with you.

Translation: I know Lessans was wrong about vision but can't bring myself to admit it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Translation: I know Lessans was wrong about vision but can't bring myself to admit it.

That's fine. Interpret what I say any way you see fit. I have no desire to argue with you any more. I'm done.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine. Interpret what I say any way you see fit. I have no desire to argue with you any more. I'm done.

Translation: Time for me to fake concede yet again, until I get bored then mentally reset and begin the whole thing all over again.

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss anything then GTFO.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Be quiet for a change. Your mouth is on overdrive!

Interesting, you don't dispute anything I've said, because you can't. You know it's all true. As far as being in overdrive, you are posting more than I am, so what does that make you?

The difference is that what I have posted has substance, but your posts are more numerous and devoid of substance.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not criticizing compatibilists for this reason.

Oh, yes, you do:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't agree that man has no free choice because his will is not free and then insert another definition of free will that says he is now blameworthy for making the wrong choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But don't you see that if libertarian free will doesn't exist because everything is caused by antecedent conditions, then to blame someone for making the wrong decision because he was "free" is a contradiction.

But now you say this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am criticizing compatibilists because their worldview of blame and punishment doesn't work. All it does is support the status quo which isn't working, if you haven't noticed.

That is something completely different. But I do not think you know what compatibilists think about that, because it is not their main project: their main project is to show that the capabilities of humans can justify that somebody may bear the fruit of his actions, or bear the repercussions. That of course depends how far these capabilities are developed in the person under scrutiny. But that has nothing to do with causality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that's what I'm doing.

No, you did not. You were criticising compatibilists because they are so bold to summarise these capabilities as 'free will': the capacity of humans to bear, accept, and take responsibility for their actions. This boldness triggers the 'we have no free will' reflex in you. But thereby you think of LFW (i.e. a definition of free will that means nothing concerning reality), and not about the reality that compatibilists are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The list you've provided are qualities that we hope everyone holds, but if they don't, warnings that they will bear the consequences have failed to achieve the intended purpose.

Correct, as I said above: it depends how far these capabilities are developed in the person under scrutiny. But these are empirical questions, that for every individual, for every action, can be asked. The answer is not always easy to give. And it is obvious that hard punishment often is not the correct answer.

But the starting point cannot be simply deny that free will exists: it is to look what kind of free will humans have in general, what the conditions for this free will are, and in how far these are realised in the person under scrutiny.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Responsibility for an action (the fact that I performed the action) is not the same thing as assigning moral responsibility; the judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of said action by others. These are two different things. Paradoxically, it is the judgment by others that is partly responsible for the behavior the judgment is meant to prevent.

Partly, yes. But not for every despicable action. And therefore your father's ideas are not a panacea for all evil in the world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have defined it. You know what those choices are; you listed them and yet you say nowhere have you used the idea of a responsible choice. You are being mealy mouthed.

Read better: I said this list is a list of capabilities people can have that make them to responsible beings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IYour way doesn't help except to justify blame and punishment by judging those whom you say should have known better. And where has it gotten us?

Well, at least I live in a society with much less crime than in the USA.

Maybe you should look how other countries cope with crime: have a look at 'The Norden', where Americans have a view on how prisons and police work in Scandinavian countries:

The Norden - Nordic Prisons
The Norden - Police

Maybe you like to use it as background for your search for support for your father's book...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't agree that man has no free choice because his will is not free and then insert another definition of free will that says he is now blameworthy for making the wrong choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But don't you see that if libertarian free will doesn't exist because everything is caused by antecedent conditions, then to blame someone for making the wrong decision because he was "free" is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by GdB

But now you say this:

So what. They aren't contradictory statements.

Originally Posted by GdB

But I do not think you know what compatibilists think about that, because it is not their main project: their main project is to show that the capabilities of humans can justify that somebody may bear the fruit of his actions, or bear the repercussions. That of course depends how far these capabilities are developed in the person under scrutiny. But that has nothing to do with causality.

Of course it does. You are saying that IF a person has developed the capabilities to know right from wrong, this justifies that he bear the fruit of his actions, or bear the consequences. Compatibilists have set up a standard that they judge to be blameworthy, but what if the very act of judging creates the justification for him to act on the crime he is contemplating? What then? This is a difficult debate and why it has lasted for so long. But in order to get over this impasse I need you to listen instead of react. You say he could have acted differently if he had the capabilities that you are scrutinizing. That is still the same thing as saying "he could have acted otherwise". Instead of trying to distinguish between good and bad behavior, just follow the corollary which states, "If man's will is not free, then Thou Shall Not Blame." I understand the dilemma here, but if you refuse to follow Lessans' reasoning to see where this corollary leads (even if it means relinquishing your compatibilist ideas of "free will" temporarily; you can always pick them back up after we're done), there's no way we can continue because we'll make no progress.

Originally Posted by GdB

There is only one way you can criticise compatibilists: by arguing that above abilities are not enough to assign people responsibility, to enjoy or bear the consequences of their deeds.

Well that's what I'm doing.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, you did not. You were criticising compatibilists because they are so bold to summarise these capabilities as 'free will': the capacity of humans to bear, accept, and take responsibility for their actions. This boldness triggers the 'we have no free will' reflex in you. But thereby you think of LFW (i.e. a definition of free will that means nothing concerning reality), and not about the reality that compatibilists are describing.

GdB, summarizing these capabilities does not solve the problem. Do you want to continue and hear me out, or not? If you want to justify why compatibilism is able to hold people accountable, then do so but we'll need to part ways. The irony is the very thing you want (this accountability) is not coming to fruition and is actually doing nothing to solve the issues threatening our world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The list you've provided are qualities that we hope everyone holds, but if they don't, warnings that they will bear the consequences have failed to achieve the intended purpose.

Originally Posted by GdB

Correct, as I said above: it depends how far these capabilities are developed in the person under scrutiny. But these are empirical questions, that for every individual, for every action, can be asked. The answer is not always easy to give. And it is obvious that hard punishment often is not the correct answer.

That's a good thing; the fact that the court takes mitigating circumstances into account, which may lessen the punishment. But this isn't even close to why hard determinists say punishment isn't the right word. It should not even be used since it assumes a person could have done otherwise. It then becomes a form of revenge or just desert (i.e., you took out a person's eye, so now we're going to take out your eye, or make the punishment fit the crime) so that justice is served.

Originally Posted by GdB

But the starting point cannot be simply deny that free will exists: it is to look what kind of free will humans have in general, what the conditions for this free will are, and in how far these are realised in the person under scrutiny.

I refuse to talk about this "free will" you believe we have when we are not being forced; when there are options open to us that come from within. It will cut the conversation off. Do you want to be right or do you want to continue and allow me to share what I know?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Responsibility for an action (the fact that I performed the action) is not the same thing as assigning moral responsibility; the judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of said action by others. These are two different things. Paradoxically, it is the judgment by others that is partly responsible for the behavior the judgment is meant to prevent.

Originally Posted by GdB

Partly, yes. But not for every despicable action. And therefore your father's ideas are not a panacea for all evil in the world.

It is this very judgment (telling a person that he is wrong to do this or that) that allows his conscience to do it. This is one of the justifications that allow someone to hurt others. It's not the only one. That's why I said this judgment is partly responsible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So how can you discern which of his choices he is to be held to account if you have not used the idea of a "responsible choice?"

Originally Posted by GdB

If this should mean something concerning reality, you must first clearly define it.

I have defined it. You know what those choices are; you listed them and yet you say nowhere have you used the idea of a responsible choice. You are being mealy mouthed.

Originally Posted by GdB

Read better: I said this list is a list of capabilities people can have that make them to responsible beings.

And responsible beings make responsible choices. So you are judging whether their choice, according to their capabilities, was the right or responsible choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IYour way doesn't help except to justify blame and punishment by judging those whom you say should have known better. And where has it gotten us?

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, at least I live in a society with much less crime than in the USA.

I'm not sure where you live, but it doesn't seem like your justice system is much different than the U.S. in the way it's set up. It could be that the lifestyle is different which gives people more job opportunity thus causing less need to incarcerate. I'm just hypothesizing here.

Originally Posted by GdB

Maybe you should look how other countries cope with crime: have a look at 'The Norden', where Americans have a view on how prisons and police work in Scandinavian countries:

The Norden - Nordic Prisons
The Norden - Police

Maybe you like to use it as background for your search for support for your father's book...

Thanks for your suggestion. That's what Vivisectus said. He said that many of these countries are way ahead of the game, and I could use these statistics to link to the discovery.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure where you live, but it doesn't seem like your justice system is much different than the U.S.

How do you know it's not much different if you don't even know where GdB lives ?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And responsible beings make responsible choices.

There are multiple meanings to responsible. You are using two of them in this sentence as if they are the same. Why?

And responsible (being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it) beings make responsible (capable of being trusted) choices.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure where you live, but it doesn't seem like your justice system is much different than the U.S.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know it's not much different if you don't even know where GdB lives ?

Only in the sense that his country is democratic and has a court of law. I was assuming that he lived in a country with a democratic justice system instead of a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And responsible beings make responsible choices.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are multiple meanings to responsible. You are using two of them in this sentence as if they are the same. Why?

And responsible (being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it) beings make responsible (capable of being trusted) choices.

There are two different meanings to the word responsible, which I already clarified. One is that you performed an action and were responsible for what followed. If you turn a car into oncoming traffic and kill someone, you performed that action. You were responsible for that action.

The other responsible has to do with moral responsibility. you performed that action, and it was wrong so you are now subject to being blame and punished. That is the kind of responsibility that is not preserved if we follow the corollary. I'm trying to show the extension of this corollary and how it works, but if no one cares to listen because they think they have all the answers, I can't move forward.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are two different meanings to the word responsible, which I already clarified. One is that you performed an action and were responsible for what followed. If you turn a car into oncoming traffic and kill someone, you performed that action. You were responsible for that action.

The other responsible has to do with moral responsibility. you performed that action, and it was wrong so you are now subject to being blame and punished. That is the kind of responsibility that is not preserved if we follow the corollary. I'm trying to show the extension of this corollary and how it works, but if no one cares to listen because they think they have all the answers, I can't move forward.

It seems that you are saying the same thing twice, you don't even state it very differently. And then you try to pretend that you have given two different definitions, just like your father did in the book, but many times he tried to state one thing and claim it proved something totally unrelated.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The other responsible has to do with moral responsibility. you performed that action, and it was wrong so you are now subject to being blame and punished.

What is this sort of responsibility you speak of? Can you prove that it exists, or that our legal framework depends upon it (and that it does so necessarily)? Plenty of people (myself included) utterly reject this notion of 'moral responsibility', which seems to be this thing that floats around and sticks to you under certain (ever ambiguous!) conditions, and not others.

I'll get you started for the first part.

1. Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.
2. ???
3. ???
------
--> By committing an action that is 'wrong', you are subject to being blamed and punished.

Go ahead and fill in the blanks in the premises that lead to the conclusion.