A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

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

.

And that makes criminal justice systems similar in your opinion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

.

And that makes criminal justice systems similar in your opinion?

In a basis sense, yes. People are elected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

So what is moral responsibility, according to you, other than being responsible in a "moral" just desert sense? I have no idea what you mean by heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what is moral responsibility, according to you, other than being responsible in a "moral" just desert sense?

I don't know! You're the one who brought it up. I certainly don't believe in this 'just desert' thing you mention.

I have no idea what you mean by heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.

It was a nice starting premise for you to work with that we all agree on. Now I think about it though, it's probably yet another fact you might have jettisoned!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Well, I think somewhere in this thread I said it: I am Dutch but live in Switzerland, since 20 years now. The USA really sometimes really looks like a third world country to me, especially concerning prison population and gun ownership. (But also infrastucture. I once was in Morristown, and the quality of the streets remembered me of Indonesia.)

But Scandinavia, especially Sweden and Norway do even better than the Netherlands and Switzerland.

[Dragar]

The Dutch are a much more evolved people; their humble nature and modesty is a particularly striking feature.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what. They aren't contradictory statements.

'So what'? Want to get me really angry? We were having a discussion about how we can talk about responsibility without quarrelling about definitions, and suddenly you start another topic?

"I gave you arguments why it is white."
"Well, it is long, don't you think."
"But I wanted to know if see why I think it is white!"
"So what. They aren't contradictory statements."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say he could have acted differently if he had the capabilities that you are scrutinizing.

Where did I say that? You are reading things I have not written, due to your LFW-reflex.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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."

On the basis of a definition of free will that means nothing concerning reality? No way. Start with the list of 13 capabilities I mentioned before. I think we agree that they apply to most humans under normal circumstances. Don't you see a connection with responsibility?

I understand the dilemma here, but if you refuse to follow my reasoning, i.e. starting from the capabilities we know humans have, instead of starting with a free will unicorn definition, there's no way we can continue because we'll make no progress.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So you are using LFW again. Sorry, if you do not follow the compatibilist way of reasoning, instead of defending your father's book, we will get nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you want to be right or do you want to continue and allow me to share what I know?

Exactly:
Do you want to be right or do you want to continue and allow me to share what I know?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Maybe it is one of the justifications. But surely not the only one. So my point still stands.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

No. Especially the people who have the capabilities to be responsible, but do not act according these capabilities, i.e. do evil, are candidates for punishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, I think somewhere in this thread I said it: I am Dutch but live in Switzerland, since 20 years now. The USA really sometimes really looks like a third world country to me, especially concerning prison population and gun ownership. (But also infrastucture. I once was in Morristown, and the quality of the streets remembered me of Indonesia.)

But Scandinavia, especially Sweden and Norway do even better than the Netherlands and Switzerland.

I've heard that Sweden (I think I have the right country, but I'm not sure) does not have nearly as much crime. Women feel comfortable leaving their babies in strollers outside while they go inside a cafe for lunch. This is all in keeping with the principles of this book, so I have no idea why you are so stubbornly resistant to hearing Lessans out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

'So what'? Want to get me really angry? We were having a discussion about how we can talk about responsibility without quarrelling about definitions, and suddenly you start another topic?

You accused me of being contradictory. I was responding to this accusation.

Originally Posted by GdB

"I gave you arguments why it is white."
"Well, it is long, don't you think."
"But I wanted to know if see why I think it is white!"
"So what. They aren't contradictory statements."

This doesn't fly. You are making me sound nonsensical, which is a tactic that politicians use.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say he could have acted differently if he had the capabilities that you are scrutinizing.

Originally Posted by GdB

Where did I say that? You are reading things I have not written, due to your LFW-reflex.

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."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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."

Originally Posted by GdB

On the basis of a definition of free will that means nothing concerning reality? No way. Start with the list of 13 capabilities I mentioned before. I think we agree that they apply to most humans under normal circumstances. Don't you see a connection with responsibility?

Yes, but threatening people that if they don't act responsibly (according to their definition of what constitutes this ability) they will get punished, doesn't seem to be the answer because our jails are filled to the brim with people who are not acting in accordance with this definition.

I understand the dilemma here, but if you refuse to follow my reasoning, i.e. starting from the capabilities we know humans have, instead of starting with a free will unicorn definition, there's no way we can continue because we'll make no progress.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

So you are using LFW again. Sorry, if you do not follow the compatibilist way of reasoning, instead of defending your father's book, we will get nowhere.

Stop saying that I am using an LFW definition. I am not. I am trying to show you that the capabilities that you claim make a person free are not doing much to increase the kind of responsibility that we would expect to see.

Originally Posted by GdB

I understand the dilemma here, but if you refuse to follow my reasoning, i.e. starting from the capabilities we know humans have, instead of starting with a free will unicorn definition, there's no way we can continue because we'll make no progress.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you want to be right or do you want to continue and allow me to share what I know?

Originally Posted by GdB

Exactly:
Do you want to be right or do you want to continue and allow me to share what I know?

I have given you the floor. I will continue to listen but when you're done, it's only fair that you give me the floor. Tell me when it's my turn.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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. 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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 GdB

Maybe it is one of the justifications. But surely not the only one.

Originally Posted by GdB

What did I just say?

So my point still stands.

No it does not. You said this discovery does not solve the problems of evil because it's only a partial deterrent. I explained that there are 3 justifications that allow somebody to hurt others (of which this is only one), and you continue repeat yourself as if you didn't hear a thing I said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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 GdB

No. Especially the people who have the capabilities to be responsible, but do not act according these capabilities, i.e. do evil, are candidates for punishment.

But you're not the judge. We're back to square one since judging what is right for someone else is the first thing that has to go in order to attain world peace. Tell me when you're ready to listen.

[The Lone Ranger]

Is a "just desert" like a "fair wasteland"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Is a "just desert" like a "fair wasteland"?

Just Desert Retribution: The Folk Response to Determinism
August 7, 2010 by Adam Lerner

After taking a week off from research to attend an incredible seminar on poverty and prosperity in Philadelphia, I’m back and more excited about this project than ever. Since my last blog post, an incredible amount has happened, not all of which I will bore you with here. Among the highlights: I have run my pilot survey on undergraduates here at the College (thanks so much to those who took it!), revised the survey in light of those results, and run the revised survey on a larger population through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an amazing website that allows people (“MTurkers”, as they are often called) with spare time to complete “human intelligence tasks” for money. In case you’re wondering, social scientists are increasingly using MTurk as a convenient, not to mention extremely inexpensive, way to get a more representative and diverse samples for their studies than they could by using college undergraduates. Anyway, now for the exciting news.

I found pretty much exactly what I had hoped for. If you’ll remember, I was trying to figure out why people would punish a criminal who they properly understood to have been causally determined. That is, I wanted to know why people would punish someone for doing wrong if they believed his wrongdoing to have been an inevitable result of, say, his genetic makeup and early environmental influences. The two particular motives for punishment I was pitting against each other was retribution – roughly the idea that someone should be punished in proportion to the moral harm of their crime strictly because they deserve it – and incapacitation – roughly the idea that someone who is dangerous ought to be removed from society in order to protect the rest of society, regardless of whether that person deserves to be so treated. In order to test which of these two theories motivates people to punish determined actors, I had a 2 x 2 factorial design in which subjects were randomly assigned to read one of four crime vignettes and then asked to recommend punishments for the criminal in the vignette. Vignettes varied according to 1) whether the actor in them was or was not causally determined (in the sense explained before) to commit the crime, as well as 2) whether the criminal posed a future risk to society or not. If people’s punishment recommendations vary as a function of the second manipulation, that would suggest that people are motivated out of incapacitation motives. Taking for granted that people are typically motivated out of retributive motives (there’s a large amount of research that suggests this), if people’s punishment recommendations vary as a function of the first manipulation, this would suggest that people forgo retributive motives when the criminal is causally determined to commit his crime.

My results suggest that people punish out of incapacitation motives regardless of whether the criminal was causally determined, but that they punish out of retribution motives much less if the actor is causally determined. In other words, people generally punished the more dangerous criminals more than the less dangerous criminals, and they punished the causally determined criminals less than those who were not. This suggests that people are “natural incompatibilists” about retribution – they think that retributive motives for punishment are incompatible with the criminal’s being determined to commit his crime.

My response: This begs the question: What if every person was determined to commit his crime? Then the only response would be to incapacitate the individual without retributive justice.

cont. at: Just Desert Retribution: The Folk Response to Determinism

[The Lone Ranger]

"Whooosh ..."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Whooosh ..."

I didn't think you were that interested.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by GdB

Well peacegirl, this the chance to prove you are not lying. Provide the link.

Told you.

[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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right, so kindly go through my questions and answer the ones that apply. Feel free to identify any you still think don't apply, and be sure to explain why you think this.

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.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a light flashes on an object in less than a second, how could I even register what I'm seeing in that short amount of time?

Those are lots of short pulses with (that was the number given in Wikipedia, there is no reason why there can't be stronger light sources) 1 watt of average power. You wouldn't have any problem seeing in that light.

[Dragar]

Bump!

Originally Posted by Dragar

So if we are not interpreting the light, tell me why it matters that light is reflected differently on a wall than a mirror?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So if we are not interpreting the light, tell me why it matters that light is reflected differently on a wall than a mirror?

Because that is rational, and the Lessans/Peacegirl propositions are clearly irrational.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've heard that Sweden (I think I have the right country, but I'm not sure) does not have nearly as much crime. Women feel comfortable leaving their babies in strollers outside while they go inside a cafe for lunch. This is all in keeping with the principles of this book, so I have no idea why you are so stubbornly resistant to hearing Lessans out.

That is simple: do you think the Swedish have read your father's book and used it as a basis of organising theirs lives? I assume the answer is obvious. Lessanism is not the state philosophy of Sweden.

One has only to ask a simple question: what is the best way to cope with criminality and the best way to avoid it? Then, use your honest common sense without blinding your self by moral outrage, and also look on what psychology, sociology, economics and history have to say. Then you will get to the kind of answers that the Scandinavians have given and put into praxis, and in a slightly lesser degree, the Dutch, Swiss and the Germans.

None have them felt ever the need to read Lessans' book. And nobody will use the absurd theoretical framework your father used to find theoretical support for his rational praxis.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You accused me of being contradictory. I was responding to this accusation.

I did not. I accused you of changing the subject, of avoiding to see that my 13-point list might be enough basis for assigning and taking responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making me sound nonsensical, which is a tactic that politicians use.

Well, often you really sound nonsensical, e.g. when you do not read precisely enough, change point of views or subjects, or attack compatibilists with arguments that are only valid against LFW-believers. (But the top is course instantaneous vision...)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but threatening people that if they don't act responsibly (according to their definition of what constitutes this ability) they will get punished, doesn't seem to be the answer because our jails are filled to the brim with people who are not acting in accordance with this definition.

No. They are convicted based on the idea of ultimate responsibility, which is the correlate of LFW, not of CFW. You see, under CFW being free is not black and white: one can look individually how somebody is responsible, and how much, and estimate the chances of success of other measures (like just a warning, or therapy, or social work) instead of imprisonment. (And I still not agree with your idea that 'having the capability to act responsible' means that every act is responsible.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop saying that I am using an LFW definition.

No. As soon as I see you use contra-LFW arguments against CFW, I will tell you so. Also when you take for granted that the only reason why we may imprison people is because LFW must be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you the floor.

No, I fought for my place to get on the floor: and I show you were the hole in the floor is, but you do not want to notice it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You said this discovery does not solve the problems of evil because it's only a partial deterrent.

No. I said that some people sometimes might react in the way Lessans' describes. But to think that all evil stems from this 'psychological mechanism' is more than exaggerated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained that there are 3 justifications that allow somebody to hurt others (of which this is only one), ...

Really? Link please.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're not the judge.

In democracy we are all more or less judges. Our parliaments make the laws based on which judges convict criminals. And we vote the parliament.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one since judging what is right for someone else is the first thing that has to go in order to attain world peace.

I smell a self-refuting judgement...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

That is simple: do you think the Swedish have read your father's book and used it as a basis of organising theirs lives? I assume the answer is obvious. Lessanism is not the state philosophy of Sweden.

Why are you taking on the mannerisms of the people here? Lessanism? What a joke.

Originally Posted by GdB

One has only to ask a simple question: what is the best way to cope with criminality and the best way to avoid it? Then, use your honest common sense without blinding your self by moral outrage, and also look on what psychology, sociology, economics and history have to say. Then you will get to the kind of answers that the Scandinavians have given and put into praxis, and in a slightly lesser degree, the Dutch, Swiss and the Germans.

Where have I disagreed that the Scandinavians are doing a better job? This is in keeping with my understanding of what makes a society safer in all respects? But they have partial answers. They don't have the complete answer. Can you deal with this or are you afraid that Lessans may have an answer that goes beyond what even the Scandinavians are doing?

Originally Posted by GdB

None have them felt ever the need to read Lessans' book. And nobody will use the absurd theoretical framework your father used to find theoretical support for his rational praxis.

They may not have felt the need, but there is so much more to be done on a global scale. This should give us a desire to understand the commonalities between Lessans' claims and what Scandanavians are doing, not to throw out the claims. Whatever the reason, I don't get why you are disinterested in what Lessans has to say since you really don't know. Maybe in a few years when he is more well know, you will change your tune.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I did not. I accused you of changing the subject, of avoiding to see that my 13-point list might be enough basis for assigning and taking responsibility.

I have taken your 13-point list seriously. You are not even listening to me GdB. You are demanding that you are right and how dare that I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making me sound nonsensical, which is a tactic that politicians use.

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, often you really sound nonsensical, e.g. when you do not read precisely enough, change point of views or subjects, or attack compatibilists with arguments that are only valid against LFW-believers. (But the top is course instantaneous vision...)

No no no, you don't get to shift topics to try to prove your point. This is sneaky and unacceptable GdB. We are not talking about his second discovery so why would you bring this up other than to use something unrelated to try to make him look bad? I have read your points. It is you that is changing topics. You are playing a semantic game because no one is saying you support LFW. You are using this argument to get you off the hook, but it doesn't fly. This is the biggest strawman of the free will/determinism debate that I have ever seen. You can't win because your definition has nothing to do with what we're discussing. It's a play on words. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but threatening people that if they don't act responsibly (according to their definition of what constitutes this ability) they will get punished, doesn't seem to be the answer because our jails are filled to the brim with people who are not acting in accordance with this definition.

Originally Posted by GdB

No. They are convicted based on the idea of ultimate responsibility, which is the correlate of LFW, not of CFW. You see, under CFW being free is not black and white: one can look individually how somebody is responsible, and how much, and estimate the chances of success of other measures (like just a warning, or therapy, or social work) instead of imprisonment. (And I still not agree with your idea that 'having the capability to act responsible' means that every act is responsible.)

You can measure the chances of success based on your list. Who is disputing this? FYI, I never said that every act is responsible, according to the definition. Bottom line: regardless of the definition of responsibility, you are not to judge. When you relinquish the role of judge, jury, and executioner, miraculous things happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop saying that I am using an LFW definition.

Originally Posted by GdB

. As soon as I see you use contra-LFW arguments against CFW, I will tell you so. Also when you take for granted that the only reason why we may imprison people is because LFW must be true.

I never said that. Your reasons still don't work because they judge the rightness and wrongness of a choice that someone makes. Stop with the semantics. If will is not free, you have just made a fatal error, but you will keep telling me that I'm arguing for LFW. This keeps you safe in your worldview, but it is an error that will eventually throw out compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you the floor.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I fought for my place to get on the floor: and I show you were the hole in the floor is, but you do not want to notice it.

Whatever you say GdB.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You said this discovery does not solve the problems of evil because it's only a partial deterrent.

Originally Posted by GdB

No. I said that some people sometimes might react in the way Lessans' describes. But to think that all evil stems from this 'psychological mechanism' is more than exaggerated.

But I never said this was the only psychological mechanism. So stop accusing Lessans of something he never said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained that there are 3 justifications that allow somebody to hurt others (of which this is only one), ...

Originally Posted by GdB

Really? Link please.

You'll have to pay $4.95 for the book. It's right there in Chapter Two. I refuse to give everything to you on a silver platter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're not the judge.

Originally Posted by GdB

In democracy we are all more or less judges. Our parliaments make the laws based on which judges convict criminals. And we vote the parliament.

So it's similar to the democratic process, but this is old thinking. We're in a new era GdB, and this is where the discovery my father made will start to open eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one since judging what is right for someone else is the first thing that has to go in order to attain world peace.

Originally Posted by GdB

I smell a self-refuting judgement...

Well, you can smell what you want, but you have said absolutely nothing. You're just a typical skeptic. I urge you to look into this discovery with a true desire to learn instead of answering in a knee jerk fashion.

[LadyShea]

there is so much more to be done on a global scale.

I have asked about that before. You have a dismal track record of getting anyone to accept Lessans ideas, and yet you insist that if somehow top scientists endorse these ideas the rest of the world would follow. Do you think Kim Yong Un, Vladimir Putin, or Bashar al-Assad give a shit what "top scientists" think? Even if you were able to get a scientific endorsement, what makes you think all world leaders would jump on board?

If you managed to get both scientists and some world leaders, how would you convince ISIS, the Taliban, Mai-Mai, or any other rebel group (or freedom fighters depending on your POV) to dump their ideologies?

Just from a practicality standpoint global acceptance is going to be your major mile high hurdle, your arguing about it on tiny discussion forums is certainly not going to make an impact.