what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
When you teach a child that doing bad things gets you put into jail, it makes the child not want to do bad things. Did the child choose to hear this information? Did it choose to have a brain that correctly interprets the risk vs. reward of such actions, or the selfishness to overlook the damage certain actions might inflict upon others?
Then why are there so many people in jail? This must mean not everyone has a brain that correctly interprets the risks vs reward of his actions. And since he did not choose to have that brain, which determines what he does, then why do we punish him? Morality is already out of the equation, as well is our current conception of law as a legal contract, so what remains? Are we trying to correct them? Considering the high percentage of recidivism it may be more effective to just kill them. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why not just kill them? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
I feel that your viewpoint is just so far beyond fucked up that there's no point trying to argue with you, sorry.
it is not what I believe in, i am just asking you some questions. but np, you were predetermined to respond in such fashion.
I can rephrase it to take out the killing though, if thats more to your liking:
Then why are there so many people in jail? This must mean not everyone has a brain that correctly interprets the risks vs reward of his actions. And since he did not choose to have that brain, which determines what he does, then why do we punish him? Morality is already out of the equation, as well is our current conception of law as a legal contract, so what remains? Are we trying to correct them? Considering the high percentage of recidivism this does not seem very effective. And if we punish them to warn others who do have a brain that correctly assesses risk vs reward, then again, why then does history point towards the fact that the most deterring legal systems got into a spiral of more violence instead of less? There truly is no need for a legal system as elaborate as ours in such a world.
Someone else already gave a more or less satisfying answer though, however it still seems stuck in an outdated conception of mind-body dualism.
I think you have a big misunderstanding of what my position is. Of course people can make decisions and change their mind. What we're asserting is that the reason they do so is always rooted in a complex set of circumstances and genetics which ultimately the person had no control over.
So say you're mad at someone for punching you in the face, shouldn't you be mad at that person's parents for raising them so poorly? But what about the parents? They themselves were probably raised poorly as well, so is it any more their fault? And on and on, back to the Big Bang.
But really, the reason you're mad in the first place is just an instinctual response geared towards preventing future such instances.
Unfortunately I'm far too unintelligent to explain any of this properly, but if you have any intention of possibly learning something new and changing your mind (although I have an extremely strong suspicion that you unfortunately don't), here's a brilliant neuroscientist who's job it is to talk about this stuff:
He can explain it a hell of a lot better than I ever could.
As much as I enjoy Harris' talks, the term 'brilliant neuroscientist' does not really do him justice. I mean "brilliant speaker" or "brilliant popular writer" are at least debatable, but as a neuroscientist his record is pretty mediocre if not to say quite abysmal and the same holds for his workings as a philosopher. A graduate degree or a phd does not turn you into a 'brilliant scientist" not even into a scientist in many cases and his publication record is quite lacking.
That's why he needs to provoke in order to cover his living expenses and ride on the new atheist ticket to find a platform. There is nothing bad about this in principle, it's just that his influence on the internet stands in no relation to his academic acclaim. In this sense he really is the William Lane Craig of atheism (even though the analogy fails hard in most other respects).
On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote: I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw. Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
On July 13 2013 17:35 Rassy wrote: "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
There is indeed no logical pathway from strong determinism to "people shouldn't be punished", no more than there is a pathway from "there are no objective morals" to "everything is permissible" (screw you Dostojevskij). If all our actions are predetermined then so is our thinking and decisionmaking, including what we will or will not do with criminals, and including what we will and will not do with the knowledge that our thoughts are predetermined and that our thoughts about our thoughts being predetermined are also predetermined and so on.
On July 13 2013 17:35 Rassy wrote: "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
Actually, it's even not a matter of opinion Rassy. That statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of both determinism and the justice system and is completely wrong. I've copy pasted my explanation into a later post.
On July 13 2013 18:35 xM(Z wrote: how can you agree on something in a deterministic world?. the agreement itself was predetermined
On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote: I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw. Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
You say you believe in a stochastic world, but when asked to explain what that meant or how it works, you had no answer to give... so don't blame me for not properly understanding what you meant, you havent properly explained what you meant.
On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote: I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw. Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism. 3. I'll easily translate his reply for you: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Can you even read? Do you have a basic understanding or are you misinterpreting this on purpose just to troll?
I said clearly that I believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and that could be concluded from nearly all of my posts (even if I didn't say it clearly several times), yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, I really don't see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote: I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw. Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote: I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw. Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong.
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
And you defend him? really...
Did you fail to read number 2? Agentless destiny describes determinism perfectly. In the post that you quoted he didn't use destiny, that's why I gave you number 1, but just in case he used it previously I gave you number 2 which explained that it doesn't matter even if he did say that, so why you're quoting those passages to me and bolding the parts where he said destiny is completely beyond me...
what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen.
You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
And you defend him? really...
Did you fail to read number 2? Agentless destiny describes determinism perfectly. In the post that you quoted he didn't use destiny, that's why I gave you number 1, but just in case he used it previously I gave you number 2 which explained that it doesn't matter even if he did say that, so why you're quoting those passages to me and bolding the parts where he said destiny is completely beyond me...
Also from my post earlier this page: The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
you drop in halfway into a conversation and then dont understand everything, thats not my fault. somewhere back he said he wasnt talking about destiny, thats why i brought it up.
If you have nothing better to do than jump the bandwagon, I prefer you stay out of the conversation. If you can clarify his position, i'd be welcome to it, because clearly it is me who doesnt understand (which is something I never ruled out, and therefore I asked him for another explanation...)
Also from my post earlier this page: The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
I think then that we have a different view on what the legal system is for, but I have already admitted that in a deterministic world, this is the only justification for a legal system I can see. That is why I proposed, as a warning, why not just kill them. DQToc then said, that it already happened in the past and that people rebelled. The reason why we have a legal system as eloberate as our own, is simply because the people (are determined to) want it thus, and I accepted his answer.
He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
And you defend him? really...
Did you fail to read number 2? Agentless destiny describes determinism perfectly. In the post that you quoted he didn't use destiny, that's why I gave you number 1, but just in case he used it previously I gave you number 2 which explained that it doesn't matter even if he did say that, so why you're quoting those passages to me and bolding the parts where he said destiny is completely beyond me...
Also from my post earlier this page: The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
you drop in halfway into a conversation and then dont understand everything, thats not my fault. somewhere back he said he wasnt talking about destiny, thats why i brought it up.
If you have nothing better to do than jump the bandwagon, I prefer you stay out of the conversation. If you can clarify his position, i'd be welcome to it, because clearly it is me who doesnt understand (which is something I never ruled out, and therefore I asked him for another explanation...)
I understand perfectly well what you wrote and I've just told you why you're wrong. I'm not interested in clarifying his position, I'm interested in undermining yours. If you can't defend your own position without acting like a child then I'd prefer if you stayed out of this thread altogether.
I don't care if he said he wasn't talking about destiny, I'm telling you that agentless destiny describes determinism adequately.
I'll write this for you a third time, I hope you construct an appropriate response. I will remove this section from previous posts to remove clutter. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it.
Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology.
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
And you defend him? really...
Did you fail to read number 2? Agentless destiny describes determinism perfectly. In the post that you quoted he didn't use destiny, that's why I gave you number 1, but just in case he used it previously I gave you number 2 which explained that it doesn't matter even if he did say that, so why you're quoting those passages to me and bolding the parts where he said destiny is completely beyond me...
Also from my post earlier this page: The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
you drop in halfway into a conversation and then dont understand everything, thats not my fault. somewhere back he said he wasnt talking about destiny, thats why i brought it up.
If you have nothing better to do than jump the bandwagon, I prefer you stay out of the conversation. If you can clarify his position, i'd be welcome to it, because clearly it is me who doesnt understand (which is something I never ruled out, and therefore I asked him for another explanation...)
I understand perfectly well what you wrote and I've just told you why you're wrong. I'm not interested in clarifying his position, I'm interested in undermining yours. If you can't defend your own position without acting like a child then I'd prefer if you stayed out of this thread altogether.
I don't care if he said he wasn't talking about destiny, I'm telling you that agentless destiny describes determinism adequately.
I'll write this for you a third time, I hope you construct an appropriate response.
The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
And I am telling you, I don't understand his account of agentless destiny. I don't really see which position of me there is to undermine because I was not putting forward any. I was proposing a hypothetical situation based on what I thought he meant. Which apparantly he didnt mean...
I think we should give each other some more time I already responded in my previous post.
I think then that we have a different view on what the legal system is for, but I have already admitted that in a deterministic world, this is the only justification for a legal system I can see. That is why I proposed, as a warning, why not just kill them. DQToc then said, that it already happened in the past and that people rebelled. The reason why we have a legal system as eloberate as our own, is simply because the people (are determined to) want it thus, and I accepted his answer.
And what do you think the legal system is for if not as a warning or to keep people safe ? Following the will of god in a quest of purifying the world from evil (which is purely subjective :D) ?
I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them.
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
And you defend him? really...
Did you fail to read number 2? Agentless destiny describes determinism perfectly. In the post that you quoted he didn't use destiny, that's why I gave you number 1, but just in case he used it previously I gave you number 2 which explained that it doesn't matter even if he did say that, so why you're quoting those passages to me and bolding the parts where he said destiny is completely beyond me...
Also from my post earlier this page: The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
you drop in halfway into a conversation and then dont understand everything, thats not my fault. somewhere back he said he wasnt talking about destiny, thats why i brought it up.
If you have nothing better to do than jump the bandwagon, I prefer you stay out of the conversation. If you can clarify his position, i'd be welcome to it, because clearly it is me who doesnt understand (which is something I never ruled out, and therefore I asked him for another explanation...)
I understand perfectly well what you wrote and I've just told you why you're wrong. I'm not interested in clarifying his position, I'm interested in undermining yours. If you can't defend your own position without acting like a child then I'd prefer if you stayed out of this thread altogether.
I don't care if he said he wasn't talking about destiny, I'm telling you that agentless destiny describes determinism adequately.
I'll write this for you a third time, I hope you construct an appropriate response.
The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
And I am telling you, I don't understand his account of agentless destiny. I don't really see which position of me there is to undermine because I was not putting forward any. I was proposing a hypothetical situation based on what I thought he meant. Which apparantly he didnt mean...
I think we should give each other some more time I already responded in my previous post.
You wrote this in response to Rassy: "if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
Here you have equated determinism with pointlessness. I was just making it clear that that's not a result of determinism but rather a quality you've decided to attribute to it.
You also wrote this: "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do."
From Rassy's response to that I had sufficient cause to believe that you meant what you said and held these positions yourself. If you don't actually believe it then you don't need to defend it.
I think then that we have a different view on what the legal system is for, but I have already admitted that in a deterministic world, this is the only justification for a legal system I can see. That is why I proposed, as a warning, why not just kill them. DQToc then said, that it already happened in the past and that people rebelled. The reason why we have a legal system as eloberate as our own, is simply because the people (are determined to) want it thus, and I accepted his answer.
And what do you think the legal system is for if not as a warning or to keep people safe ? Following the will of god in a quest of purifying the world from evil (which is purely subjective :D) ?
I am not religious.
But the reason why we punish those who break the law I think is
1) to restore the balance of justice (which is why the punishment has to be in accordance to the crime) 2) to remind them of their humanity (which is why, atleast here, we have trajectories to restore them to society)
I will admit that in most cases that punishment within a legal system has the effect of deterring others from breaking the law, but I don't think that it is its justification.
And ofcourse this is subjective, but that is not problematic for me.
- Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value?
No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying
But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do.
Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say:
"if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
*mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless.
"Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it.
LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write?
You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear.
But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area.
1. He didn't use the word destiny. 2. Even if he did, agentless destiny is more than an acceptable description of determinism.
Am not sure on how to answer that as i believe in a stochastic world. Sure all systems function within limits (though i personally believe there are no limits, but lets just say there are) but that does not make the world deterministic, as it can be random as long as its within thoose limits.
In a deterministic world the killer would have been destined to be the killer, and the victem would have been destined to be the victem. It could be compared to that when you add up 1 and 2, you are destined to get 3 as your answer. the only difference would be the scale and complextity of the calculation. There would be no other outcome or answer possible, as long as you follow all the rules of a deterministic world. I dont know how else to describe it or make sense of it.
I am not trolling him, I am trying to understand him, I have asked several times for a better explanation but he doesn't give one. So I proposed one of my own, which apparantly was not to his satisfaction, and thus he flamed me for it...?
And you defend him? really...
Did you fail to read number 2? Agentless destiny describes determinism perfectly. In the post that you quoted he didn't use destiny, that's why I gave you number 1, but just in case he used it previously I gave you number 2 which explained that it doesn't matter even if he did say that, so why you're quoting those passages to me and bolding the parts where he said destiny is completely beyond me...
Also from my post earlier this page: The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
you drop in halfway into a conversation and then dont understand everything, thats not my fault. somewhere back he said he wasnt talking about destiny, thats why i brought it up.
If you have nothing better to do than jump the bandwagon, I prefer you stay out of the conversation. If you can clarify his position, i'd be welcome to it, because clearly it is me who doesnt understand (which is something I never ruled out, and therefore I asked him for another explanation...)
I understand perfectly well what you wrote and I've just told you why you're wrong. I'm not interested in clarifying his position, I'm interested in undermining yours. If you can't defend your own position without acting like a child then I'd prefer if you stayed out of this thread altogether.
I don't care if he said he wasn't talking about destiny, I'm telling you that agentless destiny describes determinism adequately.
I'll write this for you a third time, I hope you construct an appropriate response.
The main purpose of punishing criminals is to deter future acts of crime. The justice system would prefer if absolutely no crime was committed, they are not jumping for joy every time someone commits a crime just because it gives them an excuse to dish out some punishment.
Punishing an offender serves as a warning to that individual and others not to commit the same crime. None of this is affected by determinism in the slightest.
TSORG- the notion that determinism makes everything pointless is baseless. Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
And I am telling you, I don't understand his account of agentless destiny. I don't really see which position of me there is to undermine because I was not putting forward any. I was proposing a hypothetical situation based on what I thought he meant. Which apparantly he didnt mean...
I think we should give each other some more time I already responded in my previous post.
You wrote this in response to Rassy: "if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it"
Here you have equated determinism with pointlessness. I was just making it clear that that's not a result of determinism but rather a quality you've decided to attribute to it.
You also wrote this: "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do."
From Rassy's response to that I had sufficient cause to believe that you meant what you said and held these positions yourself. If you don't actually believe it then you don't need to defend it.
I said these things after I said, something in the direction of: I don't understand what you mean, but if I may propose what I think you mean: and then proceeded to say what I thought he meant, and from that I concluded what you quoted. It is entirely possible that I misunderstood him, in fact, the reason I asked him to elaborate, is because I didnt understood him. He never elaborated though...
And I didnt mean that determinism equated with pointlessness, I meant that the conversation is pointless, which was more of a lightnight jab than anything serious.
As for there not being any reason to punish, this quote without context is easily misunderstood then, because in that same post I think i already admitted that we could punish them as a warning, but we would not need such an elaborate system imo. However in my previous post I already said someone else gave a satisfying answer to that.
I think then that we have a different view on what the legal system is for, but I have already admitted that in a deterministic world, this is the only justification for a legal system I can see. That is why I proposed, as a warning, why not just kill them. DQToc then said, that it already happened in the past and that people rebelled. The reason why we have a legal system as eloberate as our own, is simply because the people (are determined to) want it thus, and I accepted his answer.
And what do you think the legal system is for if not as a warning or to keep people safe ? Following the will of god in a quest of purifying the world from evil (which is purely subjective :D) ?
I am not religious.
But the reason why we punish those who break the law I think is
1) to restore the balance of justice (which is why the punishment has to be in accordance to the crime) 2) to remind them of their humanity (which is why, atleast here, we have trajectories to restore them to society)
I will admit that in most cases that punishment within a legal system has the effect of deterring others from breaking the law, but I don't think that it is its justification.
And ofcourse this is subjective, but that is not problematic for me.
google "what is the purpose of the justice system" and look at every link on the page.
"Criminal justice is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts."
If you need further assurances: The criminal justice system in England and Wales aims to "reduce crime by bringing more offences to justice, and to raise public confidence that the system is fair and will deliver for the law-abiding citizen."[3] In Canada, the criminal justice system aims to balance the goals of crime control and prevention, and justice (equity, fairness, protection of individual rights).[4] In Sweden, the overarching goal for the criminal justice system is to reduce crime and increase the security of the people.
Your own personal opinions on the matter are not relevant, the purpose of the justice system isn't up for debate.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, even if the justice system was purely about punishing people and bringing justice and nothing to do with crime prevention, determinism has absolutely no bearing on the matter so I have to wonder why you're even talking about this in the first place.
- Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism.
even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value?
The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value.
The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value.
The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof.
The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true.
I think then that we have a different view on what the legal system is for, but I have already admitted that in a deterministic world, this is the only justification for a legal system I can see. That is why I proposed, as a warning, why not just kill them. DQToc then said, that it already happened in the past and that people rebelled. The reason why we have a legal system as eloberate as our own, is simply because the people (are determined to) want it thus, and I accepted his answer.
And what do you think the legal system is for if not as a warning or to keep people safe ? Following the will of god in a quest of purifying the world from evil (which is purely subjective :D) ?
I am not religious.
But the reason why we punish those who break the law I think is
1) to restore the balance of justice (which is why the punishment has to be in accordance to the crime) 2) to remind them of their humanity (which is why, atleast here, we have trajectories to restore them to society)
I will admit that in most cases that punishment within a legal system has the effect of deterring others from breaking the law, but I don't think that it is its justification.
And ofcourse this is subjective, but that is not problematic for me.
google "what is the purpose of the justice system" and look at every link on the page.
"Criminal justice is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts."
If you need further assurances: The criminal justice system in England and Wales aims to "reduce crime by bringing more offences to justice, and to raise public confidence that the system is fair and will deliver for the law-abiding citizen."[3] In Canada, the criminal justice system aims to balance the goals of crime control and prevention, and justice (equity, fairness, protection of individual rights).[4] In Sweden, the overarching goal for the criminal justice system is to reduce crime and increase the security of the people.
Your own personal opinions on the matter are not relevant, the purpose of the justice system isn't up for debate. .
There are many examples of countries in which the justice system works as a tool for vengeance moreso than anything else. Even within my own country many feel that the punishment for certain crimes is too mild, not because of it not being enough of a deterrent but because its not "punishment (suffering) enough". What the purpose of the justice system is depends on time and place and there are usually many things to consider. For example vengeance is something most civilized countries are moving away from more and more, focusing heavily on public safety and preventing future crime, but if we go back a few hundred years or just look at less civilized countries, it was/is a huge factor.
Simple solution and food for thought, the world we see is what we make of it. It's all bullshit if you see it that way. Hold your self to the moralities that you can grasp and be the most you can be. The people in bad situation choose to be there because that's what they have accepted of themselves, but our judicial system is based upon profit therefor there is no such thing is rehabilitation. They (The leaders/controllers/peacekeepers whomever they are) want to keep you in that position because it's profitable to them. We live in a society that is soooooo misconstrued that people dont know whats wrong and right anymore and generations of bad society has made them this way. Do you think we have freewill? We are all slaves in one way or another, and dont think for one second that someone else is trying to make you think in a way to do what they want. We are all fools. Paradoxs in a box.
EPT
I already responded in my previous post.
