Reborn

Throughout Heaven & Earth,I alone am d Honored One
Good question. I'd say when the foetus start to get the necessary receptor to feel pain. But in absolute I would say at birth. But this is my vision and other have their own. There is no definitive answer to that.


Indeed. Some people repent but this happens because the right material conditions are met, not because the person as an epiphany out of nowhere.


This is what I would called a forced change.

It basically the same as pointing a gun at someone to make them take sh*t about their gods.

Some people will often change their whole viewpoint because of the threat of imminent death. It's just survival, now, will this be genuine ? unlikely. Will it be ethical ? Not at all.

It's a highly negative process and thus, this would be a double negative also. Change must happen out of empathy, not out of fear. Plus, they still die, which means that a potential force for good was eradicated, which is a double negative also.

In fact, it's EVEN WORSE to think that the treat of death could make people change because this would mean that we are executing people who changed and became beneficial for society. This is plainly atrocious.

The entire concept of death penalty and overall of punishment is nonsensical.


That would be the very end of the process.

What you said is like saying that you will make a wedding cake by adding a cherry on a topping. I hope that you understand how ridiculous it sounds lol.

No. To change society, we would need to topple ALL systems of oppressions and this is HEAVY WORK. It's very easy in theory, but it's a LOT of work.


Not in a better system where punishment is not necessary, no.

:kayneshrug:

Start to read what i'm telling you. If you keep focusing on your own words, we will not make any progress.



I mean, you could say that saying that the earth is a sphere is a highly dogmatic quote, it wouldn't sound more ridicilous that what you just said here.

Reality is clear on the subject. Free will, as we usually talk about it (in the sence that we make conscious choice because of our own will, is an illusion.

You can either ride with it, or start to understand why I'm saying that. There is a lot of ressources to get to that point.


Life, yes. (but even then I was not really convinced. In reality I repeated what biologist said. And biologist and kinda weird with the life thing).

If I was saying what I really believe, I'd say life never begins. And Ithink scientific are a bit shy on the question.

I bet I just lost you there.

:wellwell:


Ok. Here is a short sentence:

Learn about materialism, capitals and the reason why we (leftist and marxists) say that our choices are conditionned by the material condition of our existence.



Know that I'm talking in absolute term here (remember what I said above):

What I'm telling you here is what happens in reality. I know it's hard to understand when you are born with the patriarcal spoon in the mouth, but sadly, we are the product of the material conditions of our existence.

Those are the cold facts. If I were to talk to you to sooth your affect, I would tell you that yes, rapist can make the right choices. But in reality, this is not what happens.

Choice is an illusion, for good actions as well as for the bad ones.

To understand the actions of a rapist, you need to understand what creates a rapist to begin with. If you ignore that, you will simply put an infinity of people in jail without ever understanding the problem. You will stay ignorant and will deliver an unethical justice.

You can do that if you want, that's not what I seek.

A good system understands the ENTIRE spectrum of the material conditions that create a choice, or at least, the most important ones. (there are millions of parameters within a choice.)


I never said that killing can't be necessary. it can be a necessity in some cases. I took the case of Hitler as an example.

In fact you are doing a fallacy here since I literally took the example of Trump earlier to explain that I would welcome the guy if he proved a form of change.

And far rightist are ALSO the victims of the conditions of the the material conditions of existence. In fact, in their case, it's tragic because their ideology is so strong they they are forced by the system to justify their own oppression when we on the left know that it is a problem.



That's not how reality works mate. There is a reason why 50 people, all who are not specially mentally ill people, that raped Gisèle Pelicot.

What you are doing here, is trying to separate people into those who are really evil and those who are humans.

In reality, we are ALL capable of doing those acts. As I said, there are no evil people, just evil acts. ALL humans under specific material conditions are capable of the WORST and capable of the BEST.

You need to think outside of the Evil / Human box and start looking at reality how it really is. Because spoiler, there is a reason why there are war crimes being done in Palestine right now by very normal people who are simply brainwashed by a fascist ideology.



The extention of the concept of free will is debated, not the existence of what we usually call free will.

Some people are starting to expend free will outside of consciousness.

But the reality of freewill is that, what we usually talk about (the action of making conscious choice because of our will) is an illusion. And trust me, I dedicated the last 5 years to understand this topic. So when I tell you that it's an illusion, I'm not joking.



No I'm being factual.

You are simply not understanding that we are not talking about the same thing.



Fair.



It not "supposedly about death sentence". I shared a source about the carceral problem, not death sentences, it just happens that there is a debunking of the notion that death sentence are not a deterrant.

And yes, it does support my claim. Sorry bra.



Well yes.

Pretty much yeah (even if it's a much more complicated than that). It seems like you are starting to understand the point.

Next step is to understand why it's reality and why mocking this argumentation is actually not the genius move you think it is.

:BigW:
So a person who physically abused 4 years old child doesn't deserve punishment :seriously:


You are sick ngl

I am done with your delusions and giving you free attention. Not worth it.
 
So a person who physically abused 4 years old child doesn't deserve punishment :seriously:
In our current system, a punishment is required. In a better system, it's not necessary. it's counterproductive.

It's funny because your reaction is like if you told me that I was sick to say that we should use cars instead horse carriage to move between towns.... (it's not really funny, it's actually tragic and sad)

It's the lack of comprehension that one principle is rendered useless by the second.
 
Good question. I'd say when the foetus start to get the necessary receptor to feel pain. But in absolute I would say at birth. But this is my vision and other have their own. There is no definitive answer to that.


Indeed. Some people repent but this happens because the right material conditions are met, not because the person as an epiphany out of nowhere.


This is what I would called a forced change.

It basically the same as pointing a gun at someone to make them take sh*t about their gods.

Some people will often change their whole viewpoint because of the threat of imminent death. It's just survival, now, will this be genuine ? unlikely. Will it be ethical ? Not at all.

It's a highly negative process and thus, this would be a double negative also. Change must happen out of empathy, not out of fear. Plus, they still die, which means that a potential force for good was eradicated, which is a double negative also.

In fact, it's EVEN WORSE to think that the treat of death could make people change because this would mean that we are executing people who changed and became beneficial for society. This is plainly atrocious.

The entire concept of death penalty and overall of punishment is nonsensical.


That would be the very end of the process.

What you said is like saying that you will make a wedding cake by adding a cherry on a topping. I hope that you understand how ridiculous it sounds lol.

No. To change society, we would need to topple ALL systems of oppressions and this is HEAVY WORK. It's very easy in theory, but it's a LOT of work.


Not in a better system where punishment is not necessary, no.

:kayneshrug:

Start to read what i'm telling you. If you keep focusing on your own words, we will not make any progress.



I mean, you could say that saying that the earth is a sphere is a highly dogmatic quote, it wouldn't sound more ridicilous that what you just said here.

Reality is clear on the subject. Free will, as we usually talk about it (in the sence that we make conscious choice because of our own will, is an illusion.

You can either ride with it, or start to understand why I'm saying that. There is a lot of ressources to get to that point.


Life, yes. (but even then I was not really convinced. In reality I repeated what biologist said. And biologist and kinda weird with the life thing).

If I was saying what I really believe, I'd say life never begins. And Ithink scientific are a bit shy on the question.

I bet I just lost you there.

:wellwell:


Ok. Here is a short sentence:

Learn about materialism, capitals and the reason why we (leftist and marxists) say that our choices are conditionned by the material condition of our existence.



Know that I'm talking in absolute term here (remember what I said above):

What I'm telling you here is what happens in reality. I know it's hard to understand when you are born with the patriarcal spoon in the mouth, but sadly, we are the product of the material conditions of our existence.

Those are the cold facts. If I were to talk to you to sooth your affect, I would tell you that yes, rapist can make the right choices. But in reality, this is not what happens.

Choice is an illusion, for good actions as well as for the bad ones.

To understand the actions of a rapist, you need to understand what creates a rapist to begin with. If you ignore that, you will simply put an infinity of people in jail without ever understanding the problem. You will stay ignorant and will deliver an unethical justice.

You can do that if you want, that's not what I seek.

A good system understands the ENTIRE spectrum of the material conditions that create a choice, or at least, the most important ones. (there are millions of parameters within a choice.)


I never said that killing can't be necessary. it can be a necessity in some cases. I took the case of Hitler as an example.

In fact you are doing a fallacy here since I literally took the example of Trump earlier to explain that I would welcome the guy if he proved a form of change.

And far rightist are ALSO the victims of the conditions of the the material conditions of existence. In fact, in their case, it's tragic because their ideology is so strong they they are forced by the system to justify their own oppression when we on the left know that it is a problem.



That's not how reality works mate. There is a reason why 50 people, all who are not specially mentally ill people, that raped Gisèle Pelicot.

What you are doing here, is trying to separate people into those who are really evil and those who are humans.

In reality, we are ALL capable of doing those acts. As I said, there are no evil people, just evil acts. ALL humans under specific material conditions are capable of the WORST and capable of the BEST.

You need to think outside of the Evil / Human box and start looking at reality how it really is. Because spoiler, there is a reason why there are war crimes being done in Palestine right now by very normal people who are simply brainwashed by a fascist ideology.



The extention of the concept of free will is debated, not the existence of what we usually call free will.

Some people are starting to expend free will outside of consciousness.

But the reality of freewill is that, what we usually talk about (the action of making conscious choice because of our will) is an illusion. And trust me, I dedicated the last 5 years to understand this topic. So when I tell you that it's an illusion, I'm not joking.



No I'm being factual.

You are simply not understanding that we are not talking about the same thing.



Fair.



It not "supposedly about death sentence". I shared a source about the carceral problem, not death sentences, it just happens that there is a debunking of the notion that death sentence are not a deterrant.

And yes, it does support my claim. Sorry bra.



Well yes.

Pretty much yeah (even if it's a much more complicated than that). It seems like you are starting to understand the point.

Next step is to understand why it's reality and why mocking this argumentation is actually not the genius move you think it is.

:BigW:
So you should tell neuroscientists and philosophers that they are fools to study something that according to you was already solved.
 
You need to think outside of the Evil / Human box and start looking at reality how it really is. Because spoiler, there is a reason why there are war crimes being done in Palestine right now by very normal people who are simply brainwashed by a fascist ideology.
Because war crimes, typically, go unpunished

meaning soldiers have no incentive not to commit war crimes

As opposed to just killing a random person in Israel proper, which would get you charged with murder.

Thereby proving that punishment does in fact prevent sane and moral people from committing crime by creating a logical reason to not be a criminal.
Post automatically merged:

To understand the actions of a rapist, you need to understand what creates a rapist to begin with. If you ignore that, you will simply put an infinity of people in jail without ever understanding the problem. You will stay ignorant and will deliver an unethical justice.
it doesn’t matter they should still be punished
 
Last edited:
So you should tell neuroscientists and philosophers that they are fools to study something that according to you was already solved.
They already know that mate. Ask Neil dg Tyson about it for example.

He will show you with few words how free will (as we know it) is not possible. Plenty of scientist know that. And it's not really surprising, it's just logical:

When we define free will we usually talk about the action of making choice in a conscious manner from our own will. But in reality, when you know a bit more about the brain, you see quickly that the electrical signals preceed your consciousness.

I used this metaphor a while ago:

Your mind is a movie theatre:

> The electricity is your energy and electric signals
> The projector is your brain
> The brand of the projector is the structure of your brain
> The movie is the combinaison of all the previous things before transforming into a consciousness. It's a combinasion in constant evolution
> The projection of the movie on the blank screen is your actual consciousness : your mind, thoughts, consciense, imagination
> The spectator sitted on the red seats is your will and sence of self, the illusion of consciousness.

What is not real is our agency. What is real on the other hand our experience and illusion of said agency.
Free will - again, as we usually define it - does not exist. Because for Free will to exist in this state, our consciousness would need to preeceed the apparition of the electrical signals in our brain.

In other words, Consciousness would need to be created ex-nihilo from our own will and our will would need to preceed "creation" itself.


Because war crimes, typically, go unpunished

meaning soldiers have no incentive not to commit war crimes
Trust me that it's not the reason why people are doing war crimes. People will do crime no matter the punishment.


Thereby proving that punishment does in fact prevent sane and moral people from committing crime by creating a logical reason to not be a criminal.
It does not.

It's not a big enough deterant. And on top of that, it's a coutner productive one since it also create crime as well as it can perpetuate the material conditions of existence of people or even worsen them.

And in the case of death penalty, it's simply useless as it is not a deterrant.

Again. You need to project yourselve toward a better system. Well.. that's if you have the guts to do it of course, it's not an easy thing to do, and trust me, it's really disconcertin at first.


it doesn’t matter they should still be punished
And we should still use exorcism to heal mental illnesses.... wait

:kayneshrug:
 
They already know that mate. Ask Neil dg Tyson about it for example.

He will show you with few words how free will (as we know it) is not possible. Plenty of scientist know that. And it's not really surprising, it's just logical:

When we define free will we usually talk about the action of making choice in a conscious manner from our own will. But in reality, when you know a bit more about the brain, you see quickly that the electrical signals preceed your consciousness.

I used this metaphor a while ago:



Free will - again, as we usually define it - does not exist. Because for Free will to exist in this state, our consciousness would need to preeceed the apparition of the electrical signals in our brain.

In other words, Consciousness would need to be created ex-nihilo from our own will and our will would need to preceed "creation" itself.


Trust me that it's not the reason why people are doing war crimes. People will do crime no matter the punishment.



It does not.

It's not a big enough deterant. And on top of that, it's a coutner productive one since it also create crime as well as it can perpetuate the material conditions of existence of people or even worsen them.

And in the case of death penalty, it's simply useless as it is not a deterrant.

Again. You need to project yourselve toward a better system. Well.. that's if you have the guts to do it of course, it's not an easy thing to do, and trust me, it's really disconcertin at first.



And we should still use exorcism to heal mental illnesses.... wait

:kayneshrug:
Neil is not a reference for that... but OK

Among philosophers:

A recent 2020 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59.2%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 18.8%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 11.2%

Among evolutionary biologists

79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free will according to a survey conducted in 2007, 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.


But according to you this debate already ended
 
murder (unlawful killing)
not the definition of murder
illegitimate and unethical ending of a life.
Then what is a legitimate ending of a life? I'm curious.
I think punishment should be history all together. The concept of punishment is BY DEFAUT counter productive and contrary to the material reality of the world.

Punishing someone is like punishing a cat who ate your food that you left on the table. It denies the fact that the cat is moved by instinct (eating) and do not understand the concept of punishment in case they do something bad. The cat will eat because they are programmed like that and because their material conditions and environment pushes them to eat. SO punishing them is like you saying "my cat should have made the choice not to eat".. when you know full well that it was not possible.
Nice way to dehumanize criminal by comparing them to pets:lawsigh: oh boy
I shared this a few posts ago. There are a few myth that are debunked. One of them is the myth that crime victims support long prison sentences. It's false. Crime victims usually support prevention, not incarcerations or harsh sentences.
This statement is not even connected to my lost you're responding to. Are you just talking to yourself all the time? !
Post automatically merged:

Anyone who is interested in any subject needs to know the status of that subject.

You simply speak as if the problem of free will has already been solved. This is false. This is being debated in neurophilosophy currently. And it was always debated in the history of philosophy

You are being dogmatic and arent noticing
Post automatically merged:


Its like AL Sama when he talks about ethics
2 peas in a pod:hihihi:
your reaction is like if you told me that I was sick to say that we should use cars instead horse carriage to move between towns
Well, we should, cars cause massive pollution, you should know that.
 
Last edited:
Don't you care about environment? Maybe we should use horse carriages to move between towns.
Good idea. You try.

A recent 2020 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59.2%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 18.8%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 11.2%
1. Compatibilism redegine free will. In this definition, you are not the reason behind your choice but the result of the reasons behind your choice. It's a form of goal post moving to try to keep responsibility alive.

2. Compatibilism defined freedom as the lack of constrain and doing what you desire. But this stance ignore the reality of our social structures and environment. In reality, our minds is constantly formed under the pressure of constrains, those constrain are not necessarily bad, but they are ALWAYS there. Constraints and external causes are what structures society. And thus, our illusion of free will.

3. Some compatibilist things that because we can have controls over some fact within ourselves, therefore there is a free will. But this ignores the fact that the reason why we have that controls is because of external factors that pushes us to have this control and thus, we don't really have control over our internal behavior, but just the illusion of control.

I made this a few month ago to explain that incomprehension of compatibilists over freewill and control:



Imagine that this is a circuit, the black lines are the circuit, the red arrow the vectors of the balls in blue in the circuit. The purple thing is a spring mechanism

As you might understand here, the power of inertia will bring the blue balls to make a swing on the loop but when the blue ball will arrive, they will punch spring forward and make blue ball that are coming in jump into the funnel and therefore potentially completely change the trajectory of some of them.

Well this is what happens in reality. in our brain when we choose to influence our own "free will". It's the combinaison of our genes, enviornment and the physic that will change our behavior in order for said behavior to influence the environment that will influence itself. Just like the red arrows are shaping here the system in order for the circuit to influence the trajectory of the ball (the signals in our brain).
As you can see, there is never a real freedom of choice. Everything is the result of constraints and compatibilist often reduce the number of constrain in order to make the argumentation that responsibility is necessary.



But according to you this debate already ended
Yes, it is.

The problem with that type of survey is a problem inherent to our current scientific paradigm. There is something very sad, it's that Social studies have a very bad reputation ESPECIALLY among scientists who consider as legitimate only natural science.

Those people have a blind spot the size of New York. The ignorance of the reality of our social structures removes the majority of the reasons why responsibility is not discussed more. Plus, evolutionnary biologist are not physicist, so they tend to also have a bias on the fundamental material condition of existence.

A good survey would be to take both social scientist AND natural scientist into account AFTER putting all those scientist into a room to discuss free will while sharing their datas for MONTH.

THEN, you would see what is the real scientific consensus on free will. At the moment, the debate is full of blind spot.

As for Free will. It is an impossibility. Compatibilism does not work, it only moves the goal post to avoid facing reality.

Then what is a legitimate ending of a life? I'm curious.
I'd say if there is no other choice to prevent a catastrophy or a problem to escalate dramatically.

For example, if the only solution to end the jew genocide was to kill hitler, then killing hitler would be legitimate. But in 98% of the cases, it is not.

Nice way to dehumanize criminal by comparing them to pets:lawsigh: oh boy
Why do you think I'm comparing only criminals to cats here. I'm comparing everyone who suffer punishments to cats suffering punishments.

Cats are wonderful animals. I would be glad to be a cat. We should not punish them, just like we should not punish people... in an ideal world.

:sweat:



This statement is not even connected to my lost you're responding to. Are you just talking to yourself all the time? !
I'm always talking to myself since you guyz are never listening or trying to comprehend the most simple things.

:kayneshrug:


Well, we should, cars cause massive pollution, you should know that.
Good idea, you try.
 
Why do you think I'm comparing only criminals to cats here. I'm comparing everyone who suffer punishments to cats suffering punishments.

Cats are wonderful animals. I would be glad to be a cat. We should not punish them, just like we should not punish people... in an ideal world.

:sweat:
Humans aren't cats
Post automatically merged:

I'm always talking to myself since you guyz are never listening or trying to comprehend the most simple things.
Yes. Narcissism.
 
But in absolute I would say at birth.
So it differs from individual to individual?

Interesting (retarded) take
Post automatically merged:

Life, yes. (but even then I was not really convinced. In reality I repeated what biologist said. And biologist and kinda weird with the life thing).

If I was saying what I really believe, I'd say life never begins. And Ithink scientific are a bit shy on the question.

I bet I just lost you there.

:wellwell:
You lost me long time ago with your bs tbh.

And well, vast majority of biologists (around 97% iirc from the study i shared with you) think life begins at conception. Most of these were pro-choice mind you.
Post automatically merged:

It not "supposedly about death sentence". I shared a source about the carceral problem, not death sentences, it just happens that there is a debunking of the notion that death sentence are not a deterrant.

And yes, it does support my claim. Sorry bra.
It being a deterrent or not was not the claim i was talking about though.

So no. Sorry bruh
Post automatically merged:

So you should tell neuroscientists and philosophers that they are fools to study something that according to you was already solved.
Big brain Logiko, the only real genius on the planet
Post automatically merged:

Ask Neil dg Tyson about it for example.
Thats a physicist btw.
 
Last edited:
Top