You aren't using conceptual reasoning. Instant realizations can change our entire relationship with the world because this change is merely our will desiring good A over good B, a function the human will has the capacity to carry out by it's very nature
Example: A human with their whole life ahead of them and great plans finds out they are going to die in 1 week. This "sudden" realization, suddenly makes them very detached and cold to the world
It would be "impossible" the way me holding a knife and told to stab myself is "impossible", it's very unlikely but not physically impossible
The gap between it being very unlikely, and literally impossible, is an infinite gap which through reason you can't identify. Where exactly does it become impossible?
Again, your hypothetical lists a scenario in which the will is pressured but not, in the metaphysical sense, forced.
Inclination is not necessity. The burden of proof is on you to show me where this strong emotional inclination to press the button, ceases being a mere inclination and becomes an innate necessity, akin to how 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4, and is not merely inclined to equal 4.
Nothing about free will implies every choice will be an easy one. Some choices will be easier to make, some harder. Pressing the button is an easy choice to make, and not pressing it would be a very difficult choice to make, but not an impossible one per se
So you agree that instant, radical change of the will from evil to good can happen for rapists, enslavers, tortures, kidnappers...
But then you list why it's unlikely for a murderer as well, but not impossible.
It sounds like all of these are possible, but some are probabilistically more likely, some less likely
I'm not going to debate this. You're just going to use probabilistic arguments again about why it's unlikely for them to truly change but not impossible.
If you want to argue what the odds are that a criminal will change their behavior after the death penalty or some shit, we can debate that instead but I am not going to waste time making conceptual arguments to an empiricist
You say it rarely happens, this implies it is a possibility, just as it is a possibility that the criminal change after being threatened with death penalty
If you want to argue the odds of that, go ahead, but you can't use language like "impossible" and then say it's "rarely" instant, which implies chance is possibility albeit a slight one
It's possible for a criminal to fulfill all of these after being threatened with extreme punishment such as the death penalty.
If you want to argue why that's unlikely, we can go there
Yeah so again, your argument is "XYZ is possible but unlikely", but you don't want to use probabilistic language and instead go for damntatory language like "not possible" for some reason
It is not inherently impossible for extreme change to happen and for trauma to not be incurred, it's just unlikely
[automerge]1735572281[/automerge]
He's a Redditor. All of his arguments are derived from an empirical outlook which cannot reason beyond observed data or patterns that tend to occur in humans
He takes an empirical understanding of the will although the will is a conceptual, abstract faculty within humans. It is like trying to solve a mathematical problem using science. Math is conceptual, science is empirical
He says extreme change of will, proved overtime by his improved behavior, cannot possibly occur in a criminal (because it doesn't tend to happen often; an empirical/scientific observation), but pure logic says otherwise as this is a necessary function of the will (conceptual/mathematical understanding of the will)
Rather than trying to solve a math problem (is it possible for criminal to radically change behavior) using science, he should solve the scientific problem (is it LIKELY they will radically change) using science. He could feasibly prove though it's possible for them to change, it is radically unlikely, to which I will wave the flag and not argue anymore as I have not studied the death penalty to that degree
Example: A human with their whole life ahead of them and great plans finds out they are going to die in 1 week. This "sudden" realization, suddenly makes them very detached and cold to the world
It would be "impossible" the way me holding a knife and told to stab myself is "impossible", it's very unlikely but not physically impossible
The gap between it being very unlikely, and literally impossible, is an infinite gap which through reason you can't identify. Where exactly does it become impossible?
Again, your hypothetical lists a scenario in which the will is pressured but not, in the metaphysical sense, forced.
Inclination is not necessity. The burden of proof is on you to show me where this strong emotional inclination to press the button, ceases being a mere inclination and becomes an innate necessity, akin to how 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4, and is not merely inclined to equal 4.
Nothing about free will implies every choice will be an easy one. Some choices will be easier to make, some harder. Pressing the button is an easy choice to make, and not pressing it would be a very difficult choice to make, but not an impossible one per se
So you agree that instant, radical change of the will from evil to good can happen for rapists, enslavers, tortures, kidnappers...
But then you list why it's unlikely for a murderer as well, but not impossible.
It sounds like all of these are possible, but some are probabilistically more likely, some less likely
I'm not going to debate this. You're just going to use probabilistic arguments again about why it's unlikely for them to truly change but not impossible.
If you want to argue what the odds are that a criminal will change their behavior after the death penalty or some shit, we can debate that instead but I am not going to waste time making conceptual arguments to an empiricist
You say it rarely happens, this implies it is a possibility, just as it is a possibility that the criminal change after being threatened with death penalty
If you want to argue the odds of that, go ahead, but you can't use language like "impossible" and then say it's "rarely" instant, which implies chance is possibility albeit a slight one
It's possible for a criminal to fulfill all of these after being threatened with extreme punishment such as the death penalty.
If you want to argue why that's unlikely, we can go there
Yeah so again, your argument is "XYZ is possible but unlikely", but you don't want to use probabilistic language and instead go for damntatory language like "not possible" for some reason
It is not inherently impossible for extreme change to happen and for trauma to not be incurred, it's just unlikely
[automerge]1735572281[/automerge]
He's a Redditor. All of his arguments are derived from an empirical outlook which cannot reason beyond observed data or patterns that tend to occur in humans
He takes an empirical understanding of the will although the will is a conceptual, abstract faculty within humans. It is like trying to solve a mathematical problem using science. Math is conceptual, science is empirical
He says extreme change of will, proved overtime by his improved behavior, cannot possibly occur in a criminal (because it doesn't tend to happen often; an empirical/scientific observation), but pure logic says otherwise as this is a necessary function of the will (conceptual/mathematical understanding of the will)
Rather than trying to solve a math problem (is it possible for criminal to radically change behavior) using science, he should solve the scientific problem (is it LIKELY they will radically change) using science. He could feasibly prove though it's possible for them to change, it is radically unlikely, to which I will wave the flag and not argue anymore as I have not studied the death penalty to that degree
Last edited:
