No no no. Belief in LFW has to have an effect. That isn't an effect those are just emotions.Huh?? Different emotions depending on if you belief in LFW or not, is not an effect??? Wow...
What if someone bred dogs with lot's of blame and no praise and was pleased with the results? That would also be a good example of what a disbelief in LFW could get you...No. It's clearly worse to train dogs that way. They are much less happy and probably won't behave as well are probably more likely to be nervous and perhaps get angry. The point is if the trainer believed the dog had LFW he might blame and punish nevertheless in the belief the dog deserves it. Belief in LFW makes a big difference.
Using Stephen's overly complicated definition-you are assuming that the person can do otherwise!It's not over complicated. A person can do otherwise because can refers to there being true would if statements. That's as simple as it gets. Equally what you mean by CHDO needs to be defined because indeterminism wouldn't do. It is as I say, that the person could do it without circumstances beyond their control being different. That's what is impossible.
If I asked you how to reduce the effects of belief in LFW, how would you propose to do this? By reducing belief in LFW? How? I asked you this already, pages ago.And I answered again and again, you just don't listen. To reduce effects of belief in LFW people need to disbelieve in LFW and be mindful of that either at the time or on reflection. To get people to disbelieve is the same as with any other erroneous belief, you persuade with arguments and show the benefits. I've also suggested you try it for yourself. All you need to do is reflect on two things. 1) for a person to have done otherwise circumstances beyond their control would have had to be different, they were merely unlucky they weren't. 2) If circumstances beyond your control had been appropriately different you would have behaved as they did, you were merely lucky that they weren't.
To get people to disbelieve is the same as with any other erroneous belief, you persuade with arguments and show the benefits.It's not a belief. That's why I have put it in quotes so many times. I stopped only because it is tedious typing. LFW is not a belief!! Erroneous or otherwise. It is how the mind is structured. It is an integral part of consciousness. Nobody can erase the thinking structure of LFW. You claim to be able to, but you are just posting drivel. All you are really saying is: Sometimes it's wrong to blame people because it really isn't their fault, so don't be too harsh. That's all your saying!! When I bring up examples of the "benefits" of LFW, you waffle. I put benefits in quotes too. There are no negatives or benefits to the concept of LFW. There is no LFW!! To describe it as a "belief" or not is ridiculous. It's the closest thing you can come up with to try and describe your mind. To claim that you don't judge, praise, blame, or choose is ridiculous. To claim that you don't think you are controlling your life through choices, decisions, judgments etc is a bald faced lie!! You already stated you choose to live a life of not believing in the erroneous, murky concept of believing in LFW. You're fooling yourself. You still consciously think in terms of LFW. To claim you don't is a lie!!! Everybody does. You already said you believe you are choosing to not believe!!!!!! You're a crank, whose only goal is to promote less punishment because of some idea that doesn't even exist!!!
LFW is not a belief!! Erroneous or otherwise. It is how the mind is structured. It is an integral part of consciousness.Of course you can cite the empirical support that says so. Or are you just spouting your ideology?
NoYes..Like I said the trainer would be incorrect intellectually if he praised the dog. That's according to your rules. To praise the dog is to think the dog could have acted differently.
It's clearly worse to train dogs that way. They are much less happy and probably won't behave as well are probably more likely to be nervous and perhaps get angry.How do you know. Dogs come from wolves and are carnivores. They come equipped with attack mode, biting, tearing, and protecting their pack members. How do you know they would be unhappy. Your argument is based on some storybook child system. Won't behave as well? For who? You? Are dogs supposed to behave for you? You own them do you? You control them? To praise is to think someone could have acted differently...that's intellectually incorrect according to you.
It's not over complicated. A person can do otherwise because can refers to there being true would if statements. That's as simple as it gets.As simple as it gets? I can't even read this. Can you take the time to monitor your English sentence structure and usage please?
LFW is not a belief!! Erroneous or otherwise. It is how the mind is structured. It is an integral part of consciousness.Of course you can cite the empirical support that says so. Or are you just spouting your ideology? What empirical support? Is there a Bible to LFW? Is there a written document that outlines the belief system? Does it take faith for a person to believe they are choosing? I've used the term(stupidly, I realize now.)"belief". I put it in quotes plenty of times at first. It isn't a belief. The term belief is a descriptor like "illusion". Love is not a belief. Pondering is not a belief. Emotions are not beliefs. Figuring out math in one's head is not a belief!! Fantasizing about a tropical paradise is not a belief!! It is how consciousness works. The brain processing incoming data from the senses(eyes, skin, ears tongue etc..) is not a belief!!! All of those realms are the same as the "Concept" of LFW. You guys like computer analogies. LFW is one of the operating systems of the brain. Without it the human mind couldn't function. It's not a belief! It can't be eschewed or disavowed. Anyone who claims they are not operating under this operating system is a liar. Or ill. If it's a belief, then certainly you must have an idea when this belief system started? Would you care to posit when this particular belief came into being, and how it is passed down through generations? I've already stated how. It's called evolution. The human mind evolved from one celled organisms. This we know as fact. Where along the chain did this belief system start?
The human mind became strong enough through evolution to become self aware. Probably other animals have it too.
But humans can reason out how the mind works. Through the advent of Physics mainly, and neuro-science and zoology and biology, we can infer that the Universe(including life forms) is Causally-Determined.
It didn’t take long for people to realize that our Consciousness and brains are completely Causally Determined as well.
Once a connection was made between electrons and cells, we only have to search for some magical connection between the two.
It appears there isn’t one!!
After that we have Philosophy. And you two can sit around and ideologically philosophize about how the Mind is partly made of a “belief” system.
Where is the empirical evidence for this? Because you reasoned it out against a backdrop of amorphous concepts like LFW?(an amorphous concept!!)
You and Stephen are only saying “Don’t judge too harshly, because we know that everything is causally determined.”
That’s ideological. That’s fine. It’s a great message.
But it isn’t based on a belief system. That’s just subjectively choosing what to take as a belief in LFW and what not to take as a belief in LFW.
The LFW operating system doesn’t discriminate between bad and good. It most likely is integral in forming societal bonds and personal bonds.
Plus it must be part of ego and id.
In that sense “LFW” has benefited humankind. Immensely! And it couldn’t have happened any other way. That’s how the brain evolved.
Or are you just spouting your ideology?Are you mirroring now too GdB? That's the second time. I recall you judging someone else on this forum a few days back regarding this. Better watch your "Belief" in LFW...Careful the human in you is showing. Incidentally, I'll bite. Where? Please point out my ideology in this. Give a brief descriptor about the ideology I'm showing. Here I'll do you. You are hijacking a scientific exploration of the mind regarding consciousness to promote a lifestyle of less judgement on people who we perceive*as doing wrong so as to lessen punishment. *Yes perceive, with all of it's Scientific implications regarding human behavior and none of the metaphysical ideas on what perception is. So don't go there.
It's not over complicated. A person can do otherwise because can refers to there being true would if statements. That's as simple as it gets.As simple as it gets? I can't even read this. Can you take the time to monitor your English sentence structure and usage please? You can :-)
You are hijacking a scientific exploration of the mind regarding consciousness to promote a lifestyle of less judgement on people who we perceive*as doing wrong so as to lessen punishment.A scientific exploration???
It's not over complicated. A person can do otherwise because can refers to there being true would if statements. That's as simple as it gets.As simple as it gets? I can't even read this. Can you take the time to monitor your English sentence structure and usage please? You can :-) Stephen, you could help VYAZMA a little by making clear if you refer to a word by using qotes. It then reads:
A person can do otherwise because 'can' refers to there being true 'would if' statements.
It's not over complicated. A person can do otherwise because can refers to there being true would if statements. That's as simple as it gets.As simple as it gets? I can't even read this. Can you take the time to monitor your English sentence structure and usage please? You can :-) Stephen, you could help VYAZMA a little by making clear if you refer to a word by using qotes. It then reads:
A person can do otherwise because 'can' refers to there being true 'would if' statements.Thanks GdB, I will.
Vyazma,
I don’t focus as much on punishment as you think. Disbelief in LFW helps with taking constructive criticism, since we are not ultimately responsible for our faults. One of the really sad things is we actually let children starve to death, that I believe is in no small part due to belief in LFW. Somehow it’s the parents responsibility to stop breeding when they are in circumstances in which they are bound to breed.
That aside you are simply yelling, I answer all your questions and the same stuff just comes back, so what’s going on? Well one thing is certain, you have a different concept of LFW in mind than I /we do.
Here is Lois’ definition
To assume free will is to assume that the same mind can independently think outside the factors that control our thoughts actions and somehow, magically, perhaps, override those factors.
It’s the same as mine, what it’s about is being able to do otherwise without the need for circumstances beyond our control to be different for the other thing to actually happen. It is a mistake over CHDO, often it’s called Contra-causal free will .
If you want to talk about something else that you are calling LFW, that’s OK, just tell us what you are talking about. But of course you will reach different conclusions if you use LFW to mean something other than we are.
Now the question is: looking at this way at people, should we still judge them as hard as we do when we believe in LFW: i.e. does it make a difference in my judgements if I think others are ultimate responsible for who they are, or just responsible for their actions?That's correct, that is what it's all about.
Yes..Like I said the trainer would be incorrect intellectually if he praised the dog. That's according to your rules. To praise the dog is to think the dog could have acted differently.Praising and rewarding the dog works, so we know you are wrong. What you need to do is differentiate between 'ultimate praise', 'ultimate blame' and 'praise' and 'blame' To do this you need to correctly interpret CHDO. For this you need some philosophy and I think part of the problem is you think that doesn't help. The correct interpretation of CHDO is it's true that the dog would have done otherwise in certain relevant situations. These true 'would have if' statements are what we refer to as possibilities. So how are you interpreting CHDO? Well it can't be 'just could'. Why not? Because that's indeterminism and indeterminism can't get us LFW. That's how I know you're interpreting 'Could' to mean: could have without the need for circumstances beyond his control to have been different to have behaved differently. Now by not believing the dog can be ultimately blameworthy the dog trainer has the option to train the dog with no blame at all if that's best. An option that would not be open to him if he thought the dog could be ultimately blameworthy and so deserve blame and punishment regardless of the consequences. So we've become much more enlightened about dog training. Progress is slower with humans because we believe they alone have LFW, and so they alone can deserve to suffer like no other animal can.
So I also have no idea why LFW would be hardwired into our brains by evolution. Especially while we can trace the idea of free will back as a theological solution to the problem of evil. The idea is cultural determined, VYAZMA. So it can be changed.1.Oh so if we go back far enough we can find people who didn't think they were choosing, or didn't blame or praise people? Seriously? Where do you trace the idea of free-will back to? When did it start? And before that time you're saying people didn't "think" they had LFW? Somewhere along the way it was culturally taught to them? 2.Are you friggin' serious? Just off the top of my head I'm wondering how such a folk could have even been taught anything under such neurological conditions. A people with no sense of responsibility, no accountability, no praxis to look up to leaders, no method of following people, no method of having their accomplishments reinforced or their failures corrected...(all of this, and much much more requires an illusion of free-will) The illusion that we have, that makes us think consciously that we are choosing(which we also project onto others by way of judging or praising for example) cannot be changed. It is hardwired into our brains. It is not simply a belief system. That is ridiculous. You think this? If by "belief" you mean that people believe that they are choosing, or judging or praising that's fine, that's the illusion. Belief in that sense is an acceptable term. However if you think the illusion can be unlearned-en masse, that's ridiculous. Unlearned meaning people can stop consciously thinking in terms of choosing-and by projection, that other people are choosing therefore creating blame and praise etc.. If you think that it can be gotten rid of the same way that a belief in Flat Earth or superstitions can be gotten rid of you're wrong. If you mean that people can unlearn select "beliefs" regarding praise and blame, well that's just what I said it was. It's merely subjectively telling people how to think according to ideals. That has nothing to do with any realistic discussion about LFW/Determinism/Consciousness. The whole illusion of LFW is an all or nothing gambit.(NOT that it can be removed) You can't just say stop believing these particular LFW memes because they are harmful, but the rest of the beliefs in LFW you have are ok..for example it's ok to still believe you are choosing a certain color. And you will never get people to think they aren't choosing, that they don't have free-will. It's impossible!! So it's all or nothing. Are you simply aware of the role that the illusion of LFW plays in consciousness? Consciousness that most people completely take for granted. *I numbered paragraphs 1 and 2. These points once again make me wonder if you really have a full grasp of these concepts.
Praising and rewarding the dog works, so we know you are wrong.But it takes belief in LFW to praise and reward the dog? You said that was intellectually incorrect... Steve just quit.