Is beheading more humane than long winded chemical and electricity executions?

Humanism
141
Finally like I said, I wouldn't think a "belief" in LFW is doing any harm really.
Well you also think it reduces empathy and compassion and increases hatred and the desire for revenge. Generally erroneous beliefs are worth arguing against, this site is very much about that. You are making an exception of this one but without any good reason.
I already explained that we are hard wired through evolution to "believe" we have LFW.
You haven't explained anything. You don't even define what LFW is.
If we slowly evolved this feature from a beginning of single cell organisms(in a completely causal, determined World) then there must have been a good reason for it.
Not really. When we think about what could means we are confused, you are confused, you don't even think we make choices due to your confusion about that. There isn't a good reason for it. And harm doesn't mean harm in terms of evolution it means harm in terms of suffering.
Generally harmful traits are discarded slowly through evolution.(harmful traits being loosely defined as genes that are counter productive to reproduction and the survival of evolving DNA itself) Does this make any sense to you?
You're just being inconsistent. Of course you think erroneous beliefs can be and are harmful generally. You're just making a special case of LFW for no good reason. And of course I'm using harmful in the ordinary sense of causes suffering as you usually would. By your definition crucifixtion does no harm, racism does no harm, slavery does no harm and so on.
142
Should these people be discouraged from thinking their good deeds are based on LFW?
They should think they are choosing to do good deeds.
They do think they are choosing to do good deeds! But you said belief in LFW is an intellectual error... Choosing is one of the prime tenets of LFW. These folks think they could do otherwise(not perform good deeds) without circumstances beyond their control being different. You said that was an intellectual error.
143
Generally harmful traits are discarded slowly through evolution.(harmful traits being loosely defined as genes that are counter productive to reproduction and the survival of evolving DNA itself) Does this make any sense to you?
You're just being inconsistent. Of course you think erroneous beliefs can be and are harmful generally. You're just making a special case of LFW for no good reason. And of course I'm using harmful in the ordinary sense of causes suffering as you usually would. By your definition crucifixtion does no harm, racism does no harm, slavery does no harm and so on.
Inconsistent? I'm showing you that you are judging people counter to your own definition of LFW. That's hypocritical. Which probably is much worse than "erroneous beliefs" or "intellectual errors". People who want revenge can do nothing else but want revenge unless circumstances beyond their control become different. Anything else is Free-Will. So why would you judge these people and say they are making intellectual errors? Same goes for people who do good deeds, open bank accounts, plant flowers, or get married. Or you say they are choosing to so. Which is a belief in Free-Will. But you claim to be Intellectually Superior to most people. You claim you are here to explain the error in people's thinking. You claim to go through life never thinking you could do differently unless circumstances beyond your control become different. By the way, that's the biggest error in your "personalized" definition of LFW. The beyond control part. That reveals your thinking "pathology". All circumstances are beyond anyone's control. That is if you understand determinism and causality. So that part is just a redundant error. You dispute? Tell me about how you "controlled" circumstances at any time Stephen?
144
VYAZMA-Should all of these people be discouraged from thinking that people's good actions and charities are based upon LFW?
Sure, it's not true, why not discourage it?
But that would positively be harmful to society Stephen! Can you wrap your head around this? Are you capable? You wish to discourage people from recognizing people's good and benevolent actions? If people just thought that everyone were automatons and that they were Determined to do good deeds then reward and recognition would disappear. But people don't think that. Obviously. That's our Evolutionary conscious mind at work. That's how humans survived-by thinking we have LFW!! But you say it is an intellectual error.
145
They do think they are choosing to do good deeds!
That's good.
But you said belief in LFW is an intellectual error...
Yes, it comes from combining CHDO in the actual situation with the belief choices are up to us.
Choosing is one of the prime tenets of LFW.
Because we couldn't have LFW without being able to choose it doesn't follow that we can't choose without having LFW. We choose in the ordinary sense of choosing which is evaluate options and pick one out as the best. Computers do it too. It's only because you are not defining your terms that you think there is some problem.
These folks think they could do otherwise(not perform good deeds) without circumstances beyond their control being different. You said that was an intellectual error.
Yes that's an intellectual error and I doubt that error leads them to do good deeds. It makes much more sense for it to lead them to think it's the poor's fault they are poor (or whoever they are helping) so they deserve it and do nothing.
146
Inconsistent?
Yes because you wouldn't take this line over other erroneous beliefs like say belief in homeopathy.
I'm showing you that you are judging people counter to your own definition of LFW. That's hypocritical.
There is nothing hypocritical about believing the effects of the belief are harmful.
People who want revenge can do nothing else but want revenge unless circumstances beyond their control become different. Anything else is Free-Will.
That's nearly right but it's not a question of "unless they become different". They can do something because they would if circumstances were different. You are able to drive a car because you would if circumstances were different. The way you are viewing it is you are unable to drive the car until you actually start moving and are driving. But you wouldn't in your daily life and to not do so isn't belief in LFW.
So why would you judge these people and say they are making intellectual errors?
I'm not judging them and saying they are making an intellectual error. I'm just saying they are making an intellectual error.
But you claim to be Intellectually Superior to most people.
Far from it.
You claim to go through life never thinking you could do differently unless circumstances beyond your control become different.
Not exactly. But I'm often mindful that I and others couldn't and I often look back and reflect in that light and it has beneficial effects for me.
By the way, that's the biggest error in your "personalized" definition of LFW. The beyond control part.
It's not personalised Vyazma. Check Lois' definition. And often it's called contra causal free will. It's all the same it's that we could have magically done otherwise, and the magically is with control of everything.
That reveals your thinking "pathology". All circumstances are beyond anyone's control. That is if you understand determinism and causality. So that part is just a redundant error.
This is about how you define control. It is useful to divide circumstances into those within our control and those outside of our control. It would be a bad idea not to. And this can simply be done for starters by saying things are in our control when they depend upon what we do.
You dispute? Tell me about how you "controlled" circumstances at any time Stephen?
We control circumstances all the time by how they change being depending upon what we do. So what we do when we do X is make them other than they would be if we didn't do X. What we have is awareness of our causal power. It would be very difficult to define LFW succinctly without using this concept.
147
But that would positively be harmful to society Stephen! Can you wrap your head around this? Are you capable?
Yes it could be harmful because a lot of mistakes get made over free will. Actually because of that I rarely say to people that we don't have free will, away from discussions like this.
You wish to discourage people from recognizing people's good and benevolent actions?
Nope.
If people just thought that everyone were automatons and that they were Determined to do good deeds then reward and recognition would disappear.
Nope because you are forgetting the good consequential reasons to do so.
But people don't think that. Obviously. That's our Evolutionary conscious mind at work. That's how humans survived-by thinking we have LFW!! But you say it is an intellectual error.
This is really mixed up . We praise and blame our dogs, we don't do it because we think they have LFW, we do it because it's how we train them. We praise because they like praise and it's good for them, we blame if we think that will help train them and there is no better way. Good dog trainers barely use blame. But they certainly recognise good behaviour and it makes sense to do so, what they get is happy dogs behaving well.
148
Can you wrap your head around this? Are you capable?
I've picked this out because it's helpful. See how you are using the words can and capable? You're not tying "can" to everything that does happen. You are rightly recognising that we posses capabilities, things we can do whether we do them or not. But other times you switch the way you think to deny this, like with the example of people who believe in LFW, you say they can't disbelieve unless circumstances change. What you are doing is switching from a broad sense of *the circumstances* when you ask "am I capable" to a narrow sense when dealing with those who believe they have LFW. Much of the problem is confusion like this over interpreting can, could, able, capable and the meaning of the circumstances correctly. This could be taught quite easily.
149
That's nearly right but it's not a question of "unless they become different". They can do something because they would if circumstances were different. You are able to drive a car because you would if circumstances were different. The way you are viewing it is you are unable to drive the car until you actually start moving and are driving. But you wouldn't in your daily life and to not do so isn't belief in LFW. I'm not judging them and saying they are making an intellectual error. I'm just saying they are making an intellectual error. Not exactly. But I'm often mindful that I and others couldn't and I often look back and reflect in that light and it has beneficial effects for me. This is about how you define control. It is useful to divide circumstances into those within our control and those outside of our control. It would be a bad idea not to. And this can simply be done for starters by saying things are in our control when they depend upon what we do. We control circumstances all the time by how they change being depending upon what we do. So what we do when we do X is make them other than they would be if we didn't do X. What we have is awareness of our causal power.
Right. Thanks.
150
This is really mixed up . We praise and blame our dogs, we don't do it because we think they have LFW, we do it because it's how we train them. We praise because they like praise and it's good for them, we blame if we think that will help train them and there is no better way. Good dog trainers barely use blame. But they certainly recognise good behaviour and it makes sense to do so, what they get is happy dogs behaving well.
Dogs. Computers.
151
You're not tying "can" to everything that does happen. You are rightly recognising that we posses capabilities, things we can do whether we do them or not. But other times you switch the way you think to deny this, like with the example of people who believe in LFW, you say they can't disbelieve unless circumstances change. What you are doing is switching from a broad sense of *the circumstances* when you ask "am I capable" to a narrow sense when dealing with those who believe they have LFW. Much of the problem is confusion like this over interpreting can, could, able, capable and the meaning of the circumstances correctly. This could be taught quite easily.
No, I was just using the English language. I already explained that we have the illusion of free-will, hence it comes out in my writing. Shall I scan your writings to find the use of "could, able, capable or can"? Then you can tell me what you meant by them. I just use them in their basic definitions. I know you have special definitions and everything. Maybe you have special definitions for those words too.
152
These folks think they could do otherwise(not perform good deeds) without circumstances beyond their control being different. You said that was an intellectual error.
Yes that's an intellectual error and I doubt that error leads them to do good deeds. It makes much more sense for it to lead them to think it's the poor's fault they are poor (or whoever they are helping) so they deserve it and do nothing.
What? :roll: 1. Is it an intellectual error or not? 2. It makes much more sense for "it" to lead them? What is "it"? 3. The last part about the poor and poor's fault.....huhn? What the heck are you going on about here? You're just Free-Forming here. Your argument has no foundation or context or consistency. I entered this discussion to explain to you that people who want revenge are not making intellectual errors based on their belief in LFW. They are Determined to want revenge. Humans have been Determined to want revenge for ever. We are hard wired for it. It comes in many shades and many different people interpret "revenge"(or more to the point, expanded:justice, compensation, punishment, etc) differently. But universally 99.9999% of all people who ever lived or are now living have the behavioral wiring for "revenge". Case in point. The other thread about the Cop shooting the unarmed guy at the gas station. I guarantee you everyone here, after consideration and a close look at the evidence would like to see that police officer punished in some fashion. At least suspension from duty. At least. Others may wish more punishment. That's revenge. That's equalization. The list of other examples are multiples of infinity. But you are saying that's an intellectual error.
153
No, I was just using the English language. I already explained that we have the illusion of free-will, hence it comes out in my writing.
You've explained nothing. Remember you haven't even defined LFW. It has nothing to do with the illusion of free will. You might talk about what a crane is capable of doing for instance. Some people are able to speak French and others are not. Dogs can bark, cats can't. This has nothing to do with LFW.
Shall I scan your writings to find the use of "could, able, capable or can"? Then you can tell me what you meant by them.
Yep
I just use them in their basic definitions.
That's just it you don't. edit: or rather you do sometimes and sometimes you don't.
I know you have special definitions and everything. Maybe you have special definitions for those words too.
No I don't have my own special definitions. We can see what it means to say you're able to drive a car, if we check. And we know we don't mean in the actual circumstances all the time, so we know it's not based on LFW
154
1. Is it an intellectual error or not?
It is.
2. It makes much more sense for "it" to lead them? What is "it"?
Belief in LFW
3. The last part about the poor and poor's fault.....huhn? What the heck are you going on about here?
The effect of belief in LFW is more likely to be to not help because it's "their fault" and they "deserve it".
You're just Free-Forming here. Your argument has no foundation or context or consistency.
It has all three.
I entered this discussion to explain to you that people who want revenge are not making intellectual errors based on their belief in LFW.
Well I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. I said belief in LFW is an intellectual error which is different.
They are Determined to want revenge.
Of course but this is never relevant.
Humans have been Determined to want revenge for ever. We are hard wired for it.
Nevertheless the desire is influenced by belief in LFW. Something you accepted when you said the effects of belief in LFW are pretty obvious, or something.
It comes in many shades and many different people interpret "revenge"(or more to the point, expanded:justice, compensation, punishment, etc) differently. But universally 99.9999% of all people who ever lived or are now living have the behavioral wiring for "revenge".
Still it's influenced by belief in LFW, so you have no point.
Case in point. The other thread about the Cop shooting the unarmed guy at the gas station. I guarantee you everyone here, after consideration and a close look at the evidence would like to see that police officer punished in some fashion. At least suspension from duty. At least. Others may wish more punishment. That's revenge. That's equalization. The list of other examples are multiples of infinity.
The question is and this can be empirically tested, how do those people's thoughts and desires change if they reflect on the policeman's lack of LFW? That's the topic. A number of us report a change, we sadly recognise the need for deterrent but it's not as if we'd like the policeman to be used as a deterrent, we realise it might be necessary.
But you are saying that's an intellectual error.
No. I am saying belief in LFW is an intellectual error. It's a mistake over CHDO combined with the concept of choices being up to us. Desire for revenge couldn't be an intellectual error, that's like saying wanting a pizza could be an intellectual error. The point is the desire can be influenced by belief/ disbelief in LFW.
155
Humans have been Determined to want revenge for ever. We are hard wired for it.
Nevertheless the desire is influenced by belief in LFW. Something you accepted when you said the effects of belief in LFW are pretty obvious, or something.
I'm afraid you'll have to find the quotes on that one Steve. I don't remember accepting anything like that or talking about that, Find the quotes. The whole post. Not just an out of context snippet.
156
I'm not that interested in the effects Stephen-but they are obvious in this case. We can see the fact that "belief" in LFW causes people to sometimes seek revenge, justice, or punishment-among many other millions of things.
Here is the quote you asked for Vyazma
157
The whole post. Not just an out of context snippet.
Oh I missed this. Well I just got the quote you can check back. If you want to argue that belief in LFW has no effect, you are arguing over what is an empirical fact. If you want to argue that we have to believe in LFW again you are arguing over an empirical fact, since some of us don't. If you are arguing that it's better to believe in LFW then you do think it has an effect. Really you just don't have coherent thoughts on this and it's no surprise. You won't define Libertarian free will and if you did we'd find it's not it at all because Libertarian free will is the thing which is supposed to make us ultimately responsible. It's unimaginable to us how we could do otherwise in a way which would make us ultimately responsible, so no we don't "see it all the time" as you've suggested, it's more we can't see it even if we look. You won't respond sensibly to thoughts about praising dogs, because that doesn't fit with your idea that praise is totally based on LFW. You dismiss computer examples because that doesn't fit with your concept of choice, which again you don't define. You won't check to see what it means to say a dog is able to bark but a cat isn't because that won't fit with your concept of *able* which you don't use in your ordinary life but use in this debate. Because of all this you're stuck. I'll leave it there assuming you continue not to budge on any of this.
158
I'm not that interested in the effects Stephen-but they are obvious in this case. We can see the fact that "belief" in LFW causes people to sometimes seek revenge, justice, or punishment-among many other millions of things.
Here is the quote you asked for Vyazma That's out of context. Plus I said a belief in LFW causes people to seek millions of things. Not just revenge. People are Causally-Determined to believe in LFW Steve. Belief in LFW is not a learned behavior. Are you saying that a belief in LFW is a learned behavior? Plus I'm still chuckling about your hints that some folks walk the Earth(yourself included maybe...)without any belief in LFW. That's just Zany! Sure there's people who walk around saying F*ck it! or "Oh well it can't be helped", or "It's out of my control." or "He couldn't help it, he grew up poor", but everyone! Everyone has just as much belief in Free-will as the next person. The best you could come up with was those buddhist monks. And your anecdotal evidence about how you get through your days... What else you got buddy? Everybody judges, everybody "chooses", everybody praises, everybody blames. Everybody!!!! So again, this boils down to some personal idiosyncrasies you have with certain societal segments or values. Your treatment here has no bearing on any actual discussion about Free-Will, Determinism etc.. Basically you are saying that people Choose-CHOOSE to believe in Free-Will. Think about that. If there is no Free-will Stephen, and there isn't(!), then how are people choosing to believe in Free-Will? If you didn't think they chose to have free-will then you wouldn't think it necessary to try and reform them. Let me guess your rebuttal..."I didn't say I wanted to reform them!!"
159
If you want to argue that belief in LFW has no effect, you are arguing over what is an empirical fact.
Perhaps this might be the Keystone to break you of your wanderings.. What effect Stephen? Please describe the effect it has? An effect is certainly one of the easiest things to describe in science, discussion, arts, etc.. Effects are easily described. Please describe the effect, or explain the effects of a belief in LFW. Don't forget to fold this in with you saying: "The negative influence of belief in libertarian free-will." And how this ties in with intellectual error. Don't describe the effects as " a negative influence" or an "intellectual error"...just describe the effects a belief in LFW causes.
160

I’ll reply to these but it’s fairly pointless. You don’t listen, I’ve already answered and you make the same mistakes over and over.


Belief in LFW is not a learned behavior. Are you saying that a belief in LFW is a learned behavior?

It’s a mistake over could. That gets re-enforced. It’s quite easy to learn what the mistake is and be mindful of it.

Plus I'm still chuckling about your hints that some folks walk the Earth(yourself included maybe...)without any belief in LFW. That's just Zany!
Ridicule is out of place in your position. Many do disbelieve in LFW, we are mindful that people would have needed circumstances beyond their control to have been different to have done differently and that makes a difference. This is an empirical matter, you could even try it.
Sure there's people who walk around saying F*ck it! or "Oh well it can't be helped", or "It's out of my control."
No reason for them to walk around thinking that. That's your mistake over the meaning of these things. Yes it was sheer luck in the sense I've described and yes I do walk around realising that as others do, either at the time or on reflection.
or "He couldn't help it, he grew up poor",
Again this is a mistake over what "he couldn't help it" means because your concept of able is wonky.An example: A glass is fragile. In your view determinism makes that meaningless since it can't be breakable. You've just made a mistake and won't look at known answers.
but everyone! Everyone has just as much belief in Free-will as the next person.
This isn't true because some do accept it's the luck of the draw, sheer luck in a sense, it's not that uncommon, so you are simply wrong.
The best you could come up with was those buddhist monks. And your anecdotal evidence about how you get through your days...
Anecdotal evidence is some empirical evidence, there are plenty of people who experience the same thing. And Buddhism is based on dependent arising leading to compassion. There is a french proverb that sums this up "to know all is to forgive all. You on the other hand have nothing at all.
Everybody judges, everybody "chooses", everybody praises, everybody blames. Everybody!!!!
Same boring mistake over judging and choosing. The computer and dog examples show that but you ignore them. Good dog trainers use lots of praise and little to no blame because they know what works. That's a clue to where disbelief in LFW can get you.
So again, this boils down to some personal idiosyncrasies you have with certain societal segments or values.
That's not true, this is a fairly common idea and compatibilists like GdB for instance are benefiting from disbelief in LFW, it's just their focus is different. The most well know compatibilist Dan Dennett agrees on the harm belief in LFW does. GdB agrees with me on the harm to a certain extent
Basically you are saying that people Choose-CHOOSE to believe in Free-Will. Think about that.
No I'm not.
If there is no Free-will Stephen, and there isn't(!), then how are people choosing to believe in Free-Will?
Similarly to any other choice making machine. Free will is just a mistake over could. You don't need free will to be able to choose. This is just your mistake and if you defined "free will" and "choose" you'd learn that.
If you didn't think they chose to have free-will then you wouldn't think it necessary to try and reform them. Let me guess your rebuttal..."I didn't say I wanted to reform them!!"
I didn't. But again it's just a mistake. It makes no difference whether they choose beliefs or not. Again you are giving this belief special treatment. You wouldn't do this with people who believed in snake oil. You would accept it would be better if people didn't believe in it and even think it good if something was done about it. Choosing beliefs doesn't come into it. The trouble is when I point out glaringly obvious mistakes you just come up with the same old stuff . You really need to define your terms and come up with arguments. I was going to respond to the rest but it's boring correcting the same old stuff.