Your problem is Dexter "misquoted" you by citing stuff that's here for everyone to read. :lol::lol:
There is much more to participating in a forum than "always being right" and never giving anyone else the benefit of the doubt. Most of us are here to exchange ideas, have some laughs, adjust our own thinking and enjoy the camaraderie. If you never change you never grow. There was a regular contributer who was on here for several years and left just recently (or more correctly was helped out the door). He was always right, he had a label for everyone at least the 99% of us who were inferior to him. He never admitted being wrong, so sadly he was just stuck in time. He left a fairly bitter man. Don't fall into that trap. You "flew a balloon" the frickin thing popped- get over it - find another balloon.
But the balloon didn't pop. If it did, I would get over it but it's still flying high. I am not the kind of person who can't admit to being wrong. People just want me to admit to being wrong about this discovery. But I'm not wrong, so why should I do this? Just to satisfy everyone? I also don't label people or think of myself as superior in any way. That's the opposite of what this book stands for.
So how do you create a world where road accidents don't happen? Where tires don't blow and deer don't jump across the road and no one loses control on black ice or falls asleep behind the wheel or has a seizure while driving or... the list goes on.
Accidents where human negligence is involved will be prevented. A deer running into the street is not preventable unless we can control the deer population, or put fences up where there is a large population. If someone has a seizure and kills someone, he knows it was not his responsibility, therefore he would have no reason to feel guilt, but if he took a drug that he knew could cause a seizure, and he still got behind the wheel and killed someone, then he would feel guilt. Skidding on black ice is a serious risk, so drivers would be warned ahead of time about these weather conditions, just as they are today. Drivers would want to heed these warnings, not only for their own safety, but the safety of others. Tires won't blow out if there are no defects and the tread is good. It would be up to the tire manufacturers and the mechanics to do their job in keeping the public safe. If an accident happened because of something they failed to do, it would be on their conscience. That's what prevents them from getting into this type of situation.
The laws of nature which we can observe can lead to all sorts of worlds.
If they really have no choice, the notion of responsibility is shattered to pieces. Free will is implicit in the notion of responsibility.
See comment above. With no free will, no choice, responsibility and blame are all empty concepts that mean nothing because we're all part of the deterministic process. If you bring a horse to a river and it doesn't want to drink, the fact that it doesn't want to drink is also part of the deterministic process. It's irrelevant to say that you can't force the horse to drink because even the horse has no control over whether it wants to drink or not. Remember his will and desire is also part of the deterministic process.
The only reason it's relevant is to distinguish who is doing the action. The horse is resisting a certain action even though that action is determined. In other words, nothing other than the horse is forcing him to drink or not to drink the water. That's a key concept because the conventional definition of determinism leaves out the will entirely.
s_lone said:
This is exactly where I think you and I are turning in circles. The way I understand it, Lessans is avoiding his own rule of ''no free will because of principle of most satisfaction'' with his statement that nobody can make you do something that you don't want to do. You can't force me to do something, but neither can I if I'm not free! We're all helpless. Nobody is free. Nobody chooses. Nobody is responsible for anything.
Wrong. We still choose even though the choice, once it is made, was not a free choice because we must choose what gives us greater satisfaction. I believe you understand that part. That doesn't mean we don't do those things (contemplate, consider the pros and cons, ponder) that help us to determine which choice to make. That's part of what makes us human. Animals can't do this. Nothing is being taken away s_lone. And you getting confused here. We are responsible only because we are the ones doing the action. That's all this means. Therefore, we can't blame God, our genetics, the dog barking, or anything else you care to throw in, as a cause for what WE know we were responsible for doing.
s_lone said:
Ok, let's say I know you won't blame me for anything.
I insulted you when saying Lessans was silly. I can see that you were hurt by this even though you're not blaming me.
I feel slightly guilty because I hurted you.
God made me do it. I couldn't have done otherwise!
And voilà! It was pretty easy to use God right?
But you can't rationalize your behavior, even to yourself, if you know that no one in the world is blaming you. Your conscience will permit you to do something if there is a reasonable justification, but when you are not being blamed, all the rationalizations in the world will not convince
your conscience that what you are contemplating is right to do. When no one is blaming you, how can you shift your responsibility to someone or something else as the cause for what you know you did? Therefore you
must assume responsibility for your own actions, and if there is no justification to strike a first blow, conscience won't permit you to do it.
In the new world even the smallest thing (like taking change that doesn't belong to you) would bother your conscience. In this world, we can always come up with a justification. "Well, it's a big company and they won't even miss it" or "It was the teller's fault for not double checking." But when you know that they would never blame you, even if they saw you take the money, this would bother your conscience to such a degree that you would be compelled (of our own free will or desire) to return the money. That's how powerful this law is.
s_lone said:
Let me summarize my case. Lessans says that judgement, blame, punishment belong in the world of free will. I say that responsibility also belongs in the world of free will. Get rid of free will, and you also get rid of responsibility.
And that's exactly where you need help understanding. That's the whole point of the second part of the equation. Responsibility would definitely go down if man did not know
in advance that he was not going to be blamed for anything. If people didn't blame him in this world, he would have a field day taking everything that is not nailed down, but this cannot occur under the changed conditions.
s_lone said:
It's really as simple as that. Lessans thinks he can get rid of free will while conserving the concept of personal responsibility but I think that is where lies the flaw of his reasoning.
No free will. No responsibility.
There
is no flaw. The only flaw is in your inability to understand (at this point), or my inability to make the concept crystal clear. Let me try again. When all blame is gone --- and people know in advance that they will not be blamed for hurting someone with a first blow, they won't have the necessary justification to follow through with this action; therefore, they cannot move in this direction for greater satisfaction. If will was free, they could choose what is worse for themselves when something better is offered as an alternative, but this is impossible which is why man's will is not free.
