At 16:18. While it might not be plausible explanation for the serial killer to escape punishment (i.e., his own early childhood injuries) it is certainly understandable if s/he hasn't gained access to his/her early emotional injuries. If s/he hasn't it almost invariably necessitates transferring his rage onto victims because of lack of accessing his own anger, rage, guilt,humiliation, shame of what was done to him by his caregivers. Does s/he have a "choice?" certainly. However, it is unlikely
to be in a positive and meaningful manner if he hasn't maintained conscious recollection or gained sufficient access to his own emotional/psychic injuries (e.g., be able to blame the original perpetrator, his parents) rather than (unconsciously) take it out on innocent victims. In the larger and immanent picture it is society's responsibility for missing, for example, the cues and the signals that should have (in most cases) be noticed by other in the "environment" earlier on!
@Neilgs Can influences in a person’s environment “nudge” him in the right direction and lead to the avoidance of harm? Of course. As a consequentialist, I would support the creation of incentives that would enable prevention of crime (e.g., more individual liberty to enable positive, productive self-expression and more technology to serve as an outlet for emotions that might otherwise be channeled onto people).
@Neilgs However, as a consequentialist, I also hold that once a crime has been committed, the most important consideration is how to prevent people from coming to harm from the criminal in the future. In that sense, it would make no sense to punish the larger “society” for the criminal’s actions. Rather, it would make sense to put the criminal in a position where he/she would be unlikely or unable to commit the crime again.
@Neilgs A punishment for a criminal may be unpleasant for the criminal, and in that way he/she is held responsible for the crime. But, ultimately, no one else should justly be punished except the person(s) who actively committed (and/or masterminded) the criminal deed – because, in spite of all the external influences that may have played a role, the direct and proximate cause of the crime was the criminal’s act and his/her choice to commit it.
I'd just also like to add that you need to get your hands on "Freedom Evolves" ASAP. Dennett makes the best case I have seen for what in previous works he has dubbed "varieties of free will worth wanting". It's the most reasonable position I have found between dualists who think that free will is this magic stuff that levitates itself out of the chain of causation and incompatibalists who think it doesn't exist at all.
You replied to my disappointment in your criticism of Sam Harris's free will position with a recommendation to watch this video. I will make the same criticism here that I did there: you have a bad habit of simply making bald assertions with nothing to back them up. I appreciate that you are very sure of the words you string together. But it would be great if there were more SUBSTANCE to the words themselves. You seem to expect the listener to just sort of take your word for it. :/
intelligence and temperament are subject to a great deal of biological determinism, much like all other traits of an organism;
enviromental (aka external) influences only regulate the expression of what was already determined at conception (and to some extent during embriological development);
monozygotic twins are a walking proof that iq and personality do not reside in some mystical plane apart from other characteristics of a given human being;
@jrspolitical It has been suggested that I do indeed blink, but that the blinking is too rapid for the camera to detect. I do not feel any discomfort when I look at the camera for prolonged periods of time, so I assume that some blinking does happen then.
@twistedbydsign99 Thank you! :-) I hypothesize that this is at least partly due to my relatively slow and deliberate pace of speech. As a result, I can think of and formulate the conclusion of the sentence before I actually say it. Other contributing factors may be years of debate/speech practice.
@Prytanus These are debating awards, but from high school rather than college. In college, I mostly participated in essay contests and a few oratory competitions.
I disagree, I don't think absolutist positions are tenable but I do think it needs to be investigated, to what degree is it environmental and to what degree is it genetic.
It has implications on our education system. If you go with the tabula rasa theory you end up with things like no child left behind.
We need to determine to what extent intelligence is heritable, because otherwise we won't know if statistical disparities are caused by racism and discrimination or by genes.
In most adoption cases, while the child has been brought up in a housefhold with specific behavioral traits, overeating for example, the child never adopts this trait. When the child finds their birth parent they usually discover that they have behavioral traits in common not only with the parent but also with any siblings that do not share at all with the adoptive parents.
It is becoming more and more apparent by geneticists, behavioral scientists and psychologists that genes play a very large part in personality, character and moral decisions. Genes determine our physical body, our physical body is the seat for out psche (sp). The topic you raise is quite interesting and worth a healthy argument. I am most assuredly in the nature camp but I believe that nature can be guided by nurture. I will provide an example in the next paragraph.
Wow, I'm surprised how fast you put this together.
I more curious as to WHY people choose to make the choices that they do. Certain individuals tend to be passive or aggresive based on thier experiences that they've had in their lives. I think those who were treated harshly in thier past tend to be more aggresive than those who weren't. I've also read that one of the greater influences over a person's choices is who that person chooses to surround him self with.
@JacobPelka Generally, I would agree with your observations. However, it is important to emphasize that individuals *can* and *should* break free from negative environmental influences and overcome the damage of aggression or peer pressure. My position is that individuals, through their own choices, can do this in most situations. But, in general, reforming the incentives to which individuals are subject, through more gentleness, freedom, and prosperity, definitely helps.
At 16:18. While it might not be plausible explanation for the serial killer to escape punishment (i.e., his own early childhood injuries) it is certainly understandable if s/he hasn't gained access to his/her early emotional injuries. If s/he hasn't it almost invariably necessitates transferring his rage onto victims because of lack of accessing his own anger, rage, guilt,humiliation, shame of what was done to him by his caregivers. Does s/he have a "choice?" certainly. However, it is unlikely
Neilgs 1 month ago
to be in a positive and meaningful manner if he hasn't maintained conscious recollection or gained sufficient access to his own emotional/psychic injuries (e.g., be able to blame the original perpetrator, his parents) rather than (unconsciously) take it out on innocent victims. In the larger and immanent picture it is society's responsibility for missing, for example, the cues and the signals that should have (in most cases) be noticed by other in the "environment" earlier on!
Neilgs 1 month ago
@Neilgs Can influences in a person’s environment “nudge” him in the right direction and lead to the avoidance of harm? Of course. As a consequentialist, I would support the creation of incentives that would enable prevention of crime (e.g., more individual liberty to enable positive, productive self-expression and more technology to serve as an outlet for emotions that might otherwise be channeled onto people).
GStolyarovII 1 week ago
@Neilgs However, as a consequentialist, I also hold that once a crime has been committed, the most important consideration is how to prevent people from coming to harm from the criminal in the future. In that sense, it would make no sense to punish the larger “society” for the criminal’s actions. Rather, it would make sense to put the criminal in a position where he/she would be unlikely or unable to commit the crime again.
GStolyarovII 1 week ago
@Neilgs A punishment for a criminal may be unpleasant for the criminal, and in that way he/she is held responsible for the crime. But, ultimately, no one else should justly be punished except the person(s) who actively committed (and/or masterminded) the criminal deed – because, in spite of all the external influences that may have played a role, the direct and proximate cause of the crime was the criminal’s act and his/her choice to commit it.
GStolyarovII 1 week ago
I'd just also like to add that you need to get your hands on "Freedom Evolves" ASAP. Dennett makes the best case I have seen for what in previous works he has dubbed "varieties of free will worth wanting". It's the most reasonable position I have found between dualists who think that free will is this magic stuff that levitates itself out of the chain of causation and incompatibalists who think it doesn't exist at all.
williamhcarlton 8 months ago
You replied to my disappointment in your criticism of Sam Harris's free will position with a recommendation to watch this video. I will make the same criticism here that I did there: you have a bad habit of simply making bald assertions with nothing to back them up. I appreciate that you are very sure of the words you string together. But it would be great if there were more SUBSTANCE to the words themselves. You seem to expect the listener to just sort of take your word for it. :/
williamhcarlton 8 months ago
Once you transcend you don't have those questions.
Delete your programms and open to your feelings.
Create more love
C U
sharpword9 11 months ago
intelligence and temperament are subject to a great deal of biological determinism, much like all other traits of an organism;
enviromental (aka external) influences only regulate the expression of what was already determined at conception (and to some extent during embriological development);
monozygotic twins are a walking proof that iq and personality do not reside in some mystical plane apart from other characteristics of a given human being;
nature > nurtrure
eyhexs 11 months ago
The real question is where exactly does free-will come from?
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
@jrspolitical It has been suggested that I do indeed blink, but that the blinking is too rapid for the camera to detect. I do not feel any discomfort when I look at the camera for prolonged periods of time, so I assume that some blinking does happen then.
GStolyarovII 1 year ago
You are great at not using filler words, I'm jealous :)
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago 2
@twistedbydsign99 Thank you! :-) I hypothesize that this is at least partly due to my relatively slow and deliberate pace of speech. As a result, I can think of and formulate the conclusion of the sentence before I actually say it. Other contributing factors may be years of debate/speech practice.
GStolyarovII 1 year ago
Is that university debating hardware on your wall?
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus These are debating awards, but from high school rather than college. In college, I mostly participated in essay contests and a few oratory competitions.
GStolyarovII 1 year ago
I disagree, I don't think absolutist positions are tenable but I do think it needs to be investigated, to what degree is it environmental and to what degree is it genetic.
It has implications on our education system. If you go with the tabula rasa theory you end up with things like no child left behind.
We need to determine to what extent intelligence is heritable, because otherwise we won't know if statistical disparities are caused by racism and discrimination or by genes.
AarontheCurious 1 year ago
In most adoption cases, while the child has been brought up in a housefhold with specific behavioral traits, overeating for example, the child never adopts this trait. When the child finds their birth parent they usually discover that they have behavioral traits in common not only with the parent but also with any siblings that do not share at all with the adoptive parents.
dgeypscun 1 year ago
It is becoming more and more apparent by geneticists, behavioral scientists and psychologists that genes play a very large part in personality, character and moral decisions. Genes determine our physical body, our physical body is the seat for out psche (sp). The topic you raise is quite interesting and worth a healthy argument. I am most assuredly in the nature camp but I believe that nature can be guided by nurture. I will provide an example in the next paragraph.
dgeypscun 1 year ago
Wow, I'm surprised how fast you put this together.
I more curious as to WHY people choose to make the choices that they do. Certain individuals tend to be passive or aggresive based on thier experiences that they've had in their lives. I think those who were treated harshly in thier past tend to be more aggresive than those who weren't. I've also read that one of the greater influences over a person's choices is who that person chooses to surround him self with.
JacobPelka 1 year ago
@JacobPelka Generally, I would agree with your observations. However, it is important to emphasize that individuals *can* and *should* break free from negative environmental influences and overcome the damage of aggression or peer pressure. My position is that individuals, through their own choices, can do this in most situations. But, in general, reforming the incentives to which individuals are subject, through more gentleness, freedom, and prosperity, definitely helps.
GStolyarovII 1 year ago