ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
We’re all products of our environment, but I would like to think we have some influence in our decision making because if we don’t then can we really condemn people for their wrongdoings? I mean if they were basically doomed from the start then they never really stood a chance.
Think of it this way.
Do we hold a rabid dog "personally responsible" for their dangerous behavior?
Does this lack of "personal responsibility" keep us from restraining the rabid animal in order to protect society at large?
Does a rabid dog "deserve" to be tortured and berated for their actions?
Here's another example.
If a gear fails in an engine, causing the engine to malfunction, do we hold the failed gear "personally responsible"?
Do we punish the gear? Do we torture the gear?
NO. We remove the damaged gear and either repair or replace the troublesome gear.
Removing "moral" implications only makes us MORE HUMANE AND PRACTICAL.
Second, an event free of cause does not mean it is necessarily free of effect.
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of HISTORICAL cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." [POST#25]
"without method or conscious choice"
By this definition, every action taken by an animal (lacking a pre-frontal cortex) is RANDOM.
By this definition, every event, geological and or meteorological, is RANDOM.
By this definition, the movements of every plant and every insect and every bacterium are RANDOM.
(IFF) this is truly your preferred definition of RANDOM (THEN) please explain to me what word you would use to describe something that is epistemologically and fundamentally UNPREDICTABLE.
Observe this experiment: Say we tell you to chose the red, or the blue pill, and you freely chose the blue pill, not knowing that there was no red pill. We used a hologram to fool you.
This example is the very definition of surreptitious COERCION.
This example is the very definition of a FALSE CHOICE.
Try this example.
Someone puts a loaded gun to your head and tells you to murder one of your family members with a knife, or else they'll shoot you.
This is obviously COERCION.
bUT, does the loaded gun magically strip you of your "ability to make a choice"?
NO.
The coercion "works" precisely because humans will PREDICTABLY choose to save their own skins.
ANd people are quick to feel guilt for their "choices" even when those "choices" are obviously COERCED (deflecting guilt from their oppressors).
This makes the "forced choice" (false choice) an extremely effective tool for CON-ARTISTS and MOBSTERS.
Someone's "decision" to "choose the blue pill" is highly constrained. Is the subject free to walk away and choose neither the red nor blue pills? Has the subject been contaminated with any enticements or vague threats regarding their choice? Does the subject have a natural attraction or repulsion to pills in general? Has the subject acquired a natural preference for one of these colors over the other? Is the subject seeking your personal approval and thus more sensitive to your overall tone and body-language?
All of these are just a glimpse into the complex chain of (conscious and subconscious) events that lead you to your "choice".
They are not fundamentally intractable. They are not epistemologically unknowable. They are not ultimately unpredictable.
Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Not seeing a direct connection from the rabid dog faulty gear. Those are acts of physics in the sense that the animal was afflicted with something beyond its control. The gear was either designed faulty, or wore down from usage.
People make choices, sometimes one that are in a morality category. Stealing, cheating, violence, murder etc. It feels like the same distinction being made by those who are anti gun. Guns don't kill people. Many people own firearms that have never harmed another person or animal.
Coercion introduces another element for sure. At that point, the question for the individual is where their morals weigh in when their won success or well being is involved in the choices. I imagine that for many who come back from unjust wars that were sent there with some stupid illusion they were providing freedom before they were ordered to treat others inhumanely is the cause of their PSTD and other mental issues. Which demands a stronger examination of the question is self preservation always the correct choice over what one clearly knows is the morally correct choice.
Your posts are thought provoking, and many times leave me unsettled as I try to classify the various scenarios and entanglements. I only mention this as I don't feel my comment here is rich enough. Thinking probably because I've long grown tired of people consciously choosing actions that are harmful to others and shrugging it off as accidents, or some pretend their sorry when it's obvious they're only sorry for being jammed up about it.
How are your actions NOT an "act of physics"?
That wasn't a proper way to describe what I meant. My apologies. Obviously physics is involved regardless.
I meant it more in the sense that the dog with rabies, or the faulty gear were both in the positions they are due to circumstances that hold a power they are not designed to overcome. Whereas moral implications would fall into a decision situation where one can choose to make motions designed to overcome. Even one who has an individual attempting to coerce them can decide to let the chips fall where they may and refuse to cooperate. The rabid dog or the faulty gear have no choice in the matter.
the [...] tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions",[63] while the neurologists and neuropathologists concluded: "The application of existing knowledge of organic brain function does not enable us to explain the actions of Whitman on August first."[64]
Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor pressed against Whitman's amygdala, a part of the brain related to anxiety and fight-or-flight responses. **
Sounds like, Whitman might have been "in the positions they are due to circumstances that hold a power they are not designed to overcome."
It's really only a matter of degree and complexity.
Our "choice" is only apparent because we generally lack the capacity to precisely measure the specific causes and fail to predict some of the actions of ourselves and others.
However, we do have mountains of incontrovertible evidence that humans are very predictable.
This man has made it abundantly clear. **
In the case of Whitman, it reads like he did know right from wrong, and the rage he had from the childhood beatings were further amplified by his shortcomings in adulthood. I checked several sources on him last night, and none of them were able to conclude with any certainty that the tumor was the cause of his homicidal actions.
I understand regarding choices being limited by capacity, however I doubt many can really claim they are unable to ascertain right from wrong. What made Bernays genius was his subtlety in influencing the masses. I've a suspicion that group dynamics play a large role in the mechanics of his methods which is why social media has become so widespread with the narratives being clamped down on so much of late. Yet despite this, I'm not so forgiving when it comes to obvious group mind think being the excuse for many of the ills we see around is. It comes across as lazy and robotic to me.
Curious on your take on intuition in all of this. I can remember my youth vividly, and recall my intuition being able to lead me in proper directions when I didn't necessarily have the verbal acuity to define why I knew it was the correct choice. I ask because this same intuition to this day is able to cut through verbal gymnastics which may attempt guiding my mind in directions that would be unhealthy and cause dis-ease in myself and others.
Intuition explained in 5 minutes,
An interesting video. Will look more into this (as well as watch the other video you shared) soon. Makes me wonder how this plays into the art of fractionation that the government has used in their mind control experiments.
David Eagleman explains in further detail,
Click to watch about 1 hour,
I agree it's difficult to understand how callous people can be.
This does a reasonable job of fleshing out the "problem" with human behavior,
1 hour,
I also very much appreciate your comments. Sometimes I feel like I'm screaming into the void. Even something as simple as a brief ":)" keeps me hacking away.
The other night I looked at your blog, clicking on one of your replies to me, curious if I had missed one of your posts as it had been several days since seeing you in my feed. Out of more curiosity, I scrolled down your post feed and it hit me that you have a decent amount of comments/discussion on your posts. It saddened me to see how little your posts are rewarded. I sometimes look at mine, that have few to no comments and wonder whether I should post anymore. While the subjects I post on are serious to me, I sometimes question why others are voting on them yet have nothing to add to them. I know some of it is I typically write about some really sad jacked up stuff, but still.
It's a shame more people of means here don't recognize you for what you are adding here. I keep hearing what this site needs is more quality interaction, yet your posts which gets quality interaction (not the suckups for powerful whale votes) is getting crumbs.
You are a teacher for those who understand what you are doing. Fluid in many ways on your positions, its interesting to note not only my own reactions to points you make that you may or may not agree with, but others who weigh in. Revealing much about ourselves as you present the ideas (rocks) for us to break ourselves against if we need such a tool.
True teaching. Shame most either can't see it or are frightened of it. As far as quality goes, your posts are some of the highest quality here, even if it starts off rough and develops into gems in the comments. So much better than much of what is posted here, in my opinion. Many posts here hold value due to their being used as a vehicle for rewards. Yours hold value without rewards.
The appreciation is mine too.
Thanks!
Even if I'm able to spark just one, half-hearted "scathing critique", it makes it all worthwhile.
If there was an integrated page counter that could reasonably gauge how many people actually read a post (not just click-throughs), that would also go a long way to encouraging some of my longer rants.
I feel lucky our paths have crossed.
INTPs are some of the most difficult to find and most valuable people to encounter.
It's supposed to make an individual "morally responsible for their actions".
It's specifically tailored to take away any "excuses" a person might present in order to argue that they are merely a collection of ever-changing reactions to their environment.
It traps people into disproportionately "blaming" and "hating" any proximate, apparent human "cause" to the exclusion of all other factors.
That's the ONLY reason we've been infected with the concept in the first place.
SOURCE CONVO