Good and evil are concepts only. They really mean nothing. One mans hero is another mans villain. People in general are selfish and undeserving of the mercy we expect.
As I mentioned in the Star Wars thread, if you deserve something, it's not mercy, it's justice. Mercy defined: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mercy Obviously, if you're showing mercy to someone they've been a selfish ass at some point, otherwise they wouldn't need it.
"or to one subject to one's power". That is anyone who has no choice but to respect another. When a Policeman allows you to drive away instead of choosing to pull you over with or even without reason, that is mercy by the definition you linked in.
I actually disagree to some extent. In most cases you may be right and good and evil can be subjective. But I also think there are actions that can't be seen as anything other than good or evil (although humans are very talented at rationalizing, so on the surface they may not SEEM to be either depraved/evil or selfless/good). I'm not convinced that a person can be pure good or evil, but his actions certainly can be one or the other. We see little evils (and little goods) all the time -- rpeople cheating on their taxes or killing their spouse for the insurance money, or on the good side, strangers coming to the aid of someone who's been in an accident (that happened to me when I was in an auto accident). The more extreme evil (or good) acts are rarer, but they do happen. Most rational people are capable of both. You are correct in that people generally don't view themselves as evil, yet are capable of creating rationalizations such that their actions, which may definitely be evil. We are very good at rationalizing. BTW, there's been some interesting research done recently that challenges our idea of free will. I'm interested in seeing where that goes -- we may either need to redefine the exact meaning of free will, or completely abandon it as a concept, if some of the preliminary evidence is confirmed
If someone proves we don't have any free will, I'm going to have to kill them to prove otherwise. That will really surprise them. I'm joking, of course. I would never kill anyone.
A bit OT, but I probably should explain what I was saying about free will ==> There are two different experiments that I read about separately, but together, they MIGHT have some interesting consequences: 1. There was an experiment where a scientist would measure brain activity prior to a decision being made, and it turned out that the experiment showed that people make decisions before they are actually conscious of those decisions. In fact, the scientist could accurately predict exactly what an arbitrary decision would be, BEFORE the person actually consciously making that decision. In fact, more recent attempts to replicate the results have shown that a person's subconscious may actually make that decision as much as 10 seconds prior to the person being conscious of that decision. That alone is interesting, but there was more: 2. The above, is actually something that's been known for a while. More recently, in a very similar experimentscientists have been able to artificially stimulate the same parts of the brain that are involved in the decision making process and actually trigger one decision or another without the subject realizing that it was happening. Furthermore, regardless of which decision the person made, that individual could perfectly explain exactly how he came to that decision EVEN THOUGH the experiment had demonstrated that the person was not even conscious of the decision (in other words, the explanation of the decision making process was actually always a rationalization that was created after the decision, and could not possibly have been the actual cause of the decision -- how could it be if the person deciding didn't actually know which way he was deciding, since it didn't actually originate within his rational mind. This Some people are claiming that this proves that free will is an illusion. I'm not so sure. But it still is very interesting.
That one is definitely true, and it's not difficult to imagine why. Humans make decisions based on their experience and personality traits. These decisions generally don't change, so we can assume that unless making a certain decision once gave the subject experiences that made it harder for him to make the same choice, he will choose the same one again if the test is repeated. The only difficulty is when personality traits and experiences tell us to choose different things, and that is when humans have to think about their "choice". But they're not really thinking about it, they're trying to justify the choice that they already made in order to lessen their regrets about not choosing the other choice to an acceptable degree. "Free will" isn't something that really exists, because humans do act on patterns. Every person (and sometimes even every persona, in case of people who have more than one [though these people are another thing entirely]) acts on a different pattern, however, that is defined by our personality and our experiences (defined by our personalities, because what we chose earlier because of them is what gives us experiences). Is this kind of behaviour something that is "free will"? No, it isn't. Is it something close enough to call it "free will"? Yes, it is. Because, even though they're not as significant as what we experienced, our beliefs, too, influence our choices. And we are free to believe in whatever we want. And just to make it clear, no, I haven't read about the experiment Haldurson mentions. Nevertheless, seeing as he is quite knowledgeable in regards to a few topics, I think he deserves some respect for that.
"an offender or to one subject to ones power". It's modal, one or the other or both. Respect doesn't have to be a part of it, there just has to be an offense between parties. If you want respect to be part of it, that's your call. But the definition begs to differ. Free will is fascinating and all, and I might even weigh in when I have more time, but I'd recommend a different thread for it.
People think they cannot query their subconscious too. That in no way makes the subconscious unreachable even from a waking state. It is there and is more responsible for choice than most sheeple people would care to believe or acknowledge. Ask a person to throw a dice and tell them there will be consequences of the roll, but say nothing of the consequences. Do they roll differently? Here is a better question. Would it matter if they did? Freedom of choice is also the freedom to choose wrong. Is that free will? That depends upon who you ask. Those choosing out of fear will usually say no, since the choice is so clear that it is no choice. Those choosing out of desire will again justify their choice to themselves and say it was free will. A person without the will to live will still breathe. Is that a choice? Yes it is. Say it is involuntary if you want, but if you do then you are unaware of your ability to abstain from that choice. If your life spirals out of control and becomes unbearable, you will find that breathing requires a choice. And Lorrelian, how does my example not explain the part you chose to leave out of your blanket statement of mercy? "Subject to one's power" can mean respect is due. Or not. I did not figure every word would be picked apart to discount my offensive view that mercy need not require offense.
I disagree. I believe there are fundamental moral truths that can be determined through the faculties of human reason. Such as that man has a natural right to life, liberty, and property.
I got part 2 mixed up in my brain -- it's ALMOST correct, but I have the details wrong. The story was that scientists are able to disrupt the moral centers of the brain using magnetism, and thus influencing decisions that way. Here's one take on it: http://news.discovery.com/tech/magnet-brain-morality.html
Also, there was another experiment where people were asked to read articles about free will, and then asked to answer some moral questions. The first group of people were exposed to articles arguing that there was no free will. The other group of people were asked to read articles that argued that there is genuine free will. The people in the first group were more likely to act 'badly' than the people in the first group, leading the scientists to conclude that the simple BELIEF in free will tends to influence people to act responsibly. BTW, one of my favorite explanations of the experiment is based on a thought experiment (similar to the Turing test). Let's say that you met with an alien entity, and you wanted to determine if that being had free will or was simply acting mechanically. If the entity were a very simple robot, you could easily chart its behavior, which would be repetitive and predictable. Add some complexity to that robot and things become more difficult -- there would be less repetition, and less predictability. At some point of adding complexity, you'd wind up with a robot who's behavior and reactions would make it indistinguishable from an entity that actually has free will. So while free will may be an illusion, at some level of complexity of behavior, our actions would be indistinguishable from an entity with free will that for all intents and purposes, we could say that we actually do have free will, simply because there's no way of proving that we don't have it.
I misunderstood your point. I thought it was that you had to have power over someone in order to show mercy. My apologies. I'd argue that if you're not messing with someone just because you can, that's not mercy that's restraint. The two are closely connected, and if you want to blur the line that way, I won't object. But most people probably won't understand what you mean if you use the word that way. I've heard of part one before. I've also heard that most scientists can't agree on whether it means anything. See, the problem, as I understand it, is that they're priming the pump. People sign up for this experiment knowing the experiment involves the decision making process. I'm not sure you could legally run an experiment in the U.S.A. without telling people what its about. You certainly couldn't get people to sign up. Scientist: Would you like to take part in an experiment I'm conducting? Man on the Street: What kind of experiment? Scientist: I can't tell you that. Man on the Street: Oh. Scientist: DON'T TAZE ME BRO! *zap* So people know what they're getting into and their brain is already primed to make decisions. Some scientists think that the brain may actually activate the decision making part of the brain early, warming it up so to speak, because it knows a decision is coming. Perhaps as a situation awareness survival instinct. In short, they acknowledge the data, but can't agree on what it means, which is the real rub. The existence of part two has been well documented since the discovery of alcoholic beverages.
Lol. I apologize too Lorrelian. I overreacted. And I agree entirely that science is a dead think in the USA. (I know you did not say that, but that is how I read it when you say the science being done cannot be relied upon, and is biased in any case where it can be done.) I have been to a psychiatric hospital and sat in on a session with a friend who had been committed. I never told anyone there I was not a patient, and they clearly presumed I was nuts. The session demonstrated that they do not employ anything more scientific than asking the words "And how does that make you feel" every once in a while and pretending like they cared. Anything that *Could* be interpreted in a negative way was absolutely taken that way only. No clarifications were allowed, and the people there were greatly pressured to consider every possible way any response they give could be misinterpreted to paint them in an unfriendly way. I was appalled by my experience there. I have since been appalled by my experiences with other so called scientific institutes like hospitals that employed Doctors that could not diagnose a headache by asking the patient if they had a headache. Among other horrors. As I have said in other threads, most Doctors mean well. But a few simply do not care. And some fewer than those actually have malicious intent for those in their care. I could argue with an educated Endocrinologist about my Microalbumin count and get meaningful discourse. But if he/she does not follow science, there will be no discourse. There are more eloquent ways to say all I have just said. But I lack the words. Science died to profit and political-correctness in America.
I'll admit this right now: I'm in group therapy for anxiety and depression, and have been for a number of years. I'm not 'cured', per se, but I am a lot better now than I was, and it's mostly under control. That said, there is a problem among all professions, but particularly in Psychiatry, in that you get quacks. For some reason, Psychiatry does attract real flakes. I know because when I was trying to find someone to see, my first therapist was pretty flaky. Also, educational institutions are sometimes short on money so they allow programs that teach pseudoscience because they bring in money. There was a recent article about this happening in universities in Australia, for example. I know that a few American nursing schools teach about Reiki and therapeutic touch, for example. And doctors can sometimes be as dumb and incompetent as the rest of us mortals. Still, if I have a tooth ache, I'm better off seeing a dentist then trying to remove that tooth with tools I have in my garage.
Remember the prime example of the ultimate flake in all professions was Freud. He was an analyst. And always went out of his way to classify people with a problem even if none existed. Despite popular belief, he was *NEVER* a real Doctor. He was *Given* a degree from more than one university as an afterthought so the university could latch onto the fame the sicko had managed to accrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud I still refer to him as Sigmund Fraud. He was a coke-addict and apparently delighted in diagnosing people with any type of sexual disorder he could imagine, despite never having the medical and/or psychological skill to do anything more than report his suspicions to a real Doctor for diagnosis. Credit where credit is due, he did write some interesting books. But I still hate him. I think that free will is best demonstrated by doing something that is *NOT* in your best interest because of your beliefs. An example would be a person denying themselves a luxury because they feel that society has become too decadent. Can anyone explain how this would not be good evidence of free will?
Long post is long warning. Well, I don't know if he's that bad if he's compared to Plato, even if he's named along the likes of Karl Marx and Nietzsche. Also, He stopped using cocaine long before he became the Sigmund Freud we all know and you hate with the fiery passions of a thousand burning suns. By the way, I consider insulting the dead one of the nastiest things people can do. Because the living can defend themselves. There are a few exceptions to this rule of mine, but let's not have a discussion about that. It will take 3 weeks. I like you, Omni, but you do tend to break out the chainsaws a little too fast, and well, you don't want me to take away your chainsaws, now do you? Or your hands?
Not so much chainsaws, but rather I release the Chainsaw-Armed Fire-Breathing Mechanical Velociraptors of Doom. By the pack no less. If Freud were still alive I would still be saying every awful thing I currently do about him. If that is disrespectful then I am really not understanding you. I hate him for what he did while alive. I think it would be plainly stupid to forget the crimes and offenses of others just because they are dead, or even unable to defend themselves. I do not do it here much, but I often make fun of Hawking knowing fully well that he cannot defend himself. But watch how people will gladly line up to defend a person unable to defend themselves. To those who would, I have one question you must answer before you dare tell me I am out of line: The last book published by Hawking was written by whom? Not him. He was unable to defend himself, so how could he write a physics book? Think I am blowing things out of proportion again? Read up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking "For lectures and media appearances, Hawking appears to speak fluently through his synthesiser; however when preparing answers his system produces words at a rate of about one per minute.[46] Hawking's setup uses a predictive text entry system, which requires only the first few characters in order to auto-complete the word, but as he is only able to use his cheek for data entry, constructing complete sentences takes time.[46] During a TED Conference talk, it took him seven minutes to provide a brief answer to a question.[47]" I will not argue that he is not brilliant, nor remove earned credit for the works he actually did make himself, but I simply cannot believe the sheer number of idiotically complex works supposedly constructed within these limitations. Someone is using the poor man as a puppet to publish the works of others at current. He has supposedly written nine or more books each containing hundreds of pages in the last decade. Try convincing me that he actually did it. I simply cannot believe that. I have used a voice synthesizer myself. Even with full motor control it is painfully difficult. Either he is a fucking crippled Deity on Earth, or someone has their hand up his ass controlling the puppet. I really pity him. For the willingly ignorant, Hawking has been unable to speak in any way since 1985. He adapted to using a synthesizer. Since then his neurological condition has deteriorated greatly. Making it almost if not in fact impossible for him to communicate in any way even using the synthesizer. Please bear this in mind before you all line up to crucify me. *Edit* Read the above if you want to. I am leaving it struck through since it is entirely off topic. Anyone have a better example of free will than passing on something you could do that would benefit you for the singular reason that you disagree with the concept of it? (Like believing society is too luxurious already or somesuch?)
I'll put it extremely simple. Freud was not as bad as the Nazis. The only people I will accept that need insulting/mocking/picking on are Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and Jack Chick if he ever dies, if you don't know who he his, let's put it this way, he's bad. Those are the only ones I do not find it offensive to insult. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. That would be like me trying to convince Stalin to not be paranoid. I wouldn't win that. Nor am I going to be so immature as to say "No, you're wrong!" However, I will do this. In regard to the strikeout, Hawking has been giving his voice for TV shows for quite some time now. Futurama is a big one. He also has a very good sense of humor. He also has outlived everyone else with his disease on record.
