When we can "WILL" outside of NAtural WILL , natural boundaries , we become EINSTEIN

Please.... Leave Einstein out of it! really!

There are a couple of thinks I have a problem with here.

One is the idea that there is a Natural Basis of Ethics outside the mind, and that somehow you can sense that ethical framework. If you look up John LaMuth you will find that many of his works suggest that Ethics is really an aptitude. If you look up Damsio, you will find that Ethics depends on our emotions. One of the reasons we have criminals, is because to some extent the human ability to honor ethics depends on a common emotional framework, that in turn depends on the development of the Self-Model, and on the projection of others actions onto the Self-Model. There are those with personality disorders or brain injury that can't share the common emotional framework, that underlies all human ethics, and as a result, do not act in the normal fashion vis a vis ethics. We call them either sociopathic, or psychopathic personalities if they are extreme enough.

The other aspect which I always seem to rise to, is the "WILL" argument. If my Model of the Mind is correct, WILL is a misnomer because it implies a conscious choice presaging decision, when in a matter of experimental research, it has been proven that the decision is based not on conscious choice but can be presaged by as many as 7 seconds by autonomic circuits in the brain, and the actual choice selected about 500 milliseconds before conscious awareness that there IS a decision to be made. If you have ever read up on Einsteins life you will find that despite a life in poverty, and a drive to achieve something with his physics, he was less than a perfect student, and spent most of his life ignoring the realities of the political system he was born under, until it forced itself into his attention. This is not "Willing outside Natural WILL", just dedication, and hard work and hyperfocus. Until we understand ADD, ADHD, and Hyperfocus better, lets not imbue scientists with mystical qualities.

GS: Can mind/emotions operate outside the limited capacities of human brain or the processes that lead to emotional responses (extreme emotions or mild responses)? I would say 'development of the self' or 'projection of others actions into the self' are part of the processes of rational thinking before we act. But it is not just emotional framework ( Intelligence or E.Q) rather such ethical thinking or emotions (if you see it that way) are only the considerations before making a sound judgment. Intelligence or emotional framework do not determine our actions, do they? There is always space for deception or contradictions.What about many intelligent and sensitive people who commit horrendous crimes.

Will your models work then?

Secondly, if i understand you point well: you are trying to say will is a 'conscious choice presaging decision'. I do not know how would your brain model explain 'intention' or what does it mean to be 'conscious'. At the neurological level, perhaps there are ways to explain the functioning of the brain which I have already accepted as part of the constraints within which any ethics can operate but to say that will is already determined by them would be negating the will itself because if all human actions can be known beforehand then there would be no need of ethics at all.

EJ: I am not interrogating the first 'uncaused cause' - be it evolution, God or whatever reasons we attribute to it. It is still a debate. We cannot say for sure who created or if we evolved or any other explanation on that?

Detaching this argument from religion or any other belief system I am concerned here more with what are the foundations of ethics without mystifying these questions? Can't ethics be explained in an objective & rational way as comprehensible without relying on any 'beliefs'?

#H1-280. 60m. Ref Pritika Nehra, Mar 4, 2011 10:20 am.

@*. A freedom which may infringe on somebody else's freedom, by that very act/aspect, is not to deserve to be called freedom, and should be excluded from the acceptable definition. I would choose to not to take it as a constraint on me, that act if will act as a constraint on others, and so of my free will i should refrain from such.

As i re-read your paragraph, do i need to say anything after you have said everything in your first three lines?

I think free will means you will not be imposed constraints upon, until you impose constraints on. Am i unable to remove constraints from free will. I do think so. Perhaps we have to substitute with a more realistic word, or atleast accept a limited-free definition.

___________________________________________________________

Ref Graeme Smith, Mar 4, 2011 12:22 pm.

1.

@*. It is also a reflectively learned knowledge [not limited to education or literacy]?

2.

@*. Should i have any difficulty in including the 7 seconds is not anything unconscious, but they to be included in the building-up of the conscious?

______________________________________________________________

PN 0304111754

@*. Does ethics has any need to be related to beliefs? i suspect both need not be aware of each other ar all. I thought ethics has more often a concrete knowledge as basis, rather than need rely on uncertain beliefs. It may have also sources in education, but it is not limited to education.

______________________________________________________________

PN: "Does that mean that we are limited in our 'will' in not being able to 'will' anything outside the natural laws?"

Certainly, I might want to fly to the sun and take sunbath in the solar fire by flapping my arms, like a bird flapping its wings. But can I will to do so? My arms simply do not have the power to enable me to fly. So I do not know how to do it and can not truly will it. For will is knowledge in action. Where there is no knowledge, there can be no will.

PN: "If we assume that there is a natural basis to ethics in the form of laws of nature..."

The word, 'law' is used metaphorically in a variety of ways. In physics, the word, 'law' is used deterministically, for example, in the 'Laws of Motion.' In biology, it is used non-deterministically, when we speak of the soul of an animal, willing to act through its knowledge of the world... non-deterministically, at least in the sense that its matter does not determine the animals actions... for there is a feedback loop between knowledge and action.

Ethics clearly deals with the latter sort of law. It tells us about the actions of certain types of animals: those which are intelligent enough to understand the consequences of their actions according to the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.

GS: "If you look up Damsio, you will find that Ethics depends on our emotions."

That is his opinion. Philosophy has always looked to the objective effects of our actions... not to the question of what makes us feel good.

PN: "Detaching this argument from religion or any other belief system I am concerned here more with what are the foundations of ethics without mystifying these questions? Can't ethics be explained in an objective & rational way as comprehensible without relying on any 'beliefs?'"

The three Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle developed such a system of ethics, independent of any particular religious belief.

According to Aristotle, there are two types of 'law' regulating man's acts: written law, depending on the will of the statesman, and unwritten law, which tells us of acts which are exceptionally good or evil; and which tell of things which the statesman did not consider properly or which are too complex to be a matter of legislation.

Cicero later developed the concept of the unwritten law into what is now called, 'natural law.' It became an important concept in the writings of the Scholastics and John Locke, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Oops!! I meant Thomas Hobbes where I wrote John Locke. From what I understand, however, John Locke also believed in natural law.

SN: Thank you

BO: Thanks again for your comments. Sharing another thought line: if ethics is based on the 'unwritten laws' as the ground for all actions to take place then is this ground not the basis of all actions based on considerations of any other written laws since no one can transcend the very potential within which one acts unless one is contradicting one's own 'self'. Any moral knowledge comes only after we agree on these 'unwritten laws'. What about political actions based on 'written laws' then, Are they not ethical? Can there be a contradiction between written and unwritten laws ever? I would say: No.

EJ: "PN: Sure "ethics are based on the 'unwritten law' on God law who create all of us, there is no compare between God law & the human made law, any contradiction is an evidence for defect on human made."

I understand that some, though not all, Islamic authorities recognize natural law...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Islamic_natural_law

PN: "Can there be a contradiction between written and unwritten laws ever? I would say: No."

Well, unfortunately, not all statesmen act in accordance with natural law. Thus Aristotle said that extraordinary good and evil are enjoined by natural law --- even when they are opposite to the written law.

"It will now be well to make a complete classification of just and unjust actions. We may begin by observing that they have been defined relatively to two kinds of law, and also relatively to two classes of persons. By the two kinds of law I mean particular law and universal law. Particular law is that which each community lays down and applies to its own members: this is partly written and partly unwritten. Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other. It is this that Sophocles' Antigone clearly means when she says that the burial of Polyneices was a just act in spite of the prohibition: she means that it was just by nature.

" Not of to-day or yesterday it is,

" But lives eternal: none can date its birth.

"And so Empedocles, when he bids us kill no living creature, says that doing this is not just for some people while unjust for others,

" Nay, but, an all-embracing law, through the realms of the sky

" Unbroken it stretcheth, and over the earth's immensity."

~ Aristotle; ***Rhetoric;*** Chapter 13

BO: I agree. Perhaps, this why we have uprisings & revolutions in face of such contradictions.

EJ: "He argued that the antagonism between human beings can only be overcome through a divine law, which he believed to have been sent through prophets."

Christ's Faithful, of course, believe that sin can only be overcome through the grace of the Holy Spirit which they believe comes through Christ, the last of the prophets.

But, of course, we are talking about ethics, which is the knowledge of the universal law.

EJ: "1) Holy Spirit means Jesus (peace be upon him) the Holy Spirit Sun of Mary. 2) Jesus (pbuh) is not last Prophet but Muhammad (pbuh) is the Last as it approved by all Holy Books (Psalms, Torah, Bible and Quran).

It's really not the subject, but you are wrong on both counts. Islam, of course, is based on a falsification of history.

EJ: "3) There is no difference between "Universal Law & God Law the Only One God ALLAH"., If you have doubt till me who Create the Universe."

The Arabian Moon god, Allah, more properly known as Hubal, one of 360 gods worshiped at the Kaaba...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba#Before_Islam

created nothing.

EJ: "I know one strong evidence 'YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO CREATE YOU & WHY ?!!. THAT IS ALL."

Christ's Faithful believe that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob (who was later renamed, Israel) created the universe.

Bill "That is his opinion, Philosophy has always looked to the objective effects of our actions, not to the question of what makes us feel good"

This statement suggests that you do not know Domasio's work.

Domasio, was I believe a Neurologist or psychologist that worked with people who had pre-frontal brain injuries. We are not talking about what makes us feel good.

What he observed, was a radical change in the Objective results of the actions of people who had damage in the connection between the limbic system, (implicated in emotion) and the portion of the prefrontal cortex implicated in modeling our own actions and those of others.

He was forced to admit, that this damage, often resulted in loss of the ability to evaluate the impact on self and others of a particular action. In other words the limbic feedback is critically important to the ability to model implications of our actions on self and others, and thus our ability to do more than intellectually spout off about ethics, but to actually use it, to guide our actions.

Sentil:"It [ethics, parenthesis mine] is also a reflectively learned knowledge, (not limited to Education or Literacy)"

Right, in fact the roots of many ethical decisions lie in the first few years of life, when the Mental Model is being set up. It is by learning reflectively from our parents, and how they treat each other, that we learn what behavior is expected in our culture, and set, specific parameters to the self-other model.

Many personality disorders are caused by either the missing of the sweet spot due to illness, or the failure of the family to present a good reflection of their cultures values, during this sensitive period. An interesting side effect is that even if the general culture has norms that are different a family culture, may present the child with a poorly represented view of the norms of their culture.

This is actually referenced in the Bible, where it states that "The sins of the fathers will be visited on the families to the seventh generation" (Sexism and Religiosity aside, there is a definite family co-morbidity related to some personality disorders).

The confusion with education happens because there is an alternate set of parameters that can be set by Education, the primary difference being that this secondary set, must bow to the first set, whenever the organism is in extremis, because it is learned behavior overlaid over the basic set-points of personality.

GS: "The sins of the fathers will be visited on the families to the seventh generation..."

I think that's a misquote. Also, I would note that you omitted the most important part of the quote...

"You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments."

~ ***Exodus;*** 20:4-6

That will teach me, to quote a book I haven't opened in years...;)

GS: "That will teach me, to quote a book I haven't opened in years..."

Maybe it's time?

thanks Graeme, Pritika, and Bill

Bill: "Maybe it's time?"

No, sorry, past time and again.

I no longer have a reason to slavishly follow, a historical tomb from some other civilization, I am much to busy here in this one.

#H1-292.30m. Ref Bill Overcamp, Mar 9, 2011 12:15 am. Why the opposition to idol worship? Is there any difference in believing in God and believing in an idol as God?

If there are differences based on the literacy level of the believers, i don't deem it important enough or interesting enough.

SN: "Why the opposition to idol worship? Is there any difference in believing in God and believing in an idol as God?"

It is a complex question. First of all, people throughout the ancient world had physical notions of the gods. They worshiped gods who were little more than nature. Thus they worshiped lightning and thunder, rivers and seas, mountains and planets. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel) was of an entirely different order of being. When the Lord appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, Moses wanted to know Who it was who was speaking to him...

"'But,' said Moses to God, 'when I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," if they ask me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?'

"God replied, 'I am who am.' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.'

"God spoke further to Moses, 'Thus shall you say to the Israelites: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations."

~ Exodus 3:13-15.

The name of the Lord was YHWH, which means 'being,' the very same I AM, who spoke to Moses. He gave the Jews no other way to know him, than as transcendental being. He did not want the Jews to worship him in any other way. He forbade them to make idols of him after the habits of other men, because He did not want the Jews to think of Him in any other way.

Christ's Faithful believe that in time, God did give men an image (or icon) by which they could know Him...

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

~ Colossians 1:15.

The word, 'icon' (εἰκών) is the very same word Saint Paul used. Christians have always employed icons representing Christ and the saints. For He was both God and man. And as the Son of Man, he was like any of us. There was a great controversy regarding the use of icons. Many Christians suffered persecution at the hands of the iconoclasts (icon breakers). Saint John of Damascus was eventually imprisoned and his right hand cut off because of his defense of the Holy Images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus#Defense_of_holy_images

Eventually an ecumenical council, Second Nicea was convened to decide the issue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea

They decided that icons are not idols, since Christ's Faithful do not worship the matter from which they are composed. Thus there is no danger that they will fall into pagan ways from honoring Christ and the saints represented in them. Word of the decision reached Constantinople on the First Sunday of the Great Fast. Ever since, that Sunday has been a time for venerating the Holy Images...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_of_Orthodoxy

As it just so happens, this coming Sunday will be First Sunday of the Great Fast. So orthodox Christians will take their icons to church with them to join in the annual celebration... that the God Who Is, YHWH, has revealed Himself to men as one of us, Jesus, the Son of Mary.

Oh, wow, revealed religion... so philosophical

As you remember AAron made an idol of a great calf, and Moses was so beside himself that he broke the original tablets.

We don't know what the original tablets said, but maybe Moses did a little editing to overcome the new religion that was forming while he was on the mountain. In any case, Idol worship was thereafter frowned on in Moses based religions.

Since all the Judeao-Christian religions are based on Moses work, we must accept that they don't like effigies. The blowing up of the Afghani Budhas, indicates that Moslem religions are probably also negative to idols, and effigies of their gods.

On the other hand, Hindu's have no problem, with having a different idol in every corner of their religions temples, and while Buddhists do not consider Buddha as god, they like to celebrate his life in many ways, including statues that grace most of their temples.

As long as it is not GOD that is idolized, exceptions have been made. That is why Christians do not recognize the CROSS as an idol, but consider it an ICON of their faith. Funny it has the same place in their temples as an idol would....;)

GS: "Oh, wow, revealed religion... so philosophical."

I was asked a question and I answered it.

GS: "As long as it is not GOD that is idolized, exceptions have been made. That is why Christians do not recognize the CROSS as an idol, but consider it an ICON of their faith. Funny it has the same place in their temples as an idol would...."

As I pointed out, it is a complex question, going to the heart of the differences between Christianity and Judaism. Christ's Faithful believe that the Son of God became Son of Man. The icon is not God. No Christian believes that it is God. Yet many pagans believe that their idols are gods. Thus Saint Boniface cut down the Donar Oak to show the people of Frisia that the god they worshiped was just a normal tree, like any other tree.

So far as Hinduism goes... it is a complex question there, as well. Hinduism is defined by local customs. What is believed in one town may differ widely from what is believed in a town a short distance away... the local temple is important to people, determining so much about what the people believe. Thus when we talk of Hinduism, we must speak in general terms. I would imagine that the place that the idol plays in the life of the people differs as well. Some may be very materialistic, like the people of Frisia; some may be more philosophical in their beliefs.

Buddhism is generally understood to be atheistic. But in fact, there are many Buddhist gods, in addition to Buddha. Tibetan Buddhism certainly has a place for its gods. Now in theory, they are not really gods, but mere images in the believer's mind. In practice though, I'm sure many a Buddhist worships them as gods. Are they materialistic in that respect? I suspect that in Buddhism the tendency would be away from simple materialism. But that is just my uneducated guess.

The Jews believe that Moses received the commands from YHWH, the Lord God. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is the icon of the invisible God. You may think that to be drivel. For my part I am not accusing anyone of idolatry. I am simply trying to make the distinctions necessary to understand the different opinions involved, complex as they are.

Right, but you took it upon yourself to ask me to read a book that has no basis in my current belief system. Hence, in a spirit of counterpoint, I pointed out that Christians have feet of clay. Does this bother you? if so, please accept my appologies.

#H1-297. 90m. Ref Bill Overcamp, Mar 10, 2011 1:39 am. Gods, Krishna or Universe, serve the same purpose. For an unformed/uncertain/unknowing/metastable mind, let it worship/regard a stone, or Krishna, or any Absolute Personal, or Universe/Nature, these are all only the representation in the/his mind, that that some, will be omnipotent in being able to come to support; the support may be for any thing any small a concern; the importance level of the concern is not important; every body seek for some concern they hold in their convenience. I don't think human beings, not with standing philosophers or theologians, have anything more in mind when they regard some God. Why you need at all consider a notion of God. [i dont know about animals; but as far as i have learnt/read so far, animals may not have "ideas"].

I take a lot of pride in my "advanced"/ "cutting edge" thoughts on this subject. But i will be certainly amused to hear if "advanced thoughts" are much different from "primitive thoughts" as far as relgion's/persons' concerns are concerned. Whatever i may regard or claim as great literature/intelligence on the subject of God, i am unable to agree believing a stone arises from a different basic concern than from believing advanced God.

Inability/Unwillingness [i hate to stoop down to consider human behavior] towards the the above, is, in my opinion, is unrealistic, this notwithstanding understanding well that no one's any meaning of any word may be in the same meanings insisted by the others.

______________________________________________________________

Ref Bill Overcamp, Mar 10, 2011 4:09 am.

@*. I liked it.

2. . I think my writing above springs from H. [not the institutional religion, but the informal Ideas].

#H1-298.30m. Ref Graeme Smith, Mar 8, 2011 11:02 am.

@*. I dont want to doubt the psychological studies; but i somewhy believe Nature wouldn't base it's ideas "unfairly"; therefore it wouln't abandon us to learn unethics; we, as representatives of nature, vis-a-vis children, faltering self-uncontrolledly; that's why the many poor parents who bring up unspoilt children always draw my admiration for that intelligence/care/concern.

From what i read in lterature years ago, i don't think Western parents are any less family oriented. Unfortunately, about a portion of the human population do not get blessed by the Nature the way i insisted in the preceding paragraph, in any society. They fail in providing a family to their children. Nature's injustice, i am no more capable than not to see.

Nature? as a deity?

One of the interesting aspects of science is in trying to reconcile other belief systems, and cultural "Commonsense" with the truth as revealed by science. So no I am not surprised that you find some of the findings of science, difficult to accept.

However, I find your choice of words, instructive, in that you assume that "Nature" is the source of the abandonment, and therefore base your objections on the commonsense opinion that "Nature" would not abandon us unfairly.

Another viewpoint, is that evolution is a Kludge that uses existing prototypes to build better systems at "Survival", and that it really has no interest in the quality of life of the individual being essentially based on populations rather than individuals. As a result, the failure of a certain portion of the population to achieve some level of Ethics in one or another aspect, has no interest to Evolution, and indeed can be expected, since it broadens the range of behaviors to a survival threatening situation. Having a murderer next door, is angst producing in peace time, but might be just the ticket, when penetrating behind enemy lines.

The problem therefore lies not in the failure of a portion of society to achieve ethical parity with the rest, but in the assumption that they should, when they are clearly incapable, and then punishing them via marginalization, jail etc, for the failure that they had no choice over.

Another problem is the "Idealization" of ethics where people are held to a standard that they have never been able to achieve naturally, simply because it is a natural extension of natural ethical behavior, and someone has suggested that it might be a better stance to take than the natural one.

If as I suggest, Ethics is related to the self-model, and the "Other Model" in our mind, then ethical behavior is determined by the mechanisms of control based around those models, and no amount of Moral persuasion is going to get ethical behavior to exceed the design parameters in all cases. The Set-point/Adjustment-Point model, suggests that you might be able to simulate a higher ethical standard than you actually possess, but that in extremis the actual base standard will come through, despite your personal intent.

This is a major factor in recividism, in that many people who have been through the criminal storage system develop a sort of surface ethic, that mimmics ethics, but the minute the pressure is off revert to criminal acts. All it takes is poverty or a connection to organized crime that demands certain levels of criminal activity, and they lose the surface ethical capacity.

Many upperclass individuals achieve the distinction of "Undetected Ethical fraility" because the class distinction gives them credence that they would not get if they were poverty stricken. It is somehow considered less ethically repugnant to create a while collar investment vehicle that is fraudulent, than to physically steal from others. But often the damage caused is much greater, despite the fact that it was done with paper instead of a prybar.

The interesting side of this, is that evolutions human parameters are not at all the limit to what can be done with a machine, it is possible that we could make a machine that is MORE ethical than any human could hope to be, just by understanding the nature of the control system that creates ethical behavior and improving on it. Perhaps we can in the future offer ethical governors to those who have personality disorders that affect their ethical capacity but without punishment and strife, just offering them surcease from the stress of constant rejection.

SN: "Gods, Krishna or Universe, serve the same purpose."

Whose purpose?

Certainly when you mention gods you are allowing for polytheism. When you mention the universe, you seem to be equating nature with the gods. Neither of those beliefs were allowed to the Jew who had no such image to worship. They believed that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel) was one God. That is what Moses experienced in the Burning Bush. They were forbidden to worship other "false gods." They understood themselves to be God's Chosen People and were expected to live up to that election.

Christ's Faithful also believe that they are to worship only one God. They believe, however that as it is written...

"And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth."

~ John 1:14

and that the Son of Man sent the Holy Spirit...

"'If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you."

~ John 14:15-18

How is this possible that three persons be one God? Christ's Faithful accept this as a great mystery... Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God.

Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός,

Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός,

Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος,

ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisagion

GS: "The problem therefore lies not in the failure of a portion of society to achieve ethical parity with the rest, but in the assumption that they should, when they are clearly incapable, and then punishing them via marginalization, jail etc, for the failure that they had no choice over. Another problem is the "Idealization" of ethics where people are held to a standard that they have never been able to achieve naturally, simply because it is a natural extension of natural ethical behavior, and someone has suggested that it might be a better stance to take than the natural one."

Certainly people who are unable to behave according to the norms of society cause problems. Society must deal with the thief, the rapist, the murder... regardless of his personal lack of sound judgment. Imprisonment seems reasonable. Slavery is an alternative, I suppose.

Bill: "Certainly people who are unable to behave according to the norms of society cause problems.

Society must deal with the theif, the rapist, the murder... regardless of his personal lack of sound judgement. Imprisonment seems reasonable. Slavery is an alternative, I suppose."

Yes the Criminal Storage System. Lets not make the mistake of thinking of it as being associated with Justice. England flirted with a number of different ways of reducing the rolls in its prisons. Indentured servants (slavery), Rendition (Both Australia and New Zealand were populated this way), The Americans preferred Capital Punishment like Hanging, and the Electric Chair, France flirted with the guilotine, and then of course there were the "Scolds Masks" and the stocks, or the new electrical shocks mutilations, and tortures, imposed still by the less progressive nations as a way to discourage crime. As an early Canadian female politician once noted, many times the social punishment not only is excessive but is more inhuman than the actual crime committed by the criminal. It was partly because she brought the TAWSE to parliament, that the law now states that politicians can't use "Props" to get their ideas across.

What good does punishment do, if it doesn't make a difference to the persons ability to meet social demands? Here in Canada at this point it is easier to get money for a maximum security prison than for a hospital. But even more important, two doctors can commit anyone, for psychiatric treatment, but there is no psychiatric hospitals to commit them to. Society claims to want to protect the citizen, but fails to reason out what it would take to do so, just sells people on paranoia.

So tell me again why the criminal storage system is the best alternative, above treatment, therapy, hospitalization, and actually promoting the health of the mentally unstable, and why slavery is your only other alternative?

GS: "What good does punishment do, if it doesn't make a difference to the persons ability to meet social demands?"

You may imagine that hospitalization is going to fix people. But there is little reason to think that such things will work. I have never heard that therapy can really change people.

Punishment, on the other hand serves the useful purpose of reducing the need for revenge killings, etc.

#H1-301.40m. Ref Bill Overcamp, Mar 11, 2011 12:52 am.

The purpose of the individual. Generally i do not treat the social aspects or hermetic aspects of religion. i feel that's a socio-economic or selfishness question. i have been talking about what i think is from my limited observation/conversation/contemplation of, common people in my environments, who may not have "intelligence" enough to feel proactive enough to approach a "more intelligent" God.

2. i need not refuse plurality to God/gods. i am not oversure when i approach my simple God, he would not be enough to answer my day to day prayers either by himself or through some other unknown or unapproached god; i am of the opinion, whoever asks his God of, say political power, he isn't simple enough to be a commoner, whether in tribal society or not, and here i am not restricting to a non-commoner's god.

3. Polytheism etc are concepts [the word ok here?]. There is no need to confine oneself to a single binding concept [he can invent a new mixup!]. There is no need why Ggod$ cannot be seen as personal, or universal, or natural, or orologic, or hagiologic, or parochial.

I don't understand the sanctity of religious selection rules [at least that do not conform to para3 above]. Some what cynical(?).

Whatever religion,

$Ggod: intentional.

_____________________________________________________

EDITdone. Removed the names of religions in the second line from the bottom "Pueblo or Toda or H or C". I may or may not remember what i read about them, hence let me not be particular, but rely on being sufficiently objective of my statements. Any religion, actually is sufficiently qualified to be mentioned may be. However, in these matters, i do understand impressions do differ and are varied.

At least hospitalization has the potential for care, the criminal storage system, actively encourages lack of care, and attention, resulting in damage to inmates. If there is a medical reason to assume an inmate needs care, they should get it, while they are being stored. Often people with valid treatment needs are refused treatment during criminal storage. For instance I have heard where people with medical conditions were refused their drugs, because of some concern that they might be misused or stolen and sold in the underground economy of the storage locker.

So the real reason for punishment is the pugnaciousness of the victim/punisher?

The criminal system, creates an environment that attracts sadists perhaps? The idea is that transfer of vengeance to someone else is preferable to allowing the individual to follow the natural emotional bent of taking their own vengeance? Well, I suppose in the sense that feuding where social groups trade vengeance is destabilizing.

As to therapy, it depends on the person and the therapy, certainly getting together in groups and spouting off, is more of a benefit to the psychologist/psychiatrist than individual treatment, but success depends heavily on the treatment being correct for the condition. In many cases, it hasn't been clear what the actual cause was for recovery, but in other cases, it could be clearly seen that the cause was at least triggered by therapy. As we understand the brain better we can tune the therapy better, to meet the needs of diseases we understand better.

#H1-302.45m. Ref Graeme Smith, Mar 10, 2011 10:42 pm.

1. Any thing can be a deity. Our choice is the limit.

2. Being basically science-oriented [i say i know to think like or believe like no other thing], i have to wait for science or equally, myself, to reach to revise to someday similar conclusions.

3. I too usually am in agreement with the .

Moreover, that "injuribility" ("threatening situations") can be an acceptable concept, i take after your sentence. Thanks.

4. What interventions would reduce ethical incapablity of a person?

5. That there is some base standard of ethics in every one, i must admit. But how to retrieve the person to better ethical capablity?

6. Ethical fraility of white collar or upper class individuals: i detest.

7. : Fine observation.

8. Why research for ethical governors? Somehow try to meet an individual's wants and some greed too, then he may behave within parameters.

EDITdone. Removed unrequired blank space.

SN: "i need not refuse plurality to God/gods."

Very well. The Jews understand the commandments to be directed at them and not to the world at large. I think they would apply the Covenant of Noah to other peoples...

http://bit.ly/h9MzZf

GS: "The criminal system, creates an environment that attracts sadists perhaps? The idea is that transfer of vengeance to someone else is preferable to allowing the individual to follow the natural emotional bent of taking their own vengeance?"

I really think that in most modern jails there is no sadism, but prisoners are given endless rights. So your concern is of little relevance.

GS: "Well, I suppose in the sense that feuding where social groups trade vengeance is destabilizing."

Revenge demands revenge in an endless circle. Thus civilizations do their best to control these things.

GS: "As to therapy, it depends on the person and the therapy, certainly getting together in groups and spouting off, is more of a benefit to the psychologist/psychiatrist than individual treatment, but success depends heavily on the treatment being correct for the condition."

The statistics I have for these matters indicates that psychologists rate their successful cases as about 25% of all their cases. That seems very low to me. Nevertheless, I suppose hospitalization is appropriate in some cases.

As for drugs, they are over-rated. I think natural nutritional support such as DHA, etc. is as effective, without the side effects.

DOUBLED UPLOAD DELETED. Any way to add a sentence since i am unable to delete the post as such: Gleaned from Bill's next posting Mar 12, 2011 1:35 am: (1)25% success rate for psychological intervention against criminal behavior. (2)Nutritional support may also help.

#H1-311.50m. Bill Overcamp, Mar 12, 2011 12:52 am.

1. Any body's God addresses ALL the Population. If i invented a God, and if He restricted himself to my welfare only, then he could be only a goblin, not G. [i am talking about my invention!].

2. I have a request for understanding from the educated people: the uneducated+simple people's Ggods, also, ultimately, is NOT more/less/other than a SINGLE IDEA of "God". I think the IDEA of God=Ggods is important: not if i consider a small pebble or a colour drawing as God. However many Ggods, the idea is not irreducible to a Oneness idea.

3. I wish God be liberated from the notions of intelligence, scholarship, etc.$ Only when thinking/using the concept of God, the illiterate person and the literate person are equal in their conceptual objectivity. I don't know of any other such universalist concept in which illiterate person can demand such equality.

[Did Bill reach beyond this already? I remember your saying God would be beyond any characteristics, infact thereby, simple; but of course i am comparing, not equating.]

SN: "The purpose of the individual."

Some would say that what is really important is the purpose of god.

#H1-313.J1.40m. Ref BO 031220110207. "purpose of god": (1) Hypothetical?

(2) As the person who is going to decide what is going to be the present existence (even if within his limited bounds) (having such freedom been conferred by god?), is not the individual's purpose is going to decide what's the world/evolution god's going to inherit?

(3) i don't think god intereferes at any moment at hand to impose his will/purpose against the individual's. And a clarification is in order here: i do not mean the individual's purpose be the perfect ethics; it's more usually some day to day want only. [purpose here is, the purpose of an individual approaching God; not any higher purpose.]

Suppose there are many gods. Where did they all come from? The Greek idea was that they had sex, like men do. I suppose that Hinduism probably had similar ideas, since we know that there are both male gods and female goddesses in Hinduism. I would suppose that the males would impregnate the females, who would then give birth to their children.

I suppose it is a colorful idea which could lead to all sorts of myths about how they might fool around with each other. Certainly the Greek god, Zeus was eager to have sex with any female, goddess or woman. Once he even disguised himself as a swan in order to enjoy a bit of bestiality with Leda...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leda.jpg

But that is hardly the sort of god that makes sense to me.

#H1-314.30m.J1. BO 031220110247. Honestly, i don't think such Gods make sense to even the illiterate/literate persons these days. I don't know if Zeus or Indra are any more considered gods, almost every body would be ashamed to claim them as qualifying to be gods as per today's, including illiterate, norms. Except perhaps some pervert people for the sake of whom we need not abandon the straight ethics of the general population, no peeble which is made a god by today's man harbour less than the current social standards.

God, when applied to Indra or such people today, is simply a " proper noun"; at such applications, it is not (what is called in Tamil as) a "reasoned noun".

The mythological stories are created by interested story tellers for their socio-economic interest; such occupations are called religions. They are not to be compared to the need for god in the day to day life of the common limited-self-interest people. I can not be against self-interest per se; against greed. The greedy are the one's seeking the maximum "rapport" with the God. Same is the greed; if either for material good or for spiritual good.

SN: "Honestly, i don't think such Gods make sense to even the illiterate/literate persons these days."

But why believe in such gods if they don't make sense?

If there are multiple gods, where do they come from? The ancients believed in gods and goddesses having sex with each other and generating children thereby. If they do not come from sex, then from what? Do they reproduce like an amœba, multiplying by simple division?

#H1-320.60m. Ref Bill Overcamp, Mar 12, 2011 8:50 am. 1. Believing non-sensical gods: It's almost an act of gratitude.

Not all people live with any certainty of their economic tomorrow or next month. Most of the days are spent in a metastable state. And when they participate in social belief of some insignificant god, that's because in that social moment, they gain a little confidence, finding it possible a trust to, a god, a last refuge, whom the family or community assures had earlier stood by their stead in previous similar moments of deprivation/uncertainty/metastability/unsettledness by virtue of mere prayer, and therefore for having "protected" the progenitors, now believing to retain the gratitude;

and like before, whether the known god by himself, or he through any unknown absolute God, let he bless now too, for the present people to lead an un-uncertain, un-unstable life. I don't think this is an absolute belief, but is a "sufficient" belief.

And i think, gratitude is more sanctified than any Ggod.

Multiple gods: If there would be multiple gods, they would come from the same any Single God would come from. Where else could they from? If there is a socially believed God then he is imprisoned/fixed to a common origin.

[Is there a place for personal God in science?---what i mean by this is, a belief that "God" should choose to reveal himself through science TOO [the secular/logical/objective/creative endeavour by man to organisedly/formally/discplinedly "learn"]. May be science would one day tell on the nativity of Ggod. But this: i doubt, science or religion, as they presently stand, it's doubtful. I don't know what it would need to know about "God".

Multiplying gods: i do think, when i move with people who were not fortunate enough to have the luxury of logical contemplation /thought, i would not ask them of questions which i may apply for myself.

In my luxury, i may ponder hard and find myself say it's only making the concept of god as convenient as possible to conform to the [logical] limitations of the *ORDINARY* thinker.

But that person i think would be taken aback, and may not even understand why somebody he wants to do some magic is/cannot be God. He may not even understand that there can be better Ggod; since "these gods" apparantly had helped in the past, how to abandon them now, or anyway if they do apparantly help, then how could be they not sufficient and how better ggod needs be thought.

¿Natural basis of ethics?