Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 9
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm

Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Dennis Blewett » February 14th, 2021, 8:21 pm

This thread will cover arguments that I have considered that exist as refutations to the allegation that a defendant is guilty of a crime (1). These arguments may analogously be applied to the realm of civil law, but my focus will be on criminal law. Inherit in either system is the philosophy of legal compatibalism (2), which holds that persons are legal actors and responsible for their actions.

The two types of arguments that I have generated are as follows:
(1) The argument against a claim of guilt against a defendant because the claimant is an authority (the authority-based claim).
(2) The argument against a claim of guilt against a defendant because the defendant allegedly fulfilled the elements of the crime.

In the second type of argument, I focus on different premises that might be used to deny that a defendant fulfilled the elements:
a. The defendant did not fulfill the elements of the crime because the defendant did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime ("the non-continuity of identity" argument) (3)(4).
b. The defendant did not fulfill the elements of the crime because the defendant was interdependent with the dimensions of space and the dimension of time, whereby such interdependence is proven by the theory of special relativity ("the non-causative agent" argument).

Of these arguments, upon much reflection, I think (2)(a.) is the strongest. I consider that society may reject the argument and the belief that an individual's identity is non-continuous (5)(6)(7). In such a case, I believe that argument (2)(b.) may be used to refute such persons with such mentality.

My general belief is that criminal law would most likely shy away from the charge that a defendant is guilty because the adjudicator is an authority on such. It appears to me that such charge requires that the adjudicator's authority be absolute, leading to a recursion of premises that are all valid in nature to support the argument by authority and avoid the problem of the Münchhausen trilemma.

To bring back discussion to the premises of the second type of argument, I believe there are premises to support the arguments that are worth defending, despite the problem of the Münchhausen trilemma. Here, we enter into the realm of science, but there shall be some philosophy mixed in.

The legal system makes the presumption that there is continuity to personhood (which appears to be an outcome of its compatibalist beliefs). For example, a legal actor's personhood is presumed to have continuity, such as from the point of arrest (formal charge) to the point of trial. The defendant is presumed to be the same person during those points in time. That presumption involves generalizing that the instances of an entity over time may be defined as a single person. However, that presumption is a faulty generalization because each moment of time that passes generates a new person. It is not the situation that part of a person has changed; the whole person has changed. An ever-changing entity may use the same name over time, but such use does not preclude that the entity is the same person for each instance of time the name is used.

I have different versions of (2)(a.). However, I will provide one version that I think is fairly accurate.

The defendant is not guilty because the defendant did not fulfill the elements of the alleged crime; the defendant (the bodies of mass that compose the individual in the now) did not exist (were not in the configuration, such as spatial position in time, they are now) at the time of the alleged crime; (this premise is a guess due to limited physics knowledge) if the bodies of mass that compose the defendant hadn't been in a different configuration (such as spatial positions), then their mass would be undefined (8)(9).

I will now move onto the non-causative agent argument.

One of the first things I would like to mention about this argument is that it argues that the defendant is interdependent (interwoven) with the dimensions of space and the dimension of time (9). This means that the defendant is not independent of those dimensions. Being bound (delimited) to those dimensions means the defendant is not free to manipulate matter in those dimensions. A defendant cannot escape the dimensions of space and the dimension of time and generate matter to exist in the dimensions of space at some point in time.

It is considered that a physical definition of free will is independence from the dimensions of space and the dimension of time with the ability to manipulate matter in those dimensions. To think that one has free will to pick up a pencil while he or she is sitting at a desk would be like him or her existing outside of those dimensions and drawing matter into various spatial and temporal positions. An analogy might be considered of what it is like to make a Macromedia Flash animation with drawing in scenery, a person, the person's actions, and so on with various animation timeline frames over time: The animated person-drawing becomes an extension of self.

These aspects of a defendant being interdependent with the dimensions of space and the dinension of time argue against a defendant having free will and argue against a defendant causing an actus reus with free will. Although being able to deny free will may aid in denying guilt, the government charges that being a causative legal actor to an actus reus makes a defendant liable to guilt.

For instance, consider the strict liability crime of driving 10 MPH over the speed limit (10). It does not matter whether or not a person drives at such speed with the belief of conscious control ("free will"). A driver may be driving at such speeds without paying attention to the speedometer. What matters is whether or not the driver was the causative agent of the speeding. A fact-finder (adjudicator/jury) might argue that a driver is responsible as the causative agent, as it was the defendant's foot on the gas pedal and no one was forcing the driver's foot to be on the gas pedal.

In its current formulation, the theory of special relativity argues that causality exists for persons. The non-causative agent argument relies on the theory of special relativity with a caveat: I deny the allegation that there exists a cause-and-effect relationship in any light cone, which is a theoretical structure employed in support of the theory of special relativity. In doing such, I deny that any defendant exists as a causative agent ("actor").

Persons are composed of matter. Matter is alleged to be able to exist at a light cone "event." And an event is alleged to be the cause (11) of a "future light cone."

Supposedly, objects in a future light cone of some light cone may "causally influence" objects in the past light cone of a different light cone (12).

Foundationally, I believe there are only correlations, such as a correlation between an alleged "past light cone" and an alleged "event" and a correlation between an alleged "event" and an alleged "future light cone."

There is no "causal influence" from objects in an alleged light cone's alleged future light cone toward the objects of an alleged past light cone of a different alleged light cone because no actual light cones exist.

For what I understand, Minowski proposed the idea that the "past light cone" is the cause of the "event" (the effect) in a light cone and the "event" in a light cone the cause of a "future light cone" (the effect of the "event"). My interpretation of Minowski's arguments is that his critical thinking was not present, perhaps moreso that he held a cognitive bias to support the philosophy of determinism as an act of mutualism to survive in a world where those in power upheld such a philosophy (evolutionary mutualism). I consider his behavior strongly correlates with an absence of philosophy background on issues, such as sampling bias, faulty generalizations (13), category errors, the problem of induction (14), and cause-and-effect relations: He just wasn't critical enough.

Let me provide a modern example of a conundrum in science that involves a faulty generalization:
NaOH (aq) + HCl (aq) -> NaCl (aq) + H2O (l)
* The "2" in H2O should be considered a subscript 2.

For those of whom have studied inorganic chemistry, the equation reads, "Sodium hydroxide in its aqueous form and hydrochloric acid in its aqueous form combine to cause aqueous sodium chloride and liquid water to form." Science, with that chemical theory makes the argument, "if A occurs, then B occurs."

"A" in the chemical equation is the mixture of NaOH (aq) and HCl (aq); "B" in the chemical equation is the formation of NaCl (aq) and H2O (l).

The problem here is with the issue of identity, consistency of identity of substances from one experiment to the next. One may further elaborate on the thought of identity by thinking about the concepts of necessary and sufficient criteria. I deny that there can ever be sufficient criteria and claim that all sufficiency arguments are premised on authority, whereby such authority (unless from an absolute authority, which would guarantee an argument of sufficiency) would be invalid.

To make sense of the issue, question the following: "What are the necessary and sufficient criteria that qualify a substance as aqueous sodium hydroxide?"

Aqueous sodium hydroxide is a theoretical construct. For a substance to be aqueous sodium hydroxide, it must fulfill the necessary criteria. The positioning of molecules, their place in space and time, how they are rotated in space, and how they physically appear (in general) is different from one experiment to the other. No one alleged molecule of NaOH is identical to any other alleged molecule of NaOH. The theory, however, presupposes the possibility of such in that it argues that there exist molecules that qualify as NaOH by fulfilling the necessary criteria. Such is a faulty generalization. The ionic particles of NaOH and HCl are not identical from one aqueous solution to the next.

The chemical equation purports the following:
(1) If A, then B.
(2) A.
Therefore, B.

However, as may be observed, the reactants and products are not identical from one experiment to the next. Yet the equation defines any NaOH (aq) + HCl (aq) mixture as "A." Such is a faulty generalization. Only "A" equals "A." Something that looks like "A" is not identical to an "A." The same may be said about "B."

With the light cone, as found in the theory of special relativity, all past light cones with their contents are generalized as identical, despite their individual properties. However, no past light cone is identical to any other past light cone.

The cause-and-effect relation between an alleged past light cone ("P") and an alleged event ("Q") is alleged to have the following reasoning:
(1) If P, then Q.
(2) P.
Therefore, Q.

All "past light cones" are alleged to be of the set of P's: All are alleged to categorically be P's. All "events" are alleged to be of the set of Q's: All are alleged to categorically be Q's. However, no two past light cones of the set of P's cause the same effect (cause the same, identical event).

This situation is similar to the chemistry example with the product from one sample of observation never being the same to another sample of observation. It is considered that if P caused Q, then all Q's would be identical. However, not all Q's are identical.

All alleged past light cones might categorically be P's but not all alleged events are Q's.

Consider the following syllogism:
(1) If a household cat is present in my bedroom, it will meow.
(2) A household cat is present in my bedroom.
Therefore, it will meow.

Again, there is the issue of whether or not any animal can necessarily qualify as a household cat. However, not all meows are equal. The word "meow" might be interpreted as a specific kind of meow, unique in its character.

All household cats might be grouped together, but not all meows will be the same. Upon a more critical analysis, it might be argued that no animal could categorically be a household cat due to never being able to fulfill the necessary criteria of the grouping and that a household cat only exists in theory.

The question arises, "For any alleged light cone, is its alleged past light cone the cause of the light cone's respective alleged event?"

Alleged past light cone being the cause of Q is alleged to have the following reasoning:
(1) If P, then Q.
(2) P.
Therefore, Q.

Is an object classifiable as a past light cone ("P") if it has properties that differ from other similar objects that look like "P"?

In theory, it is alleged that there is such a thing as a "past light cone." I argue that this construct is an object that only exists in theory as an abstract concept because no object in reality qualifies itself as a past light cone; no object in reality has the necessary criteria to qualify itself as a "past light cone."

All objects in reality are different from each other with no object being identical to the other: Any object will have more or less properties than the maximal necessary criteria.

For instance, let's presume that for an object to be a "past light cone," ("P"), an object must have X, Y, and Z criteria. If an object has W, X, Y, and Z (more than X, Y, and Z) or only X and Y (less than X, Y, and Z), then the object fails to meet the maximal necessary criteria to be a past light cone: The concept of a past light cone exists only in theory.

From understanding this, we may argue that no object may be defined as a past light cone because no object in reality has the necessary criteria to qualify itself as a "past light cone."

In reality, past light cones do not exist: They are of theory.

This situation is similar to the chemical equation problem: No substance will ever match the theoretical reactants or products; all substances will have something different about them that prevents them from being categorized as the theoretical substances. HCl is a theorized molecule with its presence in an aqueous solution theorized.

The concept of sufficiency is a farse. Without all qualifications being met, an object cannot be the same as the theorized object.

With these things argued, no object in reality exists categorically as a P: There is a difference between reality (that of which exists outside of theory, perhaps better argued as observable nature) and theory. No object may exist as a Q. Only in theory does P cause Q. But in reality, no P's exist to bring about a Q.

All alleged past light cones are unrepresentative (15) and cannot be alleged to be a actual past light cones that cause events because none of them are actual past light cones.
(1) If P, then Q.
(2) Not P. (No P's in reality exist)
Therefore, not Q.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Let the theoretical construct of a light cone event be labeled as "Q" and the theoretical construct of a future light cone be labeled "R":
(1) If Q, then R.
(2) Not Q. (No actual Q's exist)
Therefore, not R.

No alleged event between an alleged past light cone and an alleged future light cone causes a future light cone. No alleged event has the necessary criteria of a theorized event between a theoretical past light cone and a theoretical future light cone. All parts of a light cone are theoretical and do not exist in reality.

See also:
(1) Elements of Crime
(2) "The Secret Politics of the Compatibilist Criminal Law" by Anders Kaye; Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Kansas Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 365, 2007; TJSL Legal Studies Research Paper; No. 979421; 63 Pages; Posted: 12 Apr 2007; Last revised: 5 Aug 2008. (Note: This source of information is being cited because it is where I was introduced to the concept of legal compatibalism, for what I recall.)
(3) "Personal identity." Section: No-self theory. Wikipedia. As accessed on February 14th, 2021 at 9:52 p.m..
(4) Ship of Theseus.
(5) Perdurantism or perdurance theory. "Perdurantism." Wikipedia. As accessible at 7:35 p.m. on February 12th, 2021.
(6) Endurantism or endurance theory. "Endurantism." Wikipedia. As accessible at 7:38 p.m. on February 12th, 2021.
(7) Four-dimensionalism. Wikipedia. As accessible at 7:37 p.m. on February 12th, 2021.
(8) Note: Velocity is a function of change in spatial position over time. The mass of a body in motion is dependent on the variable of velocity and becomes undefined if the velocity is zero.
(9) The theory of special relativity
(10) 625 ILCS 5/11-610 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-610) - Illinois Compiled Statutes
(11) Causality (physics). Section: As a physical concept. Wikipedia. As accessible at 9:46 a.m. on February 14th, 2021.
(12) Krioukov, Dmitri & Kitsak, Maksim & Sinkovits, Robert & Rideout, David & Meyer, David & Boguñá, Marián. (2012). Network Cosmology. Scientific reports. 2. 793. 10.1038/srep00793. (Note: It is suggested to focus reading on "Figure 1" and its note.)
(13) Fallacy of defective induction
(14) "David Hume: Causation." Author: C. M. Lorkowski. Kent State University, U. S. A.. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Date accessed: February 14th, 2021 at 10:13 a.m..
(15) Fallacy of unrepresentative samples

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1168
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Count Lucanor » February 15th, 2021, 10:59 am

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 14th, 2021, 8:21 pm


Of these arguments, upon much reflection, I think (2)(a.) is the strongest. I consider that society may reject the argument and the belief that an individual's identity is non-continuous (5)(6)(7). In such a case, I believe that argument (2)(b.) may be used to refute such persons with such mentality.
This is complete and utter nonsense! If the case can be made that a person does not exist in a continuum, the same criteria can be applied to any singular object, event, etc., which will produce, among other things, the belief that there's not even a victim, nor a crime, nor a judge, nor an attorney, nor a decision, etc. One might better kill oneself in such a meaningless world.

Dennis Blewett
Posts: 9
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Dennis Blewett » February 15th, 2021, 8:38 pm

Your argument:
(1) If the case can be made that a person does not exist in a continuum, the same criteria can be applied to any singular object, event, etc., which will produce, among other things, the belief that there's not even a victim, nor a crime, nor a judge, nor an attorney, nor a decision, etc.
(2) If the same criteria can be applied to any singular object, event, etc., which will produce, among other things, the belief that there's not even a victim, nor a crime, nor a judge, nor an attorney, nor a decision, etc., then my argument is complete and utter nonsense!
Therefore, my argument is complete and utter nonsense!

Your second premise is invalid. The criteria would not necessarily "...produce the belief that there's not even a victim, nor a crime, nor a judge, nor an attorney, nor a decision, etc...."

Continuity of personhood does not occur. An entity may call itself a judge, but the mass that composes the entity persisting on its claim that it is a judge changes over time. No alleged victim would be the same person from one moment to the next. The entity might delusionally persist in its claim that is the same person ("victim") that was wronged in the entity's opinion, but such would be erroneous.

In the context of the non-continuity argument, imagine I put an apple on a table (we engage in a social contract to agree that it is an apple). I ask you, "Is it the same apple from one moment to the next?"

I would hope your answer would be no. Applehood is a farse.

It appears you have committed the slippery slope fallacy.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1168
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Count Lucanor » February 16th, 2021, 11:48 am

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 15th, 2021, 8:38 pm

Your second premise is invalid. The criteria would not necessarily "...produce the belief that there's not even a victim,
The victim must be a person, but since "continuity of personhood does not occur" (your words), then there cannot be a victim. Then, the criteria necessarily produces that belief and the second premise is valid.
Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 15th, 2021, 8:38 pm
nor a crime, nor a judge, nor an attorney, nor a decision, etc...."
These follow the same logic as with the "victim". All of them are, according to you and the criteria employed, a farce.

If everything is a farce, then my conclusion stands.

Dennis Blewett
Posts: 9
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Dennis Blewett » February 16th, 2021, 1:25 pm

Victimhood would not have temporal persistence. An apple is not the same apple from one moment to the next. An entity at some point in time, at that moment in time, might claim to be a victim. But once a moment of time passes, the entity cannot claim to be the same victim.

I am using the name Dennis Blewett, but I am not the same person from one moment to the next.

An entity claiming to be a judge cannot claim to be the same judge from one moment to the next. The entity might argue that it is persisting in the title of judge, but to claim it is the same entity from one moment to the next would be erroneous.

An event and the concept of a singular object are a bit more difficult to argue about. Let's talk about a photon (singular object argument). It is not identical from one moment to the next: it does not maintain its spatial position, for instance. Socially, however, we have generalized the object as a photon.

A "crime" is more of an idea. The criteria for something to be a crime are that the elements have been fulfilled. In my opinion, these are alleged to have occurred at a specific time: An actus reus has a specific time of occurrence. The idea of temporal persistence is not applicable.

For an "event," again temporal persistence is not applicable if considering an event happens at some specific moment in time.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1484
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Pattern-chaser » February 17th, 2021, 1:22 pm

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 16th, 2021, 1:25 pm
An apple is not the same apple from one moment to the next. An entity at some point in time, at that moment in time, might claim to be a victim. But once a moment of time passes, the entity cannot claim to be the same victim.

I am using the name Dennis Blewett, but I am not the same person from one moment to the next.
So you cannot step into the same river even once, as the excellent Cratylus suggested?
He capped Heraclitus's saying that one cannot step twice into the same river by adding "nor once either." His reason clearly was his contention that the river is changing even as you step into it. He ended by coming to the view that one ought not to say anything, but only move the finger, since no true statement can be made about a thing that is always changing.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4670
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by LuckyR » February 17th, 2021, 8:01 pm

Sounds great! So I punch you in the nose and steal your lunch money, we all good, right?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1168
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Count Lucanor » February 17th, 2021, 10:05 pm

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 16th, 2021, 1:25 pm
Victimhood would not have temporal persistence. An apple is not the same apple from one moment to the next. An entity at some point in time, at that moment in time, might claim to be a victim. But once a moment of time passes, the entity cannot claim to be the same victim.

I am using the name Dennis Blewett, but I am not the same person from one moment to the next.

An entity claiming to be a judge cannot claim to be the same judge from one moment to the next. The entity might argue that it is persisting in the title of judge, but to claim it is the same entity from one moment to the next would be erroneous.

An event and the concept of a singular object are a bit more difficult to argue about. Let's talk about a photon (singular object argument). It is not identical from one moment to the next: it does not maintain its spatial position, for instance. Socially, however, we have generalized the object as a photon.

A "crime" is more of an idea. The criteria for something to be a crime are that the elements have been fulfilled. In my opinion, these are alleged to have occurred at a specific time: An actus reus has a specific time of occurrence. The idea of temporal persistence is not applicable.

For an "event," again temporal persistence is not applicable if considering an event happens at some specific moment in time.
You're reinforcing the conclusions that I pointed out would arise from your initial stance, so I guess you have been convinced that your position is untenable, otherwise the world would be an entire farce, everything meaningless.

Dennis Blewett
Posts: 9
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Dennis Blewett » February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am

Two significant errors that escaped proofreading were found from the original post of this thread. One error was significant to the wording of the non-continuity of identity argument. It should be understood that the first premise of the argument means to use the expression "...at the alleged time of the alleged crime..." in the premise of the claim. There was a failure to request the "alleged time" aspect of the premise to be corrected (consider this post to be notice of another recently discovered error). I might request another corrective edit when and if time permits. The other error was in relation to my thoughts on Minowski. A request for corrections to occur to some of the errors was submitted in the board "Feedback, Support, & Forum Announcements."

I will quote what I submitted to the board and will follow the quote with responses to the recent posts on this thread. The quote that follows is a quoting of my submission to the "Feedback, Support, & Forum Announcements" board that occurred at approximately 8:00 p.m. (Central Standard Time, Illinois, USA) on February 20th, 2021:
This is a request for there to be two edits to the thread "Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)" by Dennis Blewett on this forum. The edits mean to be corrective edits to errors that escaped proofreading.
Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 14th, 2021, 8:21 pm
The defendant is not guilty because the defendant did not fulfill the elements of the crime; the defendant (the bodies of mass that compose the individual in the now) did not exist (were not in the configuration, such as spatial position in time, they are now); (this premise is a guess due to limited physics knowledge) if the bodies of mass that compose the defendant hadn't been in a different configuration (such as spatial positions), then their mass would be undefined (8)(9).
be changed to the following:
"The defendant is not guilty because the defendant did not fulfill the elements of the alleged crime; the defendant (the bodies of mass that compose the individual in the now) did not exist (were not in the configuration, such as spatial position in time, they are now) at the time of the alleged crime; (this premise is a guess due to limited physics knowledge) if the bodies of mass that compose the defendant hadn't been in a different configuration (such as spatial positions), then their mass would be undefined (8)(9)."

The claim has been changed to state "alleged crime" rather than "crime." The expression, "...at the time of the alleged crime," has been added to the premise of the claim.

The second requested edit is not as significant but still important. I used the ecological concept "evolutionary mutualism" rather than "evolutionary cooperation."

Upon reading the section of the thread, I notice it's riddled with a few errors:

Could you please take the following,
Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 14th, 2021, 8:21 pm
My interpretation of Minowski's arguments is that his critical thinking was not present, perhaps moreso that he held a cognitive bias to support the philosophy of determinism as an act of mutualism to survive in a world where those in power upheld such a philosophy (evolutionary mutualism).
and have it read such:
"My interpretation of Minowski's arguments is that his critical thinking was not present, perhaps moreso that, as an act of evolutionary cooperation (intraspecific cooperation), he held a cognitive bias to uphold the philosophy of determinism in order to survive in a world where those in power upheld such a philosophy."

Thank you in advance.
Pattern-chaser wrote:
February 17th, 2021, 1:22 pm
So you cannot step into the same river even once, as the excellent Cratylus suggested?
No, because I believe there is a point in time where it may be operationally defined that an entity has stepped into the river. An instant later, however, the river is no longer the same river. Something significantly different from the time of Cratylus is that we have differential calculus and the concept of instanteous velocity. The water molecules in a river may be alleged to be experiencing change in spatial position over time.

Let t0 be the point of time at which an entity [an entity is an object (17) that is composed of matter] starts to put its foot in the river. Let t1 be operationally defined as the time at which the entity has stepped into the river. Between t0 and t1 the river goes through change, so that it is not the same river between those points in time: The matter of the river experiences change in spatial position over time between those points in time. A moment after the entity has stepped into the water, whereby such moment shall be defined as t2, the river again has changed, no longer being as it was at t1.

It appears to me that some equivocation with the word "defendant" may be getting interpreted. In general, what is meant by "defendant" is the accused entity after the arrest has occurred. For those of whom are not familiar with how arrests work, an arrest may occur in more than one way. For instance, a formal charge is an arrest. With traffic law and traffic tickets, the traffic ticket may be considered the arrest, for what I understand.

A peace officer (such as a police officer) putting handcuffs on a person does not qualify as an arrest. Handcuffs on a person might be interpreted as a detainment (excluding an unjustified battery / police harassment). An individual might argue than an officer never has justification to use handcuffs and claim such use as police harassment because an officer cannot ever generate probable cause to detain an individual because the premise of which an officer uses to conclude that an individual should be detained would be invalid.

A hypothetical syllogistic example of an officer's thinking:
(1) If the totality of the facts and circumstances lead me to believe such, then you should be detained.
(2) The totality of the facts and circumstances lead me to believe such.
Therefore, you should be detained.

A critical thinker may argue that it is not practical for an officer to have totality of the facts and circumstances because the officer's authority is not absolute.

Police will say they mean to "detain" someone.

An entity that has been "detained" may then be brought to jail and in front of a "notary public" of whom notarizes a criminal charge filed by a police officer, thus formalizing the filed criminal charge into a formal charge. The notary public might be interpreted as an adjudicator of whom oversees the debate related to the criminal charge being filed by an officer, but often due process is violated and a fair hearing as to the criminal charge does not occur before its formalization by the notary public.

To return to the definition of "defendant," this is one of those philosophy of law topics: When is an entity defined as a defendant?

Someone might argue that an entity categorically becomes a "defendant" upon the occurrence of a crime by the entity. However, it might be argued that if it is a matter of debate as to whether or not an entity committed a crime, then the entity is categorically defined as an "alleged defendant."

That would be to argue that no entity may definitively be categorized as a "defendant" until it is established that the entity committed a crime.

In the use of the word "defendant" in the defense arguments (2)(a.) and (2)(b.), the word "defendant" is the title given to an entity that is being alleged to have committed a crime at some alleged time.

All defendants are entities that are alleged to have committed a crime at some alleged time. All entities are composed of matter.
LuckyR wrote:
February 17th, 2021, 8:01 pm
Sounds great! So I punch you in the nose and steal your lunch money, we all good, right?
To blame you would be a misappropriation of blame. Whether or not the effort to engage in defense of property (the lunch money) occurs is a different matter (a fatalistic occurrence if such defense of property were to or were not to occur), and I don't seek the derailing of the thread.

I will touch on the concept of victimization, as the word "victim" has popped up in this thread more than once, and I will touch on the concept of victimization in order to refute Count Lucanor's arguments.

A person may categorically be defined as a victim. Not all victims are persons. That which causes a person to be a victim is a debatable one, for which I don't want the thread to derail into such debate: There may or may not be a "first and only" cause that made all of reality what it is (such physics knowledge is beyond me, but I have read of something called the singularity).

However, I deny that any person is able to cause an entity to be a victim because all persons are interdependent with the dimensions of space and the dimension of time* (I think that is the proper premise).

* The caveat being that I deny that cause-and-effect relationships exist in alleged light cones and between the alleged parts of alleged light cones (such is argued in the original post).

I understand if persons here think victimization is an important concept, but not all alleged crimes involve a victim. I do not think victimization is an important thing to discuss here because it is not relevant to the discussion of causation of an actus reus (I think that is the proper premise).
Count Lucanor wrote:
February 17th, 2021, 10:05 pm
You're reinforcing the conclusions that I pointed out would arise from your initial stance, so I guess you have been convinced that your position is untenable, otherwise the world would be an entire farce, everything meaningless.
I have not been convinced that my position is untenable. Please let me know if the changes in the non-continuity of identity argument have changed your viewpoint.

I ask you the following: Can we agree that no defendant (whereby a defendant is an entity that is being alleged to have committed a crime at some alleged time) is guilty of an alleged crime because no defendant could have fulfilled the elements of a crime?

If you do not agree, why not? Do you think a defendant could have fulfilled the elements of a crime? If so, why so?

If you take the stance of skepticism, then I think you cannot be persuaded. However, I appeal to your senses in the hope you will accept an empirical argument.

I argue that a defendant could not have fulfilled the elements of an alleged crime because such defendant did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime.

Since the original post of this thread, I have done some reading on physics and learned that I would be better to say a defendant is made of matter rather than bodies of mass.

Can we agree that such defendant did not exist at the alleged time of an alleged crime because all matter changes its spatial position over time?

Can we agree that all matter changes its spatial position over time because all matter has velocity (18)(19)?

All defendants are entities that are alleged to have committed a crime at some alleged time. All entities are composed of matter. All matter changes its spatial position over time. All matter has velocity.

To all of whom are reading, on Minowski, what is being argued is that he helped (probably on an unconscious level) determinists in order to help himself, too: Intraspecies cooperation amongst determinists.

See also:
(17) Kinematics
(18) Kinetic energy
(19) Particle theory

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1484
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Pattern-chaser » February 22nd, 2021, 9:16 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
February 17th, 2021, 1:22 pm
So you cannot step into the same river even once, as the excellent Cratylus suggested?

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am
No, because I believe there is a point in time where it may be operationally defined that an entity has stepped into the river. An instant later, however, the river is no longer the same river. Something significantly different from the time of Cratylus is that we have differential calculus and the concept of instanteous velocity. The water molecules in a river may be alleged to be experiencing change in spatial position over time.

The act of stepping into the river takes time, during which the river is changing, instant by instant.

There is not a "point in time", but a short period of time. So all the calculus in the world won't help.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Dennis Blewett
Posts: 9
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Dennis Blewett » February 22nd, 2021, 4:51 pm

Stepping into the river occurs between t1 and t2. The entity has "stepped" into the river at t2. Sure, the river is constantly changing, moment by moment. However, all of the matter that composes the river is in a particular configuration at t2. The matter that composes the entity at t2 is also in its own configuration.

Also, to all, the process discussed by which a criminal charge becomes a formal charge is as it occurs in Illinois, USA. Other places in the world may have similar procedures.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4670
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by LuckyR » February 23rd, 2021, 1:38 am

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am
LuckyR wrote:
February 17th, 2021, 8:01 pm
Sounds great! So I punch you in the nose and steal your lunch money, we all good, right?
To blame you would be a misappropriation of blame. Whether or not the effort to engage in defense of property (the lunch money) occurs is a different matter (a fatalistic occurrence if such defense of property were to or were not to occur), and I don't seek the derailing of the thread.

I will touch on the concept of victimization, as the word "victim" has popped up in this thread more than once, and I will touch on the concept of victimization in order to refute Count Lucanor's arguments.

A person may categorically be defined as a victim. Not all victims are persons. That which causes a person to be a victim is a debatable one, for which I don't want the thread to derail into such debate: There may or may not be a "first and only" cause that made all of reality what it is (such physics knowledge is beyond me, but I have read of something called the singularity).

However, I deny that any person is able to cause an entity to be a victim because all persons are interdependent with the dimensions of space and the dimension of time* (I think that is the proper premise).

* The caveat being that I deny that cause-and-effect relationships exist in alleged light cones and between the alleged parts of alleged light cones (such is argued in the original post).

I understand if persons here think victimization is an important concept, but not all alleged crimes involve a victim. I do not think victimization is an important thing to discuss here because it is not relevant to the discussion of causation of an actus reus (I think that is the proper premise).
Impressive. Six paragraphs without an answer. Do you care if you get a bloody nose and your lunch money taken?

If so, why? If not, why not?
"As usual... it depends."

Dennis Blewett
Posts: 9
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Dennis Blewett » February 23rd, 2021, 9:29 am

LuckyR wrote:
February 23rd, 2021, 1:38 am
Impressive. Six paragraphs without an answer. Do you care if you get a bloody nose and your lunch money taken?

If so, why? If not, why not?
I, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous self of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett to submit this post, would care because getting a bloody nose and my lunch money taken would be a form of pain and suffering for myself (if such pain and suffering instantaneously coinciding with my existence) and pain and suffering is bad. As I do not exist beyond a moment of time, I find that I do not care about the future identities of the non-continuous self. I care about the non-continuous self in so far that I am part of it, which occurs for only a moment (an instant of time).

As to the non-continuity of identity argument, it appears there has been an issue with forming the ideas behind the argument into a proper phrasing (syntax issues). What follows is the reformed argument:

The "ever-changing entity that is in the configuration that it is in now that is being given the title of defendant" (the defendant) did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime (was not in the configuration that it is now at the alleged time of the alleged crime) because the defendant had been composed of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime.

In other words, the defendant did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the defendant had been composed of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime. The defendant had been composed of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the constituents of the defendant changed their spatial positions over time. The constituents of the defendant changed their spatial positions over time because the constituents of the defendant had velocity.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4670
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by LuckyR » February 23rd, 2021, 11:18 pm

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 23rd, 2021, 9:29 am
LuckyR wrote:
February 23rd, 2021, 1:38 am
Impressive. Six paragraphs without an answer. Do you care if you get a bloody nose and your lunch money taken?

If so, why? If not, why not?
I, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous self of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett to submit this post, would care because getting a bloody nose and my lunch money taken would be a form of pain and suffering for myself (if such pain and suffering instantaneously coinciding with my existence) and pain and suffering is bad. As I do not exist beyond a moment of time, I find that I do not care about the future identities of the non-continuous self. I care about the non-continuous self in so far that I am part of it, which occurs for only a moment (an instant of time).

As to the non-continuity of identity argument, it appears there has been an issue with forming the ideas behind the argument into a proper phrasing (syntax issues). What follows is the reformed argument:

The "ever-changing entity that is in the configuration that it is in now that is being given the title of defendant" (the defendant) did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime (was not in the configuration that it is now at the alleged time of the alleged crime) because the defendant had been composed of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime.

In other words, the defendant did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the defendant had been composed of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime. The defendant had been composed of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the constituents of the defendant changed their spatial positions over time. The constituents of the defendant changed their spatial positions over time because the constituents of the defendant had velocity.
Got it, I bloody your nose and take your lunch money, you care about it for essentially a moment, then you don't care. Fantastic, you may be the perfect victim. Prepare to be victimized.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1168
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibalism)

Post by Count Lucanor » February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pm

Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
February 17th, 2021, 10:05 pm
You're reinforcing the conclusions that I pointed out would arise from your initial stance, so I guess you have been convinced that your position is untenable, otherwise the world would be an entire farce, everything meaningless.
I have not been convinced that my position is untenable. Please let me know if the changes in the non-continuity of identity argument have changed your viewpoint.
Your own argument leads to the conclusion that everything is a farce, everything dissolves in the non-continuity of identity, therefore, either you admit the conclusions of your own argument, or you change your argument. If everything is a farce, then my initial assessment of your whole argument remains unchallenged. I'm just taking your stance to its logical conclusions. You can change your argument if you want to obtain different conclusions.
Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am
I ask you the following: Can we agree that no defendant (whereby a defendant is an entity that is being alleged to have committed a crime at some alleged time) is guilty of an alleged crime because no defendant could have fulfilled the elements of a crime?
If there's an act, there's a causing agent. Given a criminal act, there's an agent that committed the crime. Among the many possible agents wandering in the world, some other agents identify suspects of committing said crime, which might turn out to be the actual causing agents or not. Another set of agents (the judges or jurors) will act themselves to condemn or acquit.
Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am

I argue that a defendant could not have fulfilled the elements of an alleged crime because such defendant did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime.
The argument you make to deny the existence of a causing agent, immediately applies to the whole chain of entities and events. So you end up having to deny the existence of the crime itself, along with the attorneys, judges and jurors, all of which must also be dissolved in non-existence because of the argument of non-continuity of identity.
Dennis Blewett wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:43 am
Since the original post of this thread, I have done some reading on physics and learned that I would be better to say a defendant is made of matter rather than bodies of mass.

Can we agree that such defendant did not exist at the alleged time of an alleged crime because all matter changes its spatial position over time?
No, we cannot agree. The label "defendant" gets its meaning in a speech context, but we're not to confuse the meaning or the concept being represented with the thing in itself. The defendant could also be represented in speech by "John", "Steve" or "the guy down the corner". So the real question is whether there's an actual entity, comprised of some attributes, that justifies our labels. An entity occupies space and time, and despite the changes and developments, it is understood to be a continuous single entity. If one argues one particular entity does not exist because it changes its spatial position over time, the same fate follows for all things in the universe. Then, no single entity would exist in the universe. If that were the case, what would be of interest in a farcical trial of a non-existent defendant, of a non-existent crime, in a non-existent society of non-existent people, etc.?

Post Reply

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021