Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibilism)

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

It appears there is a syntax error in the previous post by Dennis Blewett.

The part of the argument that says, "I, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous self of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett to submit this post, would care because..." should have been worded, "I, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous self of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett and submitting this post at the instant of submission, would care because..."

The submission of a post is being argued to occur at a specific instant of time without occurring over more than one moment of time. The submission of the former post is argued to have occurred at a specific point (instant) in time. It appears the syntax of the former post by Dennis Blewett implies that the instantaneous identity existed for more than a moment of time.
LuckyR wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 11:18 pmGot 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.
Upon some reflection, it appears to me the instantaneous identity would not care about getting a bloody nose and having its lunch money taken because such cannot instantaneously coincide with its caring. The instantaneous identity of the former post submission held an irrational care. An instantaneous identity cannot care about getting a bloody nose and its lunch money taken AND get a bloody nose and have its lunch money taken. It cannot care about the pain and suffering occurring and having such done. That's like saying two mental states are able to occur at once, the caring mental state and the pain and suffering mental state. But I don't like mental states, as they don't focus on the whole of the entity. So, two physical states cannot occur at once, caring (as one physical state with its mindframe) and pain and suffering occurring (a different physical state with its respective mindframe).

I, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous entity of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett and submitting this post at the instant of submission, would not care about getting a bloody nose and having my lunch money taken because such caring and the pain and suffering cannot occur at the same time. (I think I correctly set that argument up.)

In terms of victimhood, as there would not be persistence of identity, an instantaneous identity could not complain to have been victimized about getting a bloody nose and having its lunch money taken any time after getting a bloody nose and having its lunch money taken because it would no longer exist the moment after having gotten a bloody nose and having had its lunch money taken, for which getting a bloody nose and having its lunch money taken is presumed to have instantaneously coincided with its existence.

Count Lucanor wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pmYour 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.
The word "farce" has not been used in any of the arguments by Dennis Blewett. I am having difficulty following how you find things to be a farce. I do not understand what is meant by the expression, "...everything dissolves in the non-continuity of identity..."

It appears you are arguing with that expression that there can be no ever-changing or if in your opinion there may be an ever-changing entity, then there is no possibility for there to be an instantaneous identity of that ever-changing entity, an identity existing at a moment of time that is different from all the other identities.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pmThe 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.


I do not mean for the non-continuity of identity argument to imply there is never an entity. Count Lucanor makes the argument that the non-continuity of identity applies to the whole chain of entities and event. There is no chain of entities. There is only one ever-changing entity (which may just be read as there is only one entity) and the identities that occur at each moment of time, whereby I am calling each identity as instantaneous identity to emphasize the identity is found only at a particular instant of time along the timeline of the entity's existence.

For persons here, it may help to have studied calculus and the concept of instantaneous velocity, Imagine an entity made of 100 particles. The entity exists along a timeline, say for example from life to death (say 20 years for sake of argument). At any moment (instant) of time of the timeline, you may find an instantaneous identity of the entity: No instantaneous identity exists beyond an instant of time. Let's say for sake of argunent, the entity maintains having 100 particles throughout its existence. Any instantaneous identity will be composed of 100 particles. Upon examining an instantaneous identity, which means you are examining the entity at some instant of time along its timeline, it (the instantaneous identity) will be composed of 100 particles with each particle having an instantaneous velocity (a velocity at that instant in time of the instantaneous identity of the entity).

In real life, particles are gained and lost for an entity through time. But for an instantaneous identity of a human entity, for example, it will be composed of matter with its parts each having their own respective instantaneous velocity.
- Dennis Francis Blewett
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

Correction:
I, the instantaneous identity of the entity of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett and submitting this post at the instant of submission, would not care about getting a bloody nose and having my lunch money taken because such caring and the pain and suffering cannot occur at the same time. (I think I correctly set that argument up, I hope.)
- Dennis Francis Blewett
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5950
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

Dennis Blewett wrote: February 24th, 2021, 4:16 pm Correction:
I, the instantaneous identity of the entity of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett and submitting this post at the instant of submission, would not care about getting a bloody nose and having my lunch money taken because such caring and the pain and suffering cannot occur at the same time. (I think I correctly set that argument up, I hope.)
I know, that's what you posted the first time. I get it. You're still the perfect victim, whether you care about it or not and if true you'll be relentlessly victimized once others figure this out. Unless, of course this is just an online idea that you don't live by.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1477
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 »

Dennis Blewett wrote: February 24th, 2021, 4:12 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pmYour 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.
The word "farce" has not been used in any of the arguments by Dennis Blewett. I am having difficulty following how you find things to be a farce.
I never said you literally used the word "farce", but I did say you meant farce, even when you actually wrote "farse", which does not exist as a word in the English language:
Dennis Blewett wrote:The concept of sufficiency is a farse. Without all qualifications being met, an object cannot be the same as the theorized object.
Dennis Blewett wrote: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.
Dennis Blewett wrote: February 24th, 2021, 4:12 pm I do not understand what is meant by the expression, "...everything dissolves in the non-continuity of identity..."
Non-continuity of identity is your concept, not mine. In this concept of yours, everything dissolves, ceases to exist as a singular continuous entity.
Dennis Blewett wrote: February 24th, 2021, 4:12 pm It appears you are arguing with that expression that there can be no ever-changing or if in your opinion there may be an ever-changing entity, then there is no possibility for there to be an instantaneous identity of that ever-changing entity, an identity existing at a moment of time that is different from all the other identities.
It is your expression, your concept. I just show its implications.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pmThe 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 24th, 2021, 4:12 pm I do not mean for the non-continuity of identity argument to imply there is never an entity.
What you have implied is that since an entity does not remain static, unchanged from one moment to another, then it is not the same entity each time. If a new entity has replaced the previous one, it is just the same as saying the first entity ceased to exist, and actually, that all of them cease to exist immediately to give room for the next one.
Dennis Blewett wrote: February 24th, 2021, 4:12 pmCount Lucanor makes the argument that the non-continuity of identity applies to the whole chain of entities and event. There is no chain of entities. There is only one ever-changing entity (which may just be read as there is only one entity) and the identities that occur at each moment of time, whereby I am calling each identity as instantaneous identity to emphasize the identity is found only at a particular instant of time along the timeline of the entity's existence.
If Peter pushes Rick and this falls into the arms of Mary, who gives him a kiss, then there is a series of events and entities involved in the whole situation. The whole point of my demonstration was to show that once you claimed Peter is not an actual continuous identifiable entity, but a compound illusion, made of many different instances of an ideal Peter changing in time, then the whole chain of entities and events that are linked to Peter in that situation must be claimed to be compound illusions, too. That was the whole point and your reply that "there is only one ever-changing entity" makes no sense.
Dennis Blewett wrote: February 24th, 2021, 4:12 pm For persons here, it may help to have studied calculus and the concept of instantaneous velocity, Imagine an entity made of 100 particles. The entity exists along a timeline, say for example from life to death (say 20 years for sake of argument). At any moment (instant) of time of the timeline, you may find an instantaneous identity of the entity: No instantaneous identity exists beyond an instant of time. Let's say for sake of argunent, the entity maintains having 100 particles throughout its existence. Any instantaneous identity will be composed of 100 particles. Upon examining an instantaneous identity, which means you are examining the entity at some instant of time along its timeline, it (the instantaneous identity) will be composed of 100 particles with each particle having an instantaneous velocity (a velocity at that instant in time of the instantaneous identity of the entity).

In real life, particles are gained and lost for an entity through time. But for an instantaneous identity of a human entity, for example, it will be composed of matter with its parts each having their own respective instantaneous velocity.
So, singular entities exist continuously. How is this relevant to the existence of the suspect of a crime and the alleged crimes?
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

For anyone wondering, the term "mass" has been moved away from because of the realization that a photon may not have mass (but photons are matter) (20) and to have the non-continuity of identity argument account for such. It seems there are arguments that since photons have energy, then they have mass: I am lost on the physics arguments.

I consider that one or more photons may be of the conglomeration of matter that composes an instantaneous identity. It is also understood that the 100-particle entity example may not have been a good example because of wave-particle duality.
LuckyR wrote: February 24th, 2021, 7:50 pmI know, that's what you posted the first time. I get it. You're still the perfect victim, whether you care about it or not and if true you'll be relentlessly victimized once others figure this out. Unless, of course this is just an online idea that you don't live by.
I (the instantaneous identity that is submitting this post) deny that's what I posted the first time because I did not exist at the time those submissions occurred.

The temporal point of submission of a post is being defined as the instant of which the "Submit" button is tapped (I am using a phone). It is understood that there may be some web processing involved with the submission getting posted, but it is argued that the submitting instantaneous identity had died by then. I did not type up all of what is in this post (such is from previous instantaneous identities), but there will be only one instantaneous identity tapping the submit button; and I submit what is in this post as what I would like to communicate. Other instantaneous identities are having this prepared for submission with the use of "I" to refer to the submitting instantaneous identity, me.

The instantaneous identies using the name Dennis Blewett posted different things. One submission was by an instantaneous identity that had an irrational care for pain and suffering coinciding with its existence because the instantaneous identity did not have a realization that such pain and suffering could not coincide with its existence: There was no "but such a care would be irrational, as I cannot care and experience such pain and suffering at the the same time; thus, I would not care about such pain and suffering occurring" clause. Its argument was that it would care about such pain and suffering IF such pain and suffering coincided with its existence.

Two mental states, "physical states," could not occur at the same time: "Mental state #1" being the caring about such pain and suffering and "mental state #2" the experience of such pain and suffering. Those mental states could not occur simultaneously in one instantaneous identity. It is presumed that a mental state occurs at an instant of time and that an instantaneous identity exists at an instant of time. All instantaneous identities are only able to have one mental state at a time. Depending on how an individual looks at it, the term "mental state" may be interchangeable with "physical state," which is how it is meant in this post. A mental state implies that all the parts of a physical self come together to be represented and experienced as a unified whole.

And it may be understood that one instantaneous identity cannot post a correction, as though the new instantaneous identity has maintained the identity of the submitting poster. What would have been more appropriate would have been the instantaneous identity of the time arguing, "What I think the prior instantaneous identity meant to argue is the following:".
Count Lucanor wrote: February 24th, 2021, 11:00 pmI never said you literally used the word "farce", but I did say you meant farce, even when you actually wrote "farse", which does not exist as a word in the English language:
Alright. It looks like "farse" is an obsolete variant of "farce," according to Merriam-Webster online. Note taken.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 24th, 2021, 11:00 pmSo, singular entities exist continuously. How is this relevant to the existence of the suspect of a crime and the alleged crimes?
This post will eventually get to the relevancy of the argument. First I will go into some usage in reference to the word "entity."

One of the things I mean to avoid is for someone to say that the term "entity" and "personhood" are synonymous. I hope all of us do not get to that conclusion. An entity is a set of one or more instantaneous identities.

The term entity is meant to indicate how a three-dimensional object (or conglomeration of three-dimensional objects, which at an instant of time is being labeled as an instantaneous identity) goes through one or more physical changes over time.

Let us say at the point of conception there is a zygote, which is the beginning ("t0") of a conglomeration of three-dimensional objects ("matter"). Presume it (the zygote, a conglomeration of matter) goes through at least one change over time: "It" is made of matter, and all matter changes its spatial position over time because all matter has velocity.

Presuming there is a link between one instantaneous identity and the next, the term "entity" is used to group the instantaneous identities.

Perhaps it is a category error to claim that all instantaneous identities are of an entity. If there is no link between one instantaneous identity and the next, then the instantaneous identities cannot be grouped together as the set of instantaneous identities of an entity: A category error will have been made.

Change in spatial position is not the only thing going on for a zygote, as during development more matter gets added to it (generally) over time. At the least, however, even if addition or subtraction of matter were to occur, it may be argued that matter changes its spatial position over time, which is at the least a change.

A person arguing no-self theory would probably deny the concept of an instantaneous identity. I think if that were to be done, then mental states have to be denied and perhaps the conglomerations of matter in humanoid form may be defined as philosophical zombies.

I guess with denying the cause-and-effect relationship of alleged lightcones, it might be argued there is no link (no causal link may be argued) between one instantaneous identity and the next. Perhaps then it might be argued the idea of an entity is a farce. Perhaps we would be left with the idea of instantaneous identities but no "chain" of instantaneous identities.

Relevancy:
So, the suspect of a crime (when being referred to in any moment/instant of time) has been argued to be an instantaneous identity of an entity. However, the instantaneous identity that a suspect is (referred to in that instant of time) is not the instantaneous identity that was in existence at the alleged time of the alleged crime. Even if it is alleged that an actus reus occurred over a span of time, a span of instantaneous identities would be getting referred to (and those instantaneous identities would have died before the instantaneous identity that is being given the title of suspect came into existence).

All entities are made of matter. All matter experiences change over time (at the least, spatial position changes over time).

From what has been listed, it is argued that no defendant is guilty of an alleged crime because no defendant could have fulfilled the elements of an alleged crime. No defendant could have fulfilled the elements of an alleged crime because no defendant (an instantaneous identity being referred to that has the title of defendant, as the matter of discussion, of the entity that is being discussed) would have existed at the alleged time of the alleged crime. No defendant would have existed at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the entity that any defendant is of would have been made of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime. The entity that any defendant is of would have been made of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime because all matter changes spatial position over time. All matter changes spatial position over time because all matter has velocity. (I think I properly set up that argument.)

Here is what I have from a draft if it helps make more sense: The defendant (the instantaneous identity being referred to that has the title of defendant, as the matter of discussion, of the entity that is being discussed) did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the entity that the defendant is of was made of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime.

Count Lucanor wrote: February 24th, 2021, 11:00 pmIf Peter pushes Rick and this falls into the arms of Mary, who gives him a kiss, then there is a series of events and entities involved in the whole situation. The whole point of my demonstration was to show that once you claimed Peter is not an actual continuous identifiable entity, but a compound illusion, made of many different instances of an ideal Peter changing in time, then the whole chain of entities and events that are linked to Peter in that situation must be claimed to be compound illusions, too. That was the whole point and your reply that "there is only one ever-changing entity" makes no sense.
I deny that entities or instantaneous identities were referred to as illusions. The use of the word illusion feels like the Count Lucanor of the time is arguing that Dennis Blewett argued that there are no instantaneous identities (that the existence of an instantaneous identity is an illusion) and that no-self theory is true, whereby a a belief in the existence of an instantaneous identity is a delusion of the mind. I deny I argued there is an ideal self: That comes off as very Plato's forms.

I reason by "compound illusion" what is meant is how I was referring to how it is ignorant to think that an entity is the same from one moment to the next, and those who think such have been deceived. I reason by "instances" what is meant is "instantaneous identities." I reason by "an ideal Peter" it is meant "an entity that has been given the name Peter through its instantaneous identities."

In line with the idea of there being an entity and instantaneous identities may be of the entity, then Peter at any time is the name of Peter given to an instantaneous identity.

There is no chain of entities.

One or more instantaneous identities (more than one instantaneous identity when discussing the span of more than an instant of time occurring) being given the name Peter pushed "Rick" (the name given to one or more instantaneous identities of that entity) into the arms of "Mary" (the name given to one or more instantaneous identities of that entity).

To add some context to the non-continuity of identity argument, I will provide a rendition of a situation that was thought of during the non-continuity of identity argument's development: (Imagine there is a driver, and the driver fails to stop at a stop sign. A police officer of whom is watching turns on the police vehicles lights and pulls over the person he thinks disobeyed the stop sign. The officer makes the comment that he has to issue a ticket for disobeying a stop sign because of the driver's actions. The driver responds with the defense that who supposedly disobeyed the stop sign and who he is now are different persons.) (I hope readers can put together the idea of how the driver is claiming that an instantaneous identity that is no longer around correlates with the alleged disobeyance of the alleged stop sign.)

When we start talking about how nothing in reality has sufficiency (perhaps best described as "maximal necessary criteria") to be the ideal topic of discussion, things might feel as though they deconstruct (philosophy of deconstructionism). I mean for there to be a disparity between the non-continuity of identity argument an the non-causative agent argument. The non-causative agent takes the personhood argument into consideration, as though personhood as a concept cannot be refuted, and denies that cause-and-effect relationships exist in alleged lightcones and amongst alleged lightcones, which helps deny that a supposed person with personhood caused an actus reus. Even if personhood as a concept is refuted, that no instantaneous identity existed as a causative agent may be argued with the non-causative agent argument.

I think personhood is refutable as a person is not identical from one moment to the next, whereby personhood implies continuity of identity. If we deny that entities exist, then there is is still instantaneous identities to refute. If we refute instantaneous identities, then we are left with no-self theory. To accept no-self theory is to accept the argument that all the parts together should never be taken to be represented as a whole: To do such would be a faulty generalization. Even if no-self theory were accepted, the non-causative agent argument still works: No individual object of matter may be alleged to have caused an actus reus.

How it could be physically (with science) be argued that no-self theory is true is beyond me at the moment.

See also:
(20) "Light has no mass so it also has no energy according to Einstein, but how can sunlight warm the earth without energy?" Science Questions with Surprising Answers. Dr. Christopher S. Baird. Internet resource. Accessed February 28th, 2021. https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/201 ... ut-energy/
- Dennis Francis Blewett
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1477
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 »

Dennis Blewett wrote: February 28th, 2021, 7:31 pm
Here is what I have from a draft if it helps make more sense: The defendant (the instantaneous identity being referred to that has the title of defendant, as the matter of discussion, of the entity that is being discussed) did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime because the entity that the defendant is of was made of matter at the alleged time of the alleged crime.

Count Lucanor wrote: February 24th, 2021, 11:00 pmIf Peter pushes Rick and this falls into the arms of Mary, who gives him a kiss, then there is a series of events and entities involved in the whole situation. The whole point of my demonstration was to show that once you claimed Peter is not an actual continuous identifiable entity, but a compound illusion, made of many different instances of an ideal Peter changing in time, then the whole chain of entities and events that are linked to Peter in that situation must be claimed to be compound illusions, too. That was the whole point and your reply that "there is only one ever-changing entity" makes no sense.
I deny that entities or instantaneous identities were referred to as illusions. The use of the word illusion feels like the Count Lucanor of the time is arguing that Dennis Blewett argued that there are no instantaneous identities (that the existence of an instantaneous identity is an illusion) and that no-self theory is true, whereby a a belief in the existence of an instantaneous identity is a delusion of the mind. I deny I argued there is an ideal self: That comes off as very Plato's forms.
No, you have misrepresented my position. My text clearly talks about the claim that "Peter is not an actual continuous identifiable entity, but a compound illusion, made of many different instances of an ideal Peter changing in time..." The supposed illusion is the continuous identity, and I never said that the claim was that the "instantaneous identity is an illusion". And the "many different instances of an ideal Peter changing in time" could well pass as each of the instantaneous identities, but I never claimed those different instances were proposed as illusory themselves. It seems to me that, according to you, their gluing up together is what creates an illusion of a continuous identifiable entity.
Dennis Blewett wrote: February 28th, 2021, 7:31 pm To add some context to the non-continuity of identity argument, I will provide a rendition of a situation that was thought of during the non-continuity of identity argument's development: (Imagine there is a driver, and the driver fails to stop at a stop sign. A police officer of whom is watching turns on the police vehicles lights and pulls over the person he thinks disobeyed the stop sign. The officer makes the comment that he has to issue a ticket for disobeying a stop sign because of the driver's actions. The driver responds with the defense that who supposedly disobeyed the stop sign and who he is now are different persons.) (I hope readers can put together the idea of how the driver is claiming that an instantaneous identity that is no longer around correlates with the alleged disobeyance of the alleged stop sign.)
After all this discussion, you still seem unable to grasp the essence of my argument against yours. Even though I don't support your non-continuity of identity argument, I have not focused in proving its logical flaws, but to show you that if we buy your argument, it has consequences over the whole setting that you use to illustrate your point. And that consequence is that everything, the whole world in general, is a farce. If it is possible to claim that the driver disobeying the sign and the driver being pulled over are different persons, the same thing can be claimed about the police officer, the vehicle, the stop sign, the road, the written laws, institutions, and so on, until we have covered every entity in the universe, and every relationship among these entities, including the actions, events and causes linked to them. As a result, any attempt of demonstration becomes pointless. Is the judge that you are going to convince with your argument the same judge that there was a minute before? Is he a person at all?
Tegularius
Posts: 503
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

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

Post by Tegularius »

Dennis Blewett wrote: February 16th, 2021, 1:25 pmI am using the name Dennis Blewett, but I am not the same person from one moment to the next.
Since when, the "when" being critical here! Put another way, only if you change your mind from one moment to the next while remembering all the previous moments as if they existed in previous lives.

We are exactly the same person as we always were only recast, modified in time, re-sculptured to a greater or lesser degree by all the experiences time imposes on one. What is true for the planet in the context of geological time - it's still the same planet - so are we in our own limited being. The marble appropriated for the statue of David is still the same marble.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

Dennis Blewett wrote: February 14th, 2021, 8:21 pmThe concept of sufficiency is a farse.
What was meant by this is that to argue that some criteria are sufficient to qualify some X as a Y requires absolute authority. To argue that some product of an alleged chemical reaction has the criteria that qualifies it as aqueous sodium chloride requires absolute authority. In relation to alleged aqueous sodium chloride being a product from a mixing of alleged aqueous hydrochloric acid and alleged aqueous sodium hydroxide, a chemist in a laboratory may as well be arguing "It is aqueous sodium chloride as described in the theoretical model because I say so."

A chemist might make scientific arguments about the polarity of the substance, its pH, and whatnot as if to claim such evidence is sufficient to justify the substance is *identical* to the aqueous sodium chloride as modeled in the chemical equation. Reliance on the idea of sufficiency is inadequate, though, due to an absence of authority (a lack of authority is no real authority at all). And in example, maximal necessary criteria are never met, whereby it may be presumed only an absolute authority could claim such maximal necessary criteria are met ("These criteria are sufficient enough to qualify as the maximal necessary criteria for the product to be identified as aqueous sodium chloride as described in the theoretical chemical reaction equation because I say so.")

It appears mobocracy keeps such paradigm of false claims around that sufficiency has been fulfilled. It seems tied to intraspecies cooperation amongst determinists/compatibalists. I think a lot of it boils down to sophistry being used to enhance socioeconomic status of those using the sophistry. Freudian monsterism is a "real thing." Perhaps society is filled with psychosexually motivated philosophical zombies.

Empirically, we can find that the theoretical construct of aqueous sodium chloride as in the chemical equation does not occupy the dimensions of space at one or more moments of time. An alleged chemical product that exists in space and time is not identical to something that does not exist in space and time but only in theory.

To argue that some criteria of a particular animal are good enough to qualify that animal as a member of the species Felis domesticus is an argument by authority. And any argument by authority that lacks absolution of authority is invalid because the alleged authority cannot ensure the validity of the claim.

The theory of special relativity makes the argument that "there is no observable absolute motion, only relative motion (21)." That is a really strong empirical argument. However, it cannot be ensured, guaranteed as a fact of reality by the claimant due to an absence of authority. If we start saying no one has authority to define what any of the words in the relativity postulate mean, we go into deconstructionism: To me, deconstructionism is the philosophy that no one but an absolute authority can make sense of the meaning of words, whereby without such authority, language deconstructs (falls apart, means nothing). I do not mean for this thread to persuade "persons" into skepticism, as I think there are empirical arguments to be made.
Dennis Blewett wrote: February 15th, 2021, 8:38 pmApplehood is a farse.
What was meant by this is that applehood, the idea that it is possible for an apple is the same from one moment to the next, is non-existent.
Count Lucanor wrote: February 15th, 2021, 10:59 amIf 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.
The usage of the word "person" in the quoted section is vague, and it is not understood what is meant. If were talking about sufficiency and arguments by authority, we could take the stance of skepticism as to whether or not a person exists in a continuum: Let us not go that route.

Whether or not some being has the maximal necessary criteria to qualify as a person would require an argument by authority. From "entity theory," as I will call it, we can see that there may be (nature permitting) instantaneous identities with a span of such having the title "judge" re-applied to each new instantaneous identity.

However, entity theory is *a theory,* whereby throughout the non-causative agent argument, there was the argument that things in nature lack the maximal necessary criteria to be operationally defined as the theoretical construct. We can knock down ("refute") entity theory by saying a non-absolute authority will fail to operationally define any instant of a conglomeration of matter as an instantaneous identity because no observed conglomeration of matter will ever have the maximal necessary criteria to qualify it as an instantaneous identity.

A quick-and-easy way to look at this is to question how someone operationally defines the boundaries of matter that should be included in all of the conglomeration of matter at an instant of time that defines an instantaneous identity. How could one ever accomplish such boundary delineation, as such appears arbitrary?

As entity theory is dependent on the existence of one or more instantaneous identities being of the set of the entity, refuting the concept of an instantaneous identity refutes entity theory.

I can perceive the quoted section making sense were it argued, "A person does not exist in a continuum because nothing in nature can fulfill the maximal necessary criteria to be defined as a person existing in a continuum."

I do not know if such would be a misrepresentation of the argument of the time. The arguments in the quote are vague. I think entity theory, as it had been hoped to have been laid out in the original post for the non-continuity of identity argument, has been hashed out well enough through this thread, and there is the "opportunity" to use the lingo from it.

If it is argued that a person does not exist in a continuum because nothing in nature can fulfill the maximal necessary criteria to be defined as a person existing in a continuum, then I think it can be argued that no-self "theory" is empirically true, the need for absolute authority to qualify the claim aside, for the same reason. The term "person" in this context means instantaneous identity: This aspect of this post should be remembered, as the term "person" will later be equated with the term "entity," and I seek to prevent equivocation from occurring.

If no-self theory is valid, I presume the following argument may be made: The "defendant" did not exist at the alleged time of the alleged crime because nothing in nature can fulfill the maximal necessary criteria to be defined as a person (instantaneous identity) existing in a continuum. It is presumed in line with no-self theory that it would be sophistry to persuade one more persons that such a thing as a "defendant" exists, as no one or more objects may be grouped together to be represented as a "defendant."
Count Lucanor wrote: February 28th, 2021, 8:36 pmIs the judge that you are going to convince with your argument the same judge that there was a minute before? Is he a person at all?
According to entity theory, the hypothetical judge would not be the same judge as the judge from a minute before, but the title of judge is still being applied to each instantaneous identity of a span of instantaneous identities of the entity (the title is the same but the judge is not). The application of the word judge onto an instantaneous identity would differ from one instantaneous identity to the next. According to entity theory, the term "entity" may be synonymous with the term "person" (recall the equivocation warning) if that term is functioning the same way as the term "entity," as in entity theory. That members of society apply the title of judge as they do may be erroneous or nonsensical but is nonetheless a contemporary phenomenon. To argue a judge is the same judge from one moment to the next is to argue that no change in instaneous identity occurred from one moment to the next.

This goes back to the apple example. The title of apple would have to be re-applied for each new instantaneous identity but the entity itself is not defined as an apple. "Apple" would be a title given to one or more instantaneous identities not the entity.
Tegularius wrote: February 28th, 2021, 9:36 pm Since when, the "when" being critical here! Put another way, only if you change your mind from one moment to the next while remembering all the previous moments as if they existed in previous lives.

We are exactly the same person as we always were only recast, modified in time, re-sculptured to a greater or lesser degree by all the experiences time imposes on one. What is true for the planet in the context of geological time - it's still the same planet - so are we in our own limited being. The marble appropriated for the statue of David is still the same marble.
I do not understand the arguments in the first two statements. They are vague. When the alleged Dennis Blewett of the time was claiming he was not the same person from one moment to the next, he (accepting that instantaneous identies exist to allow for a "he") was arguing he was not the same instantaneous identity from one moment to the next (it appears the term "entity" was equivocated with the term "instantaneous identity"), if "I" correctly understand. I guess it may be asked in relation to entity theory if it is an entity that changes over time or the instantaneous identities of the entity. It appears the answer is that an entity is the same from one moment to the next and only the instantaneous identity of an entity changes from one moment to the next.

If the user Tegularius is to persist in the argument that we are the same person as we always were, then I reason Tegularius is finding the term "person" synonymous with "entity" and agrees that changes occur to the instantaneous identities of the entity: Tegularius would be an entity theory proponent.

See also:
(21) Relativity. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. Deluxe Second Edition. Page 1525.
- Dennis Francis Blewett
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1477
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 »

Dennis Blewett wrote: March 1st, 2021, 3:54 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: February 28th, 2021, 8:36 pmIs the judge that you are going to convince with your argument the same judge that there was a minute before? Is he a person at all?
According to entity theory, the hypothetical judge would not be the same judge as the judge from a minute before, but the title of judge is still being applied to each instantaneous identity of a span of instantaneous identities of the entity (the title is the same but the judge is not). The application of the word judge onto an instantaneous identity would differ from one instantaneous identity to the next. According to entity theory, the term "entity" may be synonymous with the term "person" (recall the equivocation warning) if that term is functioning the same way as the term "entity," as in entity theory. That members of society apply the title of judge as they do may be erroneous or nonsensical but is nonetheless a contemporary phenomenon. To argue a judge is the same judge from one moment to the next is to argue that no change in instaneous identity occurred from one moment to the next.

This goes back to the apple example. The title of apple would have to be re-applied for each new instantaneous identity but the entity itself is not defined as an apple. "Apple" would be a title given to one or more instantaneous identities not the entity.
You keep going in circles reinstating the same argument without addressing my objections. Your argument makes everything (whatever you want to call it, entity, being, person, etc.) a farce, or if you want to put it another way: a set of conventional labels applied to a theoretical construct of things lacking concrete existence as singular objects. But if we assume that is true, then the entire universe is devoid of entities, it only has arbitrary theoretical constructs, words for things lacking concrete existence, in other words a farce. If everything is a farce, what is there to demonstrate? In the example, the whole concept of a crime, or a trial, or people doing things (which presupposes a world of real, concrete, singular entities) becomes meaningless.
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

I deny the arguments kept going in circles. I think there was a lot of clarification going on.
Count Lucanor wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 9:19 pmIf everything is a farce, what is there to demonstrate?
Answer: Nothing.

"You" appear to be taking the insufficiency of authority argument that was discussed (somewhat tied to the Münchhausen trilemma absence of authority discussion).

I am under the impression you're going with the stance that because no person has authority to define or provide validity to any claim along a chain of reasoning, then no claim makes sense nor is valid (our world is meaningless).

To counter that line of thinking, someone might argue in favor of social contract theory. However, again, with no valid authority to define anything, no one can establish the existence of a social contract. Presumed social contracts are actually social epiphenomena with all behaviors fatalistically occurring (presumptively): No real contract is ever established but "persons" (philosophical zombies, what-have-you) delusionally behave as though a social cotract occurred or exists (like we're doing now). I presume you aren't communicating to me with empty words with the "intent" to distract me and eat me.

My hope was to have some empirical arguments reviewed. I understand, however, the stance that such is not so relevant once we talk about insufficiency of authority for any past arguments to have any meaning. It as if the scientific reliability of my arguments are denied due to an absence of authority.

I also grasp your argued view on entity theory and instantaneous identities. I understand your view on their consequences: Some stick on the ground may be arbitrarily called an entity or be claimed to have instantaneous identities over time.

I think there was a response found to "your" objections in the refutation to entity theory and the concept of an instantaneous identity in the discussion of how three-dimensional boundary delimiting may be considered arbitrary: There was an acknowledgement of your concern of the implications of both entity theory and the concept of an instantaneous identity.

And as was refuted, understandably, entity theory and the concept of an instantaneous identity may be perceived as lacking scientific validity.

I was hoping for a response from someone in this thread like, "Entity theory makes more sense than the paradigm of the legal actor that the legal system uses" or "Entity theory shows the inadequacies of the legal actor model that the legal system uses."

I deny there was a hope to initiate a paradigm shift to entity theory.

Understandably, it is being argued here from "you," at least, from what I interpret, that entity theory nor the concept of an instantaneous identity are more sensical than what the legal system uses as its legal actor model because of a lack of authority along the chain of reasoning to give validity to either entity theory or the concept of an instantaneous identity.

I see the arbitrary way an instaneous identity is defined. We live in a meaningless world. Nothing can be made sense of. Anarchy is a real thing: Views of control and meaning to reality are delusions. Personally, I have often thought of reality as Maya (Hindu religion concept).

Alleged arguments by authority tend to be "might makes right" arguments (non-absolute authority arguments dependent on the claimant's socio-economic status in relation to the monopoly on violence) rather than universal facts (whereby all universal facts are claims that are dependent upon absolute authority for their support). There are no real social contracts. Personally, for a long time, since maybe the year of 2011, I have perceived all "persons" as philosophical zombies: I never had much of an empirical way of arguing such until this thread (instinct and circumstantial evidence led me to perceive persons as philosophical zombies).

Good luck on "committing" suicide. You do not have free will for that. All deaths are natural occurrences that fatalistically occur. No one ever commits "suicide." Compatibalist culture has the term "suicide" floating around.

I was hoping there could be some agreement on the empirical arguments presented here being "better" than what the legal system purports, but it appears the non-continuity of identity and non-causative agent arguments are being regarded as nonsensical (meaningless).

The legal system engages in nonsensical processes that lack validity. Do you agree?
- Dennis Francis Blewett
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1477
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 »

Dennis Blewett wrote: March 8th, 2021, 8:29 pm I deny the arguments kept going in circles. I think there was a lot of clarification going on.
Count Lucanor wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 9:19 pmIf everything is a farce, what is there to demonstrate?
Answer: Nothing.
Yes, exactly. Your argument (which is supposed to work in the context of a sensible world, a coherent whole made of different elements put in relationships) leads to the conclusion that everything is nonsensical, just arbitrary theoretical constructs, words for things lacking concrete existence. Therefore you beat your own argument.
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

Alright, so it appears we've hashed on the deconstructionist view (deconstructive nihilism, for I first recall learning it as termed from Wikipedia; seems to be termed "deconstructionism" these days).

Here is a variant of an argument I've managed to generate in the past few months:

All cases should end in a mistrial because no one has the authority to claim one or more defendants as guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable. No one has the authority to claim one or more defendants as guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable because no one has the expertise for such authority. No one has the expertise for such authority because no one has the necessary nor sufficient criteria [such as infallibility in at least one domain of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education (1)].

Let's see someone beat it with a stick. I'd like to see it. Sure, you might make the argument that might makes right; but infallibility? Really? No one has that. I would like to think if there was a being with free will (absolution to have control of all things, such as ensuring skill in deducing something for it to have actual knowledge) it would require that it has the ability to exist in all dimensions of reality, at all times, and at all places in reality in order to KNOW what that is like, too, allowing its omniscience: And such would grant it to be straight-up, hardcore insane because it wouldn't be able to output any information due to being constrained from the requirement of having to take in all information. It's a theory, anyway.

Source:
(1) “FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.” COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. United States government document. December 1, 2014. <https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ ... 20Evidence.> Accessed on October 2nd, 2021
- Dennis Francis Blewett
User avatar
detail
Posts: 157
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

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

Post by detail »

The premises for every criminal action are often times founded by society , this should be clear. A minor social descent of a person is certainly not helpfull for refraining from criminal actions. The problem is how much is a society really involved in a crime and if this is the case is this fascism or social darwinism of the society and the political system , that really determines the life of an individual in the sense of criminal actions. The problem that imposes to the person confronted with this thought is determinism for the persons mind embedded in a society that declines the person due to a lack of an endowment with financial supplies.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5950
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

Dennis Blewett wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 2:53 pm Alright, so it appears we've hashed on the deconstructionist view (deconstructive nihilism, for I first recall learning it as termed from Wikipedia; seems to be termed "deconstructionism" these days).

Here is a variant of an argument I've managed to generate in the past few months:

All cases should end in a mistrial because no one has the authority to claim one or more defendants as guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable. No one has the authority to claim one or more defendants as guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable because no one has the expertise for such authority. No one has the expertise for such authority because no one has the necessary nor sufficient criteria [such as infallibility in at least one domain of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education (1)].

Let's see someone beat it with a stick. I'd like to see it. Sure, you might make the argument that might makes right; but infallibility? Really? No one has that. I would like to think if there was a being with free will (absolution to have control of all things, such as ensuring skill in deducing something for it to have actual knowledge) it would require that it has the ability to exist in all dimensions of reality, at all times, and at all places in reality in order to KNOW what that is like, too, allowing its omniscience: And such would grant it to be straight-up, hardcore insane because it wouldn't be able to output any information due to being constrained from the requirement of having to take in all information. It's a theory, anyway.

Source:
(1) “FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.” COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. United States government document. December 1, 2014. <https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ ... 20Evidence.> Accessed on October 2nd, 2021
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Infallibility is not required.
"As usual... it depends."
Dennis Blewett
Posts: 51
Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by Dennis Blewett »

All that is reasonable is logical. It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because one is not infallible.

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

o.Ô
- Dennis Francis Blewett
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

Upcoming Philosphy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

Previous 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

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 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