Could you forgive someone who shot you?

[Gemini Cricket]

The little girl said the word porch and then began sobbing loudly. After her mother comforted her, 5-year-old Kai Leigh Harriott looked up from her blue wheelchair in the hushed courtroom yesterday and faced the man who fired the stray gunshot that paralyzed her nearly three years ago.

''What you done to me was wrong," the dimpled girl with purple and yellow plastic ties in her braids said softly. ''But I still forgive him."

Source (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/14/i_still_forgive_him/)

Could you?

[Nephythys]

Forgiveness frees her- not him. She's a better person for it- and very mature to do it.

As she gets older it will mean more.

Now it's his job to forgive himself.

[Gemini Cricket]

I could. She's one strong little girl.
:)

[Alex]

Depends on why I was shot.

She may have forgiven him but I'm guessing everybody would be pissed off if the judge did.

[Nephythys]

Depends on why I was shot.

She may have forgiven him but I'm guessing everybody would be pissed off if the judge did.


Forgiveness is not a free pass out of consequences.

[Gemini Cricket]

Depends on why I was shot.
I was thinking more in the mode of if you were that little girl. Same scenario... etc.

[bewitched]

The only thing that comes to mind is the quote (and really bad Star Trek episode):

And the children shall lead...

Could I? I hope that I could, but I'm really not too sure.

[Alex]

Forgiveness is not a free pass out of consequences.

Well, in my view forgiveness without a reduction in consequences is essentially meaningless. But I also doubt that the girl has reached any real decision on such and just knows that is what she is supposed to say. She is probably mirroring what adults around her have said or coached her to say.


GC: In that situation where the guy fired the gun without intention of hurting anybody but just in stupidity. Yes, I suppose I could forgive him. Though I'd still want him held responsible so I'm not sure what value such forgiveness would have.

[Gemini Cricket]

Though I'd still want him held responsible so I'm not sure what value such forgiveness would have.
I was thinking the same thing about her possibly being coached. Although, I think it is good coaching if it is consistent with the way her parents actually think of the situation. Seeing the situation as forgivable is, to me, a way of moving on for the girl, the girl's family. I think the value is the ability to let go of a bad situation where the girl could blame this guy for the rest of her life and turn into a bitter adult.

[tracilicious]

Well, in my view forgiveness without a reduction in consequences is essentially meaningless. But I also doubt that the girl has reached any real decision on such and just knows that is what she is supposed to say. She is probably mirroring what adults around her have said or coached her to say.


I agree. When she's old enough to fully realize how this will affect her forever, then she can come to a decision on forgiveness.

I could probably forgive just about anybody for just about anything. I would still expect the courts to do their job though.

[Alex]

I think the value is the ability to let go of a bad situation where the girl could blame this guy for the rest of her life and turn into a bitter adult.

Well, if forgiveness means that I won't allow my anger at someone to dominate my life to the detriment of all else then yes, I suppose I could forgive just about anything.

If forgiveness means I absolve you of responsbility/liability for your actions then it is a tougher hurdle.

[Nephythys]

You don't think she can choose to do this without being coached? Huh-ok......

Forgiveness is for the person offering it- to free them of the burden of anger and hate that not forgiving can bring.

Forgive me ;) but I think some people here might lack understanding of the fundamental meaning behind someone offering forgiveness- it has nothing to do with this man not facing consequences.

But the discussion requires theology- and in this mixed company the conversation would be......tiring.

[Alex]

I only suspect she is mimicing (though earnestly, I'm sure) or coached because at her age she can't really understand what exactly she is forgiving.

But I have no problem with the first of the definitions given above, though in that definition I don't so much think she is forgiving as just that she is young and emotionally resilient. We'll have to wait until she is 15 and really wants to be a cheerleader with the other popular girls to see if she is cheerleading.

The great thing about forgiveness that is purely internal is that it is non-binding and easily revoked.

[Nephythys]

You teach a kid at that age to forgive- you teach them to let go of the hate and anger that could so easily build- and you are rasing a kid with the ability to let things go. That's perfect to do at her age- you call it "coaching" I call it raising a child to do the right thing.

[Alex]

I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that I don't think she really understand what she is saying. Maybe later she'll understand and still stand by what she said. Or she won't.

It's like teaching a kid to say "please" and "thank you." They'll be coached (or raised) to say it at the appropriate times long before they really mean it.

[Nephythys]

I guess as a mother- I give kids more credit than that. My daughter knows- she's 6.

[tracilicious]

You teach a kid at that age to forgive- you teach them to let go of the hate and anger that could so easily build- and you are rasing a kid with the ability to let things go. That's perfect to do at her age- you call it "coaching" I call it raising a child to do the right thing.


But you can't really ever teach someone to let go of anger. You can only help them in a small way. The girls anger is her own. She will probably feel it at least from time to time for the rest of her life. To try to "teach" someone to let go is only teaching them to suppress their emotions. She can forgive what she understands, but she'll have to forgive again each time she encounters another phase of life that she can't participate in.

[Nephythys]

I guess we'll call it a difference of opinion then- I think you can teach someone to let go. They then can make the choice to do it, or not.

[tracilicious]

I think you can tell someone to let go. I'm not sure how you could teach such a deeply personal thing. IMO, the healthiest thing to do would be to give her many outlets to express anger and sadness in a healthy way and let her come to forgiveness in her own time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This brings to mind a provocative view of free will I've recently read and have mulled over. The picture goes something like this:

A: I have free will because I can choose to do anything I want to do.
B: But, you see, in your very own definition of free will, you have leveled a restriction.
A: How so?
B: You said, 'I can choose what I want to do.' Let me ask you this, my good friend. Could you choose to kill me right now?
A: Certainly. I am stronger than you, I could easily imagine killing you, either with my hands or with a weapon.
B: Ah, but that's not what I asked. I didn't ask if it were physically possible, I asked, could you choose to kill me?
A: Hmm, that does seem a stickier wicket.
B: Isn't "anything I want" a convenient little delusional phrase? Clearly your will is NOT as free as you think. You are limited to "choosing" only that which "you" will allow yourself to "choose".

[tracilicious]

I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that I don't think she really understand what she is saying. Maybe later she'll understand and still stand by what she said. Or she won't.

It's like teaching a kid to say "please" and "thank you." They'll be coached (or raised) to say it at the appropriate times long before they really mean it.

I agree with this to a point. I small children can feel all these things, just to a lesser extent. We've chosen not to prompt for things like please and thank you, and just to model it instead. Humans being the social beings they are, will copy behaviors that make fitting into society easier. So when Indi says "thank you" when I hand him a carrot, no doubt it's just because he's heard me say thank you whenever he hands me something. But when we give him something he really loves and he gives us a big hug and says, "MMM. I love you!" I think that he really does feel gratitude.

Likewise, he may say sorry when he's made a mistake because he hears us say it, but when he breaks a toy and apologizes to it, it's clear that he really does feel regret. I accidentally threw a small favorite toy of his away last week. He was upset, of course, but when I apologized, he looked at me for a minute then said, "It's ok" and went to play. It would seem to me like he forgave me.

Sorry for so many anecdotes, they're all I really have to go by in this instance. I think that the girl in question can only forgive what she understands. So at this point, she can forgive him for the fact that she has to be in a wheelchair and can't run and play. That's probably the extent of her understanding.

[tracilicious]

This brings to mind a provocative view of free will I've recently read and have mulled over. The picture goes something like this:

Thank you for that food for philosophical thought. :)

[tracilicious]

But the discussion requires theology- and in this mixed company the conversation would be......tiring.


In what way is our company "mixed?" Christian and not? Republican and not? Those that agree with you and not? We have many discussions here that require theology. I wouldn't call any of them tiring. Interesting would be the word of my choice.

(and sorry for serial posting.)

[Alex]

This brings to mind a provocative view of free will I've recently read and have mulled over.

Yeah, I don't believe in free will but that tends to freak people out so I try not to mention it too often. You might find these recent blog posts from Scott Adams of interest, if you haven't already seen them (part 1 (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/04/free_will.html), part 2 (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/04/free_will_part_.html)).


tracilicious, I don't mean to imply that children can't feel forgiveness or gratitude. Just that frequently they don't understand why their obligated to do so in certain situations. And why you sometimes say "thank you" or "I forgive you" when you don't really mean it.

[tracilicious]

Yes, I agree. I often do the same thing. I'm really not that grateful that the bag person at the grocery store bagged up my stuff. They did get paid to do so. I still say thank you though, as it's the societally acceptable thing to do.

[Nephythys]

In what way is our company "mixed?" Christian and not? Republican and not? Those that agree with you and not? We have many discussions here that require theology. I wouldn't call any of them tiring. Interesting would be the word of my choice.

(and sorry for serial posting.)


Mixed as in varied views on faiths...don't take it as any sort of slight. I'm exhausted. I'm working on my securities license, I'm burning the candle at both ends and the middle and the thought- to me- of having a conversation on forgiveness from the theological view sounds tiring. It was my post, my view, my opinion. There is no need to take it any other way- breathing is tiring today. Thinking deeply enough to take part adequately is downright exhausting.

[€uroMeinke]

This brings to mind a provocative view of free will I've recently read and have mulled over. The picture goes something like this.

But free will is not random chaos, so I don't think your dialogue refutes free-will. I think we do make choices all the time - even unpleasent ones. But also, free will does not make us omnipotent - we are all trapped within a certain set of restrictions of what we can and cannot do. My inability to fly does not mean I don't have free will even if I want to be able to do it.

As for forgiveness, I the concept is the best thing to come out of Christianity - and what ever other predecessor religions it was apporpriated from.

I'd like to think I coulod do the same as the girl.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, I don't get any lack of free will from the philosophical conversation snippet. € indicated the reasons for it quite well. And I wonder how Alex has the free will to decide he has no free will?

* * * *

I can't speak for a little paralyzed girl. I can't speak my my gunshot paralyzed nephew. But I can speak for my gunshot nephew's shellshocked uncle ... and forgiveness for such a thing (done quite on purpose in this particular case) will not be anything I'm likely ever to experience. It's been three years ... and if I'm not movin' on yet, I don't see how I'm ever going to.

[Nephythys]

Is it harder because it was deliberate? Or is that not the issue?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

But you can't really ever teach someone to let go of anger. You can only help them in a small way. The girls anger is her own. She will probably feel it at least from time to time for the rest of her life.

This is an excellent point.

I'm going to tell a story, names omitted, because I think it relates.

Someone very dear to me was a victim of incest between the ages of three and eight. I have watched her walk a path of forgiveness for many years, but this does not mean that she has completely let go of her feelings. She was still kind to her perpetrator in his final hours. But I've also seen her occasional bursts of rage (sometimes misdirected at those around her) and her long-term anger applied to self-loathing in the form of slow suicide in one way or another. No matter how many times she chooses to forgive, she's still haunted by what happened.

I absolutely believe that the little girl-- and the woman I know-- can forgive. But it's going to have to happen every day for the rest of their lives. And some days, they may not. Such is the process of forgiveness.

In a spiritual sense, I liken it to the sort of thing I've seen done by certain Christian sects, where they make people stand up in front of everyone and ask them if they "accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?" That's a decision man is not capable of making just once. That's an every day decision.

[tracilicious]

I think for myself, I would have an easier time forgiving something that was done to me than something that was done to a loved one. I don't see forgiveness in the foreseeable future for the man that started beating my niece at six weeks old, but I could probably forgive an idiot that fired a gun and accidentally shot me.

I think intent has a large part to do with ease of forgiveness.

[Alex]

And I wonder how Alex has the free will to decide he has no free will?

I don't, any more than you do to decide that you do have free will.

However, I don't contest that of us perceives what we do as the result of free will. But I'm guessing if a rock were conscious and you threw it up into the air it would think it returned to the ground because it wanted to.

[tracilicious]

I absolutely believe that the little girl-- and the woman I know-- can forgive. But it's going to have to happen every day for the rest of their lives. And some days, they may not. Such is the process of forgiveness.


:snap:

[tracilicious]

I don't, any more than you do to decide that you do have free will.

However, I don't contest that of us perceives what we do as the result of free will. But I'm guessing if a rock were conscious and you threw it up into the air it would think it returned to the ground because it wanted to.


I'm curious then, what you attribute the decisions we make to.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Yeah. I try to get my mind around the Stroup but he always eludes me.

You're an atheist. You believe we aren't making choices. Who or what IS making the choices, Alex?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to understand where you're coming from.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Also, and I meant to say this before:

If someone who shot me mistook me for a quail, I'd forgive him, but I'd demand his resignation from public office.

[Alex]

I'm curious then, what you attribute the decisions we make to.
Physics. To what do you attribute the decision of water to flow downhill?

[tracilicious]

Physics. To what do you attribute the decision of water to flow downhill?


Lol, I read psychics first and it took me a minute to figure out. Water isn't conscious in the same way we are though. (And no, I don't believe water to be completely unconscious.) Tonight when I choose between eating steak or salad, in what way does physics come into play? (Also not being snarky, just very interested.)

[Alex]

It is all brain chemistry. Just because the physics that cause you to do one thing or another are incredibly more complex than the physics that causes water to go downhill doesn't mean it isn't all just following a bunch of predetermined rules.

To believe in free will is to believe that something exists outside the fundamental rules of physics, that the connection between cause and effect can be severed. Now, most people are perfectly willing to believe such things, but I've seen no evidence to indicate such. Now, I do believe our brain chemistry is such that we have no choice to perceive free choice and can't help but act accordingly.

[Alex]

This is why free will is pretty much an idea outside of determination. A universe in which it exists and a universe in which it doesn't are essentially indistinguishable. Because you can't tell the difference between someone doing something because they "free willed" it and someone doing it because chemistry required it. Similarly with the opposite.

Just the metaphysical description of universe change. Read the links I posted above, Scott Adams pretty wells sums up where I'm coming from.

[tracilicious]

Now, I do believe our brain chemistry is such that we have no choice to perceive free choice and can't help but act accordingly.


But you've proven this statement wrong by not perceiving free choice. (Off to read the links.)

[Alex]

I do perceive free choice. I just don't perceive any justification other than personal perception for it. But even if were the case that my perception is somehow different than anybody elses it wouldnt be an argument that free choice exists. Just that I have different brain chemistry (which I dont).

[Alex]

As an analogy, I also perceive the passage of time as a constant but that is demonstrably not the case. Similarly, while a lack of free will is not provable, just my perception of it does not make it true.

[Not Afraid]

Some days I think I could forgive, other days I probably would have a hard time doing it. Forgiveness is like anything you have to let go of.....its a daily reprieve type of thing. Some days are easier than others but the reason to hold a grudge will probably always be there, living in some dark corner, for the rest of a person's life and what becomes of that grudge can change on a daily basis.

[bewitched]

Alex, your posts remind me of the theory of parallel universes.

If every outcome of every decision of every moment exists, are we truly experiencing free will? Or is free will only self perception? That would inevitably lead to the question of actuality (reality) vs potentiality (possibilities). I mean, are we actually being deterministic, or are we hurtling along into an infinite number of outcomes/potentialities (that have, and will always exist) each one predetermined by the outcome preceeding it? And if our conscious state is perceiving the actuality which we inhabit, are we exercising free will, or are we "perceiving" free will? So I guess this would break off from your interpretation insofar as it's not so much a chemical determination, but that each action is followed by a predetermined outcome since the initial action split the potential future actions off from the infinite number of other future actions.

In short, are we living an actuality in a sea of possibilities (i.e. we have free will)? Or are we each living a potentiality in a sea of infinite actualities (parallel universes)?

And yes, if you think about this too long, it will totally screw with your brain.



(Damn Brian Greene for being so cute that I had to read his book).

...also wondering if that spewed from my brain correctly...

[€uroMeinke]

As an analogy, I also perceive the passage of time as a constant but that is demonstrably not the case. Similarly, while a lack of free will is not provable, just my perception of it does not make it true.

Of course the cunundrum here - is even these "provable" experiments at some point rely on theory and perception and not necessarily the metaphysical "truth" - what you have is a verisimilitude instead of reality. And so once again one is just left with selectin the explanation that resonates most for them.

Personally, I believe in Free Will, the same way I am an Atheist, I have to accept them to be honest to my own experience of life. Thus, I have a sense of responsibility for my action, I acknowledge consequences for my decissions and wiegh them in my mind when I have to decide something. While my will has limitations, I have experienced times when my actions have chaned or altered the world.

I suppose Alex posits consciousness as an artifact of a process already set in motion - but then I have to wonder why my own consciousness doesn't expand beyodnd the boundries of my physical body. And so, I live my life as if I have free will - beacuse I'm not sure how I would do it otherwise - though maybe I'd be more of a risk taker.

[Alex]

bewitched, you expressed the implication of infinite universes correctly. If all possible outcomes occur simultaneously then it is hard to see a role for free will.

€, I certainly live my life as if I have free will, I can live it no other way. I just live it with the assumption that in the end my "free will" is just kabuki. However, there in the absence of any theoretical framework that would provide for free will I see no reason to suppose that my perception of the universe is correct. For me this is the same as why I am an atheist.

Both the existence of a god and free will are excluded by our current understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. So, in the absence of any theoretical gaps that could be explained by [god|free will], or any overwhelming personal experience that indicates the existence of [god|free will] to the exclusion of other explanations I see no reason to presuppose it.

Free will requires that if you take a bunch of atoms and stir them together into a really complex stew somehow something magical results and you end up with the mind/body problem. So far, other than our perception there is no reason to believe this true. For me to believe in free will without a mechanical explanation would essentially force me to abandon my atheism since at that point human consciousness would have acquired the essential attribute of deities: the ability to function outside the fundamental physicial properties of the universe.

To clarify one point: I'm not a Calvinist. I do not believe that the events we experience are predetermined. If you took note of the position of every atom in the universe and then calculated their positions one second later with a big supra-universal computer the result likely would be wrong. But just because the processes that move the universe along are chaotic and contain elements of randomness that produce unpredictable results makes them no less mechanical in nature.

[Kevy Baby]

Of course the cunundrum here - is even these "provable" experiments at some point rely on theory and perception and not necessarily the metaphysical "truth" - what you have is a verisimilitude instead of reality. And so once again one is just left with selectin the explanation that resonates most for them.The other part to think about is that nothing is 100% proof. Evidence is strictly an indictaor of probable outcomes. The only thing is that is absolute about the outcome of an experiment is that one experiment in that one situation.

Science, physics, et. al. is not absolute, for variables abound in this world. And that to me makes life interesting (and sometimes annoying).

------------------

And back to the original question...

One never gets "over" something, you just do your best to move past it. IMO, every experience in your life - great and small, good and bad - and more particularly how you react to it and how you let it affect your lfe (strong believer in free will) shapes who you are. I cannot control what happens to me in my life, but I can control how I react to it and how I allow it to affect me.

My boss is a complete imbecile. I have been allowing his behavior to negatively affect me most of the week and I have been very combative with him. Yesterday, I made the concious decision to NOT get angry. This was much more challenging than the previous days of the week, but far less emotionally draining.

-----------------------------

One last comment: children are much smarter and much more perceptive than society tends to give them credit for.

[Kevy Baby]

B: Isn't "anything I want" a convenient little delusional phrase? Clearly your will is NOT as free as you think. You are limited to "choosing" only that which "you" will allow yourself to "choose".Um, unless I am stupid or completely missing something, this statement makes zero sense. If free will is about making personal choices, how is making a personal choice not free will? How is looking at the options, weighing the outcome and making a decision based on the available information limiting?

An instructor in a potentially boring class once made the statement to the class that "you are all sitting here right now because you have nothing more important to be doing" (I always loved instructors who forced us to think and not just teach a rote lesson).

On the surface, you think the guy is nuts. Of course I would have rather still been in bed (if I remember correctly, it was an early morning class) or doing something else. But then I realized that this class was a requirement for me to graduate and I had a higher probability to get a passing grade in this class by sitting in each session and learning as much as possible (I like to the best I can in my endeavors). And I wanted to graduate to help me secure a better career path. And I wanted a better career path to secure a better life for me and my future family. So yes, once I thought about it, being in that class at that moment WAS the most important thing at that moment.

Bastard.

[Alex]

Um, unless I am stupid or completely missing something, this statement makes zero sense. If free will is about making personal choices, how is making a personal choice not free will? How is looking at the options, weighing the outcome and making a decision based on the available information limiting?

But it also isn't evidence of free will since it also appears to be action based on rational inputs out outputs. But like I said, in my view a universe with free will and without are essentially indistinguishable. Since we live in a perceived spacetime-linear world we can never know whether the alternate actions were actually possible and chosen against.

If I tell you to spin in circles and then stop and you did so, spinning three times before stopping, was spinning three times actually a choice? Could you have chosen to spin four times? There's no way to know, using the structures currently available to us. Could the physics of your brain have been saying "SPIN JUST TWICE" but something in your "animated spirit" said "AWAY SILLY PHYSICS, I'M SPINNING THREE TIMES!!!" Everybody will perceive the latter and most will also believe it to be the truth.

[Kevy Baby]

Could the physics of your brain have been saying "SPIN JUST TWICE" but something in your "animated spirit" said "AWAY SILLY PHYSICS, I'M SPINNING THREE TIMES!!!" Everybody will perceive the latter and most will also believe it to be the truth.The electro-mechanics of my brain waves are the silly physics, but the decision to stop at 2, 3, or 14 zillion are free will.

My car moves forward because of the physics of internal combustion (and a host of other scientific relationships and principles), but it took my choice and personal action of stepping on the accelerator to start the process.


If I tell you to spin in circles and then stop...Actually, MY free will would have told you to go fly a kite :D

[BarTopDancer]

If I tell you to spin in circles and then stop...
Actually, MY free will would have told you to go fly a kite :D

Unless it was during MA...

[tracilicious]

This is why free will is pretty much an idea outside of determination. A universe in which it exists and a universe in which it doesn't are essentially indistinguishable. Because you can't tell the difference between someone doing something because they "free willed" it and someone doing it because chemistry required it. Similarly with the opposite.

Just the metaphysical description of universe change. Read the links I posted above, Scott Adams pretty wells sums up where I'm coming from.

Ok, I read a great deal of the links (not all, they were quite long). I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion he draws, but it's very very interesting stuff. It reminds me of the movie What the #(*$&% Do We Know. In part of the movie they talk about people being addicted to certain emotions, as each emotion has a certain brain chemical related to it. These people sub-conciously put themselves in the same situations over and over to satisfy their need for that chemical.

If anyone hasn't seen that movie, I highly recommend it. You want find a more entertaining movie about quantum physics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Um, unless I am stupid or completely missing something, this statement makes zero sense. If free will is about making personal choices, how is making a personal choice not free will? How is looking at the options, weighing the outcome and making a decision based on the available information limiting?To expand a bit on Alex's response, the essential idea is that given the exact same scenario, the exact same inputs, and exact same state of your brian, "you" (by "you" I mean the collective results of what you perceive as your mental processes) will "choose" the same thing every time. Of course, due to the complexity involved, it's impossible to come anywhere remotely close to the "exact same" situation (it would require every atom to be in the very same state), so it's impossible to recognize.

Actually, now that I menition it, to dispute something Alex said earlier, a computer's random number generator is NOT truly random. It's based on an ever-changing "seed" number (usually tied to the computere's internal clock), but it's a deterministic algorithm. But because the initial input changes every time, it APPEARS sufficiently random. So if you could reproduce the same input conditions on the same hardware, you will deterministically get the same result. And if you could reproduce the same real-world conditions on an unchanged bit of brain hardware (again, impossible), you'd get the same result.

Or, to look at it another way, where does this "want" come from? I'd suspect most people would be comfortable with an answer along the lines of it's the end product of your life's experiences as processed and stored by your brain. Well, your brain is a physical entity made up of atoms. So, as Alex said, unless something happens to such a collection of atoms that transcends physics, what you "want" is the result of mechanical physical action.

[€uroMeinke]

I concede that Free Will may not be verifiable through scientific experiment, but as a phenomenologist at heart, I'll accept my perception of it as good enough. Like wise, I will hold others responsible for their actions.

For me it starts with Descart - I think therefore I am. It's my personal consciousness that is evidence enough for me and the fact that I learn over time what in my environment I have control over and what I do not. Thus I can throw a ball but not my automobile. I'm not sure learning makes any sense without free will, or what I can't experience what others are experienceing or what a rock is experiencing.

What is consciousness if not free will?

[MouseWife]

Also, and I meant to say this before:

If someone who shot me mistook me for a quail, I'd forgive him, but I'd demand his resignation from public office.

:snap: :snap:

[MouseWife]

I think it does make a difference if it were done on purpose or not. But, again, like others have said, it would be a day to day emotion. Maybe even a morning to night getting through it.

In this case, I think she has learned forgiveness BUT also, she was only 2 when it happened, it is quite true she doesn't know exactly what was taken from her. But, for her to have the positive attitutude that someone didn't do this to her on purpose {helping her to get over her anger} she might be better able to move on and find out what she is capable of doing in her situation.

I know it's been said that forgiveness has nothing to do with the punishment given, but, I would hope that the judge would take the persons history in to account also. There are people who do things and when they get caught or something happens they say 'It was an accident' 'I never meant for that to happen' 'I would never hurt anyone'. I would hope that people don't let someone like this get over being punished.

Do you remember the man who set the fire here in San Diego {up in the hills} because he was lost? All of the damage and all of the people who died? He really f'd up. It wasn't deliberate. There are people who forgive him and those who don't. Of course he never meant for any of that to happen. THAT is a horrible case, too. He may have forgiveness from some but he will always have to live with how his mistake cost so much to so many.

[innerSpaceman]

This is a very interesting discussion, but some of you people are just frelling crazy.

[Kevy Baby]

This is a very interesting discussion, but some of you people are just frelling crazy.What... you're just now figuring that out?!?

[Prudence]

I'm not crazy, and neither is my invisible friend, Mr. Pickles.

[CoasterMatt]

The lunatics have taken over the asylum...

[Kevy Baby]

If we weren’t all crazy we would go insane

[Alex]

Actually, now that I menition it, to dispute something Alex said earlier, a computer's random number generator is NOT truly random.

Maybe it was in a different thread but I don't recall making any claims about random number generators. The randomness I mentioned earlier is introduced by quantum fluctuations and collapsing probability fields where even with identical input the output could be different. At the macro level of perception these things aren't really relevant to the way we live or experience the universe but it is easy too imagine them affecting brain chemistry which occurs at the atomic level.

Kevy Baby, you're just making the same point I am. You say it is free will because that is what you experience and that is good enough for you. I say it seems like free will but without an underpinning theoretical framework that explains how free will might exist I see no reason to assume it actually is. Unless and until something dramatically changes in our ability to observe and experiment on the universe, we'll never be able to differentiate the two.

[Kevy Baby]

Kevy Baby, you're just making the same point I am. You say it is free will because that is what you experience and that is good enough for you. I say it seems like free will but without an underpinning theoretical framework that explains how free will might exist I see no reason to assume it actually is. Unless and until something dramatically changes in our ability to observe and experiment on the universe, we'll never be able to differentiate the two.If you are saying it is not free will because it cannot be proven that it is free will, and I am saying it is free will (a nebulous notion to be begin with) because it cannot be proven that it isn't, then yes, we are effectively making the same point.

[tracilicious]

Maybe it was in a different thread but I don't recall making any claims about random number generators. The randomness I mentioned earlier is introduced by quantum fluctuations and collapsing probability fields where even with identical input the output could be different. At the macro level of perception these things aren't really relevant to the way we live or experience the universe but it is easy too imagine them affecting brain chemistry which occurs at the atomic level.

Kevy Baby, you're just making the same point I am. You say it is free will because that is what you experience and that is good enough for you. I say it seems like free will but without an underpinning theoretical framework that explains how free will might exist I see no reason to assume it actually is. Unless and until something dramatically changes in our ability to observe and experiment on the universe, we'll never be able to differentiate the two.


Wow, I want to sit down for several hours and listen to you talk about quantum physics. That stuff totally rules.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Maybe it was in a different thread but I don't recall making any claims about random number generators. Wow, I've apparantly manufactured a memory. I could have sworn there was a post about random number generators somewhere. Ah well, it still lead to a good point.

[innerSpaceman]

If you are saying it is not free will because it cannot be proven that it is free will, and I am saying it is free will ... because it cannot be proven that it isn't, then yes, we are effectively making the same point.
Which begs the question, why go to the (imo morbidly pessimistic) extreme of assuming that there is no human free will?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the differing experiences expressed thus far in this (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=3345) thread. :evil:

[Alex]

I don't see what is pessimistic about it (or morbid for that matter). But it is the different worldviews I was talking about somewhere around here. Lacking evidence most people are perfectly happy to pick an explanation they like and assume it true. I don't seem to work that way.

Lacking evidence of free will I see no reason to assume it. I don't expect many people to agree with me but to me it is the same as saying since I can't prove it doesn't exist I'm going to believe that somewhere is a pair of jeans with a front left pocket that is magically always filled with money, and if I believe in it hard enough and search for it long enough I will eventually be a very rich man. After all, while there is no evidence such a thing exists, I also can't prove definitely it doesn't, so I'll pick the option that makes me happiest.

I know those two things are likely completely different to you, but not so much to me.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, but what is it about that choice that makes you happy? Why does that appeal to you and make you feel good? Please know that I am not asking so that I can be judgmental about it. It just seems (to me) like a most unhappy way to view the subject.

Does leaving everything you do to physics absolve you of responsibility somehow? Does it leave you with a blissful lack of concern for results? What exactly are the happy things that result for you from your belief that free will does not exist?

[Alex]

Honestly? I'm perplexed as to why the nature of the universe need make me happy, or appeal to me. Why do I believe that gravity is a result of distortion in spacetime caused by matter rather than that matter was once a single throbbing mass of passion and that it yearns to be together again? Is which one makes me happiest supposed to play a role in which one I think is correct? It seems strangely egotistical to assume that universe is structured around my desires. Especially since different people have different desires.

Does a lack of free will absolve me (and everybody else) of responsibility? Technically, yes. But then we're wired to perceive responsibility into everything and I have no problem with putting someone in prison because they molested a child or considering someone distasteful for sitting around all day doing nothing and complaining about being fat. Again, in our universe as it stands there is no experimental way to differentiate free will from simple mechanics. Did the guy molest and I condemn because we both chose to do so or because mechanics produced both? Either way the result is the same.

But having this view of the universe doesn't make me any happier than does the idea that at standard temperature and pressure a mole of gas will occupy a volume of 22.4 liters. Factual content is removed from personal satisfaction.

I'm generally a very happy, content person. I suspect that ultimately this is just an accident of brain chemistry but I have no problem going along with it.

[Ponine]

I'm late into this thread, and not going to read it all, sorry guys.
But my answer is yes, I would forgive.

As a school bus driver many mooms ago, I drove a little boy about seven or eight to schhol every day.
His father had been angry with his mom, and tried to shoot both of them. The bullet had gone through the car door, and into the boys spine.
he was also confined to a chair.

Greatest attitude, wonderful child. What's done is done. Move on, find a way to live. My one cent.

[Kevy Baby]

As a school bus driver many mooms ago...So, how long is a moom?

[CoasterMatt]

Depends how happy the moom is...

[Gemini Cricket]

In the same circumstance, I could forgive the shooter. Maybe not at her age, but eventually I would.

I can't describe my reasoning by talking about infinite or parallel universes, random chaos, electro-mechanics, free will or mooms. :D For me, I would see it as the right thing to do. And when I say 'right' I don't mean theology, religion or the lack of either. It's just what I would eventually do. That's me. I have the uncanny ability to see things from another's eyes, even someone who shot a child. But I must say that I saw her pain first and the forgiveness that she speaks of (genuine or not). It's what I do. Sometimes I wish I could turn it off, but I can't and that's fine.

:)

[Ponine]

So, how long is a moom?
Blast that spell check....

In this case a moom is 16+ years.


crawls over to corner to kick self for inventing a stupid word
<sigh>

[Gemini Cricket]

It could be short for Moomin (http://www.moomin.fi/moomin.htm).