We each have a central nervous system which is distinct in space (if not also in time), so no, I wouldn’t say we have the same mind at all.
The word “intelligence” can be defined as anything one wants.
You seem to be changing the context. I was posting in the context of your claim that willpower - which I don’t consider to be the same as free will - cannot be bound, located, or predicted. As I said before, I consider willpower to be bound and located in the central nervous system. I don’t see how “be bound” or “be located” necessarily connotes deductive proof.
That assumes that a strong state will necessarily “ensure that people get the most positive influences possible in the early stages of their development”. I categorically challenge this assumption.
I’ll start backwards. Does induction = deduction? Yes or no?
You seem to be implying (based on your impatient “Yes or no?”) that I somehow implied that induction does equal deduction. So I’d like you to point out just where you think I implied that.
I’m not sure what you’re asking for Triknighted. Are you asking for the universal ultimate cause of the human brain?
Also as an aside, the State’s post implies that children are essentially blank slates whose parents initially program them. I’m reading a book right now that challenges that notion.
First answer my question.
Fine, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt - for now.
I don’t consider induction to be the same as deduction.
I was distracted by the Achilles thread, no joke. I forget the question. I was going back through the dialogue, what was it again? I’ll be happy to answer.
That Achilles thread I started took off! I can’t believe how many people have responded to it. This is a fun site.
It’s the question you asked right here.
About the changing of contexts? I was just putting it a different way for rhetorical and comical purposes. But basically, my critique was that in explaining the physiology of the body and, say, from point A onward, you’re not telling me what the actual impetus is. What causes A?
I don’t know if it can be defined, described or even conceptualized. I believe that willpower is a ding an sich, to use a Kantian term. I believe that people choose to do things simply because they choose to do those things. While environment can incentivize, physiology can limit perspective and nature can compel, willpower is separate, something unique, possibly without a physiological cause, though I don’t believe there’s any way to know.
Surely you can see that what you asked me had little, if anything, to do with changing context. You simply asked me whether induction is equal to deduction.
Well that was lost on me. What rhetorical and comical purposes are you talking about?
Like I said before, if you’re looking for the truly ultimate cause, then that is the same as the ultimate cause for literally everything. I see willpower as the proximate cause of action. Sorry if that wasn’t clear before - I didn’t think you were talking about ultimate cause.
If you feel unable or unwilling to define “willpower”, then I don’t see how you can legitimately use it in any discourse.
Therefore what? Does a fly have free will?
Yes, I’d say it does.
Autolykos, if one takes as a summary of successful childrearing the common wisdom “spare the rod, spoil the child”, then it becomes obvious that the state is best placed to raise the nation’s children. For who else has more experience with the ‘rod’ than the almighty state, who else is better placed to inflict violence than the entity with a universal monopoly on it? See, the state has a mighty method to ensure children behave and develop correctly: law. Now, the idea of subjecting children to the law might seem a little ridiculous, but that’s only in the present situation, where policing and enforcing of laws relating to children’s conduct would be extremely difficult. If child-rearing was socialised, however, then the agents of the state raising the children would be able to police such laws, protecting the children from engaging in incorrect conduct in much the same manner as the State has successfully protected against the spread of drug use and illegal immigration. Children could even be taught to adhere to the non-aggression principle that libertarians all love so much, by virtue of the state child-rearing system ensuring that they face swift retribution for any aggressive actions they engage in. This would also break the cycle of violence that plagues so many families. Plus, if children were integrated into the prison system then they’d learn vital assembly-line skills that would allow the economy to better compete with China’s in future, and their work there would be a helpful contribution towards beating the trade deficit.
Triknighted, it that doesn’t make sense for you then read “person X” as “person with set of preferences X". What causes you to make a certain decision? Your preferences. Now, for you to have ‘free will’, your preferences would have to be the result of your own choices. Otherwise, if someone or something external was responsible for your preferences, then your decisions would be the result of that external thing that decided your preferences, not of your own ‘free will’. So, if your preferences at time T must be the result of your own choices in order for you to have free will, than at some time T-n you must have chosen those preferences. But, that decision at time T-n must also have been made based on preferences of your own design, as if the preferences weren’t of your own design then any actions following from them would not be entirely of your own free will. Ultimately, all your preferences must be entirely of your own design if your actions are to be entirely of your own design: you must be the ‘first cause’ of your preferences. But that is not possible, as choosing your preferences requires preferences upon which to base that decision, so there must be preferences not of your own design at the start of the causal chain upon which the first decision ‘you’ made was based (much as how trying to determine the value of money can result in an infinite regress, which is only solvable by tracing it backwards in time to its value when it was still just a commodity). Hence, your preferences can ultimately be traced back to being the result of external influences, and as your preferences determine your actions this therefore means your actions are also ultimately the result of external influences far back along the causal chain.
I don’t take that as a summary of successful childrearing.
What do you mean by “nation”?
What do you mean by “law”? What do you mean by “behave and develop correctly” - that is, what do you think is “correct behavior and development”?
What do you mean by this?
You’re going to have to troll harder than this.
I’d love to see your attempt at substantiating this.
And also this.
Check out ‘Discovery of Freedom’ by Rose Wilder Lane. One of the thesis’ of the book is the difference between people whom believe in human freedom versus Authority (in the form of Government).
If one did not believe in free will or free choice in a metaphysical sense, it makes sens that that value translated to the political realm would mean one doesn’t beleive in human freedom, which could also mean one doesn’t accept concepts of responsibility for one’s actions (which we know the left doesn’t, constantly saying ‘society’ is responsible, not the committer of a crime, etc.).
Autolykos, if you don’t support “spare the rod, spoil the child”, maybe you think a policy of benign neglect is best for the nation’s children? If so, you can’t deny the state is in best placed to implement such a policy: just look at the neglected condition of much of the nation’s infrastructure. By ‘nation’, I mean the geographical area over which the state enjoys a monopoly on violence. By ‘law’, I mean the ability of the state to maim, kill or imprison anybody for any act the state deems unlawful. By “correct behaviour and development”, I mean behaving like a homo sapien and developing correctly into an adult homo sapien, not for instance a Martian, monkey, wolf-man, Godzilla or Nephilim. Behaving like a human being, not being a giant lizard and terrorising Tokyo. Surely even you can’t deny that a child raised under the care of the state would not develop in such an incorrect manner, would not suffer such metamorphoses. By policing of laws, I mean that if for instance a law was passed “children who tease other children will spend 6 months in jail”, most private parents wouldn’t support such a law, wouldn’t report children who broke it, so it’d be difficult to enforce. If however all children were raised by public parents, agents of the state who could be paid to police the law (report children who break it), then it’d be much easier to enforce such a law.
If you don’t think the state has successfully protected against the spread of drug use, ask yourself: without laws against it, what would stop drug use from continuously increasing in popularity as societal time-preferences fell, until it was at over 90% like alcohol use? Nothing. So, the fact that well under 90% of the population regularly use illicit drugs can be taken as a sign of the success of the policy. As for illegal immigration, if government has no power to stop it, then why is it much less of a problem in Washington DC, where the central government is headquartered, than in far away states like Texas, where the Federal Government has relatively less influence?
Well, if children were beaten by their carers every time they engaged in aggression, they’d be conditioned to experience a fear response every time they considered an aggressive act, no? Hence, they’d be less likely to aggress in future 
Surely if there’s one thing the continual existence of the state has proven, it’s that the best way to stop violence is with more violence.
Having incarcerated children provide low-cost labour would allow America to become a low-cost producer and steal China’s competitive advantage in that area, especially now Chinese labour costs are rising. This child labour, where previously there was none, would represent a net increase in manufactured goods produced by the nation, and assuming there was an overseas market for these goods this would translate into a net increase in exports, and hence a reduction in the trade deficit. If this was combined with inflationary policy to reduce international the purchasing power of the nation’s consumers, bringing it closer to that of Chinese consumers, then this would result in a decrease in imports which would also contribute towards reducing the trade deficit.
This is a joke, right?