The implausible slippery slope argument from the opposition is this,
- the "Slippery Slope" defeats itself (by fake ethics) by protecting hugely crazy people who have absolutely no problems accepting the devastation brought by it on human dignity and human worth/decency and how torture inflicts terror and deep fears, even sublimely, on the rest of the population.
- secondly, and more directly, the Slippery Slope never accounts for formal qualification, while citing this Nazi program "so seriously", "as if their whole bodies would be immersed", such as obtaining 3-year therapy after the age of 18 before getting the approval for suicide!
- "The Slippery Slope", in addition, has no concept or credible prediction for how many people Slippery Slope will affect outside those already, virtually, queued in! When 36 000 people die from guns (or gun deaths) in USA every year, would the rest of USA therefore get killed by guns next year? NO! Why is this? Because troubles need to obtain in certain ways first! This has a direct analogy to legislated suicides in that this counters the very Slippery Slope argument and the way these disgusting people (complex, as with traits of psychopathy and mis-a/-ophiles) remain active in society, "defending humanity" still! There is no doubt where I want: (Assisted) Suicides need legal defence/legislation and practice urgently so that people can achieve greater respect and have the possibility to escape the great horrors of the World today, thus moving the World up one step in terms of dignity and worth.
Note1: As people enter the academic discussion, they inherently commit to honesty!
Note2: They can call themselves doctors or whatever! They have been defeated! (That is, they're not "born" with credibility.)
Note3: (here) by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 02:45 CEST as note to Facebook.
End note: The opposition is getting ripe for utter defeat and I hope you bother to make it clear by making the defeat more firm the next few months and years to come!
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Sunday, 24 June 2012
On Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - A Distinction toward Complete Systems
On the Liar Paradox and more
Generally the liar paradox is shown to be meaningless (now). Next, Tarski and others hold powerful arguments against Gödel's incompleteness theorems. And there is a set theory that you may want to note, http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html (a bit down on the page), that has this text: "For the time being, I have this to write. Out of 'I know nothing and my set is empty! Can you call illusions knowledge? I don't think so! What is it to know? I have absolutely no idea! To "know" has been assigned to me!"[Ed.], I think the set theory that breaks the Principia Mathematica can be solved by S = ∅ (set of solution is empty). In case of protest, one should remember that one object/member lower down the hypothetical chain of sets (by categories) triggers necessary objects/members all the way up to the "first natural level where one would otherwise see an empty set right below it". "The first natural level" can also be seen as "the deepest level" before, if any at all, the empty set can occur."
"You can add all the (meaningless) categories/set containers you want under a natural set/one set that contains members, but where do you get when the bottom container is empty? Clearly, it's just rubbish and thus it's not a serious argument against the project that Principia Mathematica represents." That is, by this explanation, that the maximal number of empty sets under the natural chain of sets, can only be 1, one, but usually is 0, zero, by the usual descriptions of commoners and non-mathematicians. This, thus, represents the final solution to set-theory for all time to come. Good?
Relationship with computability
Given the below, it must be clear that the halting problem occurs when non-meaningful input has been programmed or that the computer is running an inifinite set, one issue that should be calculated by the machine itself before running/processing of the input happens!
Remember that most testing of these things happen on "scientific" computer, the big mainframes, Tevafloppies and more, i.e., the supercomputers, and as such, qualifying the input by looking for inifinite input should be no problem! Because there is a significant difference in running input directly vs. checking for infinity input before running the input, i.e., the programming in the loose sense.
From under the "Construction of a statement about "provability"
From 3 sentences,
1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN
3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)
Under "Discussion and implications" by the header of this note, I get:"The incompleteness results affect the philosophy of mathematics, particularly versions of formalism, which use a single system formal logic to define their principles. One can paraphrase the first theorem as saying the following: An all-encompassing axiomatic system can never be found that is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods.""On the other hand, from a strict formalist perspective this paraphrase would be considered meaningless because it presupposes that mathematical "truth" and "falsehood" are well-defined in an absolute sense, rather than relative to each formal system.""The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling to the foundations of mathematics: If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent. Therefore, to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to use some other system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S.""Theories such as Peano arithmetic, for which any computably enumerable consistent extension is incomplete, are called essentially undecidable or essentially incomplete."
To this I now answer and generally hold:I question "An all-encompassing axiomatic system can never be found that is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods." on grounds of making an axiomatic system that covers all disciplines of mathematics, yet in several parts and "adjacent-"/"contegious-sectors" if you will!There is NO chance that the two incompleteness theorems will survive into the next decade, starting immediately 2020! Call it sci-fi for now, if you want!
For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!
To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!
So criticism toward Gödel still starts with "Everything"!!!
That said, nobody has ever said that any system could be proven by setting up axioms for it!!! Given the axioms themselves, one still doesn't know whether they as a group are enough to cover the field they are designed as seen in geometry with Riemann geometry, under the assumption that the Euclidean geometric planes have been intended to be straight/flat all along!
Some people may think that I've been "after" Gödel, but this is wrong! I've just been saying that I've wanted complete systems and that looking for something /else/ than Gödel's claim over the axioms is, looking at an undeveloped system with very few results, almost impossible, but I don't want to go into this just yet. It may turn out to be a ghost that haunts us, given that advances in logics can very well occur more than "expected", or beyond one's negative taste in case I would give a verdict on it! Let's see what happens!
That is, the current standing on the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems isn't UP TO DATE!!!
(18 June at 21:41 CEST)
I am of the opinion that criticism should be presented on the same page under the header "Criticism of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems" because this is about presenting the truth. That is, you can't leave out the fact that his incompleteness theorems may be untrue!
(18 June at 22:40 CEST)
One last smacker for Godel: All axioms are needed to establish a (logical) system (P)
All axioms (P)
-----------------------
Logical System (Cond. Elim. and Concl.)
(19 June at 15:07 CEST)
y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
y is the Gödel number of a formula -> (conditionally) (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y) ∃ x = Bew(y), but Gödel forgets about the premise and gets it WRONG! Good?
(20 June at 18:46 CEST)
Conventionally, the other then: Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y) from under the /premise/: y is the Gödel number of a formula /then/ the former sentence to this premise.
(20 June at 18:46 CEST)
See above in the main body, the very note, for the premise set /before/ the Bew(y)!
(20 June at 18:47 CEST)
Neatly made by this, for time-stamp: From under the "Construction of a statement about "provability"
From 3 sentences,
1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN
3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)
(20 June at 18:53 CEST)
Under "Discussion and implications" by the header of this note, I get:"The incompleteness results affect the philosophy of mathematics, particularly versions of formalism, which use a single system formal logic to define their principles. (more...)
(Friday at 16:11 CEST)
Funny stuff from the Wikip. article: The section of "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" used to be an idiot place even though they've corrected it now to what it should be, I've had a comment to it earlier: "Lastly, for inducing some discipline here: Under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems", I assume ''the theorems still need to hold a point''! Don't they?"
(18 hours ago CEST)
The issue under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" isn't whether "Gödel could use logics too", but whether
1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a (more...)
(15 hours ago CEST)
Last from me: For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!
(8 hours ago CEST)
To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!
(8 hours ago CEST)
So criticism toward Gödel still starts with "Everything"!!!
(8 hours ago CEST)
So even if the system isn't provable from the axioms as such, the system can very well become complete in all other senses, and given special considerations of a given field, you begin to consider the field complete from the results you (more...) (8 hours ago CEST)
That said, nobody has ever said that any system could be proven by setting up axioms for it!!! (8 hours ago CEST)
However, Gödel still defeats these other lunatics who say that they have these axioms and that this system therefore has to generate these and other results, so Gödel is a winner in these other respects! (8 hours ago CEST)
Seconds after, time stamp for the above incomplete group of axioms... (8 hours ago CEST)
Some people may think that I've been "after" Gödel, but this is wrong! I've just been saying that I've wanted complete systems and that looking for something /else/ than Gödel's claim over the axioms is, looking at an undeveloped system (more...) (8 hours ago CEST)
"Straight" in the Euclidean sense is to be interpreted as "flat", only!!! (8 hours ago CEST)
For now, I just want to note that I look to the group of axioms and the group of results from the system on two levels and that future investigations in logics to "notions of completeness" start here! (8 hours ago CEST)
(Note on time: 18 June, 2012.)
(Note on time: 20 June, 2012.)
(Note on time: 22 June, 2012.)
(Note on time: 24 June, 2012.)
Note5: Some of the time-stamps are only "minutes-accurate"! Good?
Note6: The rather coarse and "strange" part from above has been left out and placed here instead, "Thanks, Russell, for pointing out the danger of having a single proposition of knowledge!' TL (I think this quote has been made around 20.11.2009 or a little bit later, but at least in 2009. 23rd Nov. 2009 is by record of Twitter.)"
Generally the liar paradox is shown to be meaningless (now). Next, Tarski and others hold powerful arguments against Gödel's incompleteness theorems. And there is a set theory that you may want to note, http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html (a bit down on the page), that has this text: "For the time being, I have this to write. Out of 'I know nothing and my set is empty! Can you call illusions knowledge? I don't think so! What is it to know? I have absolutely no idea! To "know" has been assigned to me!"[Ed.], I think the set theory that breaks the Principia Mathematica can be solved by S = ∅ (set of solution is empty). In case of protest, one should remember that one object/member lower down the hypothetical chain of sets (by categories) triggers necessary objects/members all the way up to the "first natural level where one would otherwise see an empty set right below it". "The first natural level" can also be seen as "the deepest level" before, if any at all, the empty set can occur."
"You can add all the (meaningless) categories/set containers you want under a natural set/one set that contains members, but where do you get when the bottom container is empty? Clearly, it's just rubbish and thus it's not a serious argument against the project that Principia Mathematica represents." That is, by this explanation, that the maximal number of empty sets under the natural chain of sets, can only be 1, one, but usually is 0, zero, by the usual descriptions of commoners and non-mathematicians. This, thus, represents the final solution to set-theory for all time to come. Good?
Relationship with computability
Given the below, it must be clear that the halting problem occurs when non-meaningful input has been programmed or that the computer is running an inifinite set, one issue that should be calculated by the machine itself before running/processing of the input happens!
Remember that most testing of these things happen on "scientific" computer, the big mainframes, Tevafloppies and more, i.e., the supercomputers, and as such, qualifying the input by looking for inifinite input should be no problem! Because there is a significant difference in running input directly vs. checking for infinity input before running the input, i.e., the programming in the loose sense.
From under the "Construction of a statement about "provability"
From 3 sentences,
1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN
3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)
Under "Discussion and implications" by the header of this note, I get:"The incompleteness results affect the philosophy of mathematics, particularly versions of formalism, which use a single system formal logic to define their principles. One can paraphrase the first theorem as saying the following: An all-encompassing axiomatic system can never be found that is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods.""On the other hand, from a strict formalist perspective this paraphrase would be considered meaningless because it presupposes that mathematical "truth" and "falsehood" are well-defined in an absolute sense, rather than relative to each formal system.""The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling to the foundations of mathematics: If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent. Therefore, to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to use some other system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S.""Theories such as Peano arithmetic, for which any computably enumerable consistent extension is incomplete, are called essentially undecidable or essentially incomplete."
To this I now answer and generally hold:I question "An all-encompassing axiomatic system can never be found that is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods." on grounds of making an axiomatic system that covers all disciplines of mathematics, yet in several parts and "adjacent-"/"contegious-sectors" if you will!There is NO chance that the two incompleteness theorems will survive into the next decade, starting immediately 2020! Call it sci-fi for now, if you want!
For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!
To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!
So criticism toward Gödel still starts with "Everything"!!!
That said, nobody has ever said that any system could be proven by setting up axioms for it!!! Given the axioms themselves, one still doesn't know whether they as a group are enough to cover the field they are designed as seen in geometry with Riemann geometry, under the assumption that the Euclidean geometric planes have been intended to be straight/flat all along!
Some people may think that I've been "after" Gödel, but this is wrong! I've just been saying that I've wanted complete systems and that looking for something /else/ than Gödel's claim over the axioms is, looking at an undeveloped system with very few results, almost impossible, but I don't want to go into this just yet. It may turn out to be a ghost that haunts us, given that advances in logics can very well occur more than "expected", or beyond one's negative taste in case I would give a verdict on it! Let's see what happens!
That is, the current standing on the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems isn't UP TO DATE!!!
(18 June at 21:41 CEST)
I am of the opinion that criticism should be presented on the same page under the header "Criticism of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems" because this is about presenting the truth. That is, you can't leave out the fact that his incompleteness theorems may be untrue!
(18 June at 22:40 CEST)
One last smacker for Godel: All axioms are needed to establish a (logical) system (P)
All axioms (P)
-----------------------
Logical System (Cond. Elim. and Concl.)
(19 June at 15:07 CEST)
y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
y is the Gödel number of a formula -> (conditionally) (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y) ∃ x = Bew(y), but Gödel forgets about the premise and gets it WRONG! Good?
(20 June at 18:46 CEST)
Conventionally, the other then: Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y) from under the /premise/: y is the Gödel number of a formula /then/ the former sentence to this premise.
(20 June at 18:46 CEST)
See above in the main body, the very note, for the premise set /before/ the Bew(y)!
(20 June at 18:47 CEST)
Neatly made by this, for time-stamp: From under the "Construction of a statement about "provability"
From 3 sentences,
1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN
3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)
(20 June at 18:53 CEST)
Under "Discussion and implications" by the header of this note, I get:"The incompleteness results affect the philosophy of mathematics, particularly versions of formalism, which use a single system formal logic to define their principles. (more...)
(Friday at 16:11 CEST)
Funny stuff from the Wikip. article: The section of "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" used to be an idiot place even though they've corrected it now to what it should be, I've had a comment to it earlier: "Lastly, for inducing some discipline here: Under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems", I assume ''the theorems still need to hold a point''! Don't they?"
(18 hours ago CEST)
The issue under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" isn't whether "Gödel could use logics too", but whether
1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a (more...)
(15 hours ago CEST)
Last from me: For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!
(8 hours ago CEST)
To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!
(8 hours ago CEST)
So criticism toward Gödel still starts with "Everything"!!!
(8 hours ago CEST)
So even if the system isn't provable from the axioms as such, the system can very well become complete in all other senses, and given special considerations of a given field, you begin to consider the field complete from the results you (more...) (8 hours ago CEST)
That said, nobody has ever said that any system could be proven by setting up axioms for it!!! (8 hours ago CEST)
However, Gödel still defeats these other lunatics who say that they have these axioms and that this system therefore has to generate these and other results, so Gödel is a winner in these other respects! (8 hours ago CEST)
Seconds after, time stamp for the above incomplete group of axioms... (8 hours ago CEST)
Some people may think that I've been "after" Gödel, but this is wrong! I've just been saying that I've wanted complete systems and that looking for something /else/ than Gödel's claim over the axioms is, looking at an undeveloped system (more...) (8 hours ago CEST)
"Straight" in the Euclidean sense is to be interpreted as "flat", only!!! (8 hours ago CEST)
For now, I just want to note that I look to the group of axioms and the group of results from the system on two levels and that future investigations in logics to "notions of completeness" start here! (8 hours ago CEST)
(Note on time: 18 June, 2012.)
(Note on time: 20 June, 2012.)
(Note on time: 22 June, 2012.)
(Note on time: 24 June, 2012.)
Note5: Some of the time-stamps are only "minutes-accurate"! Good?
Note6: The rather coarse and "strange" part from above has been left out and placed here instead, "Thanks, Russell, for pointing out the danger of having a single proposition of knowledge!' TL (I think this quote has been made around 20.11.2009 or a little bit later, but at least in 2009. 23rd Nov. 2009 is by record of Twitter.)"
Saturday, 16 June 2012
(Assisted) Suicide - The Final Argument Pro Suicide as a Matter of Applied Ethics
Examination! Time for "inquisition"! I've made this topic because I think there are some (really) disgusting or stupid arguments against (Assisted) Suicide.
First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.
Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent. 6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive. 7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).
12. A sticking point to decide who has the most respect for the topic of this discussion, i.e. to allow eutanasia is as follows:Given the respect for mental health that equals the respect for life as such so
it follows that, granted the awful pains, unbearable as such, can give rise to vast personality change, undesired, and insanity. If it is now the case that respect for the person equals the respect for life (and death) then they who are pro-eutanasia have the final say of the matter at hand, whether to allow eutanasia or not. This can certainly be set up logically as valid deduction ("so do not try it!").
(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)
One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)
It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.
I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.
Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent." Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.
I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!
Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.
Generally to the debates, the rule of honesty and fairness: Remember that the debate should be fair / honest and that it is therefore expected that the debaters pass present lie detectors. Well, these lie-detectors 4 different methods simultaneously used, mimicry and eye-dialation, polygraph test, voice stress analyser and (f) MRI for lie pattern in the brain.
You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).
Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?
By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!
The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide: The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.
Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by
hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.
The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?
Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment!
Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!
PS: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).
PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!
Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.
Note2 on sources of text:
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 ---- CET (UTC+1 hour): www.facebook.com/leonardoolsneslea
First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.
Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent. 6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive. 7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).
12. A sticking point to decide who has the most respect for the topic of this discussion, i.e. to allow eutanasia is as follows:Given the respect for mental health that equals the respect for life as such so
it follows that, granted the awful pains, unbearable as such, can give rise to vast personality change, undesired, and insanity. If it is now the case that respect for the person equals the respect for life (and death) then they who are pro-eutanasia have the final say of the matter at hand, whether to allow eutanasia or not. This can certainly be set up logically as valid deduction ("so do not try it!").
(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)
One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)
It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.
I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.
Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent." Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.
I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!
Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.
Generally to the debates, the rule of honesty and fairness: Remember that the debate should be fair / honest and that it is therefore expected that the debaters pass present lie detectors. Well, these lie-detectors 4 different methods simultaneously used, mimicry and eye-dialation, polygraph test, voice stress analyser and (f) MRI for lie pattern in the brain.
You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).
Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?
By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!
The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide: The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.
Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!
Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the
sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for
now):
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such
extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.
The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then
people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and
there", they want to suicide.
The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.
The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.
The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?
Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment!
Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!
PS: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).
PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!
Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.
Note2 on sources of text:
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 ---- CET (UTC+1 hour): www.facebook.com/leonardoolsneslea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)