A grieving couple jumped from Beachy Head apparently carrying the body of their five-year-old son two days after his death from meningitis, it emerged today.
The bodies of Neil Puttick, 34, and his wife, Kazumi, 44, from Wiltshire, were spotted at the foot of the cliffs on Sunday evening. The body of their child, Samuel, was found in a rucksack nearby.
Samuel had been discharged from hospital on Friday after it became clear he was not going to survive. He was allowed to leave so he could die peacefully at home. The boy, who neighbours said had suffered serious spinal injuries in an accident about three years ago, was confirmed dead later that evening…
An Eastbourne coastguard station officer, Stuart McNab, said coastguards on a routine clifftop patrol had seen what they believed to be two bodies about 400ft down the cliff just before 8pm on Sunday and alerted police, but it was decided it would be safer to wait and carry out the recovery the next day.
McNab, who was one of the first people to be taken to the scene by helicopter, said he had found the child’s body in a rucksack along with a second rucksack filled with soft toys and a toy tractor…
A spokesman for Dover coastguard said: “It is really horrific and incredibly sad. In my four years with the coastguard I have never known anything like this.”
I won’t comment further. It’s all too sad.
#36- In a way the argument stems down to a deeper level of determinism vs free-will, but I don’t really want to open that philosophical can of worms. I personally am a determinist, and I’d say that if we had children who died, I think that most of us would continue with our lives. For whatever reason these 2 have chosen not to. I personally speculate that it was more the decision of one partner, who influenced the other (if I was to guess, I’d say the man influencing the wife).
Anyway, they chose to do what they did, be it a result of their upbringing, environment, genetic makeup, and all the other factors that influence all our decisions, and it happened. It is sad that it happened. The act itself was stupid. I can understand your point though bobbo.
#40–FA==gag me with a spoon!! What made you say you were a determinist?????
Blogs are not an easy place to seriously discuss any idea, but I’ve never met a determinist==if I ever in fact have, I’ve blocked it from my memory or refused to recognize the fact.
Any easy way to express the basis of your rejection of your own common experience and humanity?
# 41. LOL, you’re funny.
Yes, I am a determinist, in that, I believe in the principles of a reality determined by physical operators, rather than an agency outside of that.
The reason I am a detminist is because, like you, I operate in the world of the logical and rational. Personally, I feel those who believe (on a metaphysical level) that free-will can truely exist are being irrational. We have an illusion of free will, but that is all we can have. To believe something guides our actions outside of this is to believe in some supernatural “soul” that is not bound by these laws.
Some things to clear up about determinism though. Firstly, it is a metaphysical theory only, i.e, a theory of how the world, and therefore things in that world (including us) operate. It is not a political theory, or anything like that, as some people get confused with. Secondly, I believe in free will as a concept, with uses in our society, but ultimately that concept is an “illusion”, and our consiousness is still determined.
If you wish to discuss it further bobbo, I’d be happy to.
# 41. LOL, you’re funny.
Yes, I am a determinist, in that, I believe in the principles of a reality determined by physical operators, rather than an agency outside of that.
The reason I am a detminist is because, like you, I operate in the world of the logical and rational. Personally, I feel those who believe (on a metaphysical level) that free-will can truely exist are being irrational. We have an illusion of free will, but that is all we can have. To believe something guides our actions outside of this is to believe in some supernatural “soul” that is not bound by these laws.
Some things to clear up about determinism though. Firstly, it is a metaphysical theory only, i.e, a theory of how the world, and therefore things in that world (including us) operate. It is not a political theory, or anything like that, as some people get confused with. Secondly, I believe in free will as a concept, with uses in our society, but ultimately that concept is an “illusion”, and our consiousness is still determined.
If you wish to discuss it further bobbo, I’d be happy to, as some people might not be too happy to be hearing all this, hehe
#42–FA==well, this thread is all about determinism vs free will isn’t it? Perhaps not at the level of “You don’t have kids do you” level, the level of determinism, or the level of “How can you be so lacking in empathy” level, the level of free will, but nonetheless the dichotomy, duality, polarity, applicability of the mystery of consciousness and its consequences.
Determinism is – - – - – wait for it – - – - – - – stupid.
Even if determinism was the actual mechanics of the universe, philosophically, it would have to be rejected as unmanageable. Determinism in a free will universe is only a pretext for anarchy. FAT anarchy==also to be rejected.
To say action has a precedent cause is to begin a chain back to the Big Bang==meaningless.
You tell me, where is meaningful determinism if I choose to shoot you or myself based on a computer generated random number?
Free will is observable, determinism is only a sophistry.
Most suicidal person got rescued later commented on their stupity and regret in choosing this path. Unfortunately, this couple have no one there to stop them.
There are some life experiences that alter ones’ perception of reality. For many people having children is at the very top of the list. Once you have raised a child, if even for a few years, parts of ones conciousness are awakened that otherwise remain dormant and untapped.
The unfortunate thing about suicide is that it is a permanent decision based on an often transitory emotional state. Grief is an emotion that is hard to justify on an evolutionary basis, but we share the capacity for it with all higher mammals. And it is also a state of mind that can’t really be comprehended from any emotional distance.
I’m going to have a beer in honor of all of those who have raised children and still are not grief stricken and suicidal.
# 43.
Oh my. time to get the ol’ logical Fallacy highlighter pen out
“Even if determinism was the actual mechanics of the universe, philosophically, it would have to be rejected as unmanageable.”
Firstly, this is a logical fallacy. X is not true because if it is then Y (Y being an undesirable outcome) This is an argument about the truth of the world, and it exists independently of if it is eaily manageable by philosophers or not. Its on par with the theist vs atheist argument of “there must be a god, because if there isnt, then life is pointless”, or more absurdly, “September 11th can’t be true, because if it is, then we can no longer sleep safe, therefore it didn’t happen”.
Secondly, metaphysics is an branch of philosophy, so technically, philosophically, it is manageable, and a big part of philosophy. On that same note, there are many philosophers who are determinists, and have various models of how it can be philosophically managed.
“Determinism in a free will universe is only a pretext for anarchy. FAT anarchy==also to be rejected.”
Logical Fallacy of false dichotomy (sometimes know as the excluded middle). This says that if X is true, then it leads to Y. It does not consider it leading to Z or anything else. Basically, there is no logical basis for assuming that determinism leads to anarchy, and no objective evidence to support this. If you can show evidence to the contrary, I will happily look into it, and change my position on that matter. I will also note, that as per my previous post, detminism is a metaphysical premise. Anarchy is a political theory. They have nothing to do with one another, and it is not a basis for determinism not being true. Whether it leads to anarchy or not is irrelevant (as per previous logical fallacy)
Also, I’m not an anarchist…or fat. It’s just a random name I thought up, hehe.
“To say action has a precedent cause is to begin a chain back to the Big Bang==meaningless”
In theory, all actions could be traced back to the big bang. I do not see why this would be meaningless. I don’t want to go into the argument of what this original cause was, as its besides the point. All we need to know is that our current actions are the result of previous ones, in a cause and effect universe, and are yet to see anything that transcends it. The closest you could come is to argue that at a quantum level true randomness seems to exist. However, this would still mean that actions are outside our own control, whether from pure randomness at a quantum level, or pure cause and effect. Plus it should be noted that Quantum physics is still in its early stages and still has a lot more development to go through.
“You tell me, where is meaningful determinism if I choose to shoot you or myself based on a computer generated random number?”
I’m not sure what your point is here. I think again you are bringing issues regarding ethics and meaning into an argument about metaphysics, where it has no place. Even a computer generated algorithm to make a random number will be at a very basic level determined by previous causes, even if its at the level of the electrons on each charged 1/0. The fact you are choosing to shoot me shows that your brain has decided this based on the neurons firing in a certain combination and making your brain in a state to want to do this. These will be like this as a result of many trillions of minute cause and effect relationships with electrons, that we could never unerstand, but know must exist. The way you are is based on genetics, on environment, and all the many other factors that work together. In theory you could work it all back (in theory that is. Obviously, due to chaos, this will never be objectively done, as the information needed to do it is massive).
As I say though. the only way free will can exist is if it exists outside the laws of physics. Is this what you believe? If you do then you must believe in a soul, or supernatural aspect of your brain which is not bound by such laws. It’s fine if you want to “believe” this, but to try and argue it objectively, through logic, you will have a hard time.
A simpler analogy is that if you believe that our consiousness is not determined by physical causes, then why is it our state of consiousness can be changed through physical means, eg, drugs, alcohol, labotomies, etc.
If you believe the following trail of thought, you are a determinist, but deny it for ideological reasons, which is intellectually cowardly.
1. Consiousness is a result of the brain.
2. The brain exists is the physical universe.
3. The physical universe is bound by cause and effect.
4. Therefore consiousness is a result of cause and effect, AKA, determined.
Look forward to your reply. Please point out any LOGICAL holes in my reasoning, and I’ll happily address them. Sorry its a bit long
…thats what she said
Where is Alfred1? I figured he would be here ripping on the parents for not being pro-life (their own).I guess Bobo bringing up a pertinent observation that these parents had some serious mental health issues that should have been addressed before this happened makes him the scapegoat. Really Bobo, suggesting that, perhaps, this couple needed some help is really callous.
#46–FA==”Please point out any LOGICAL holes in my reasoning”===HAW!!! Holy crap Batman, its turtles all the way down!!!
1. “Even if determinism was the actual mechanics of the universe, philosophically, it would have to be rejected as unmanageable.” /// YOU say this is a logical fallacy. It is NOTHING OF THE SORT. It acknowledges the possibility of determinism then rejects its reality as a consequence of pragmatism. What good is the truth if it can’t be used????? But I go on from there showing free will does exist. Are you a hard determinist that posits the exclusion of free will? You have to be for any “logic” to apply, but that is the nature of philosophy, so I have to ask. To restate, I said THE OPPOSITE OF “X IS NOT TRUE.” This is CAP worthy because no one should disagree on what is a logical proposition vs what is a philosophical choice. More muddy thinking and labeling.
2. “Secondly, metaphysics is an branch of philosophy, so technically, philosophically, it is manageable” /// Yea, but again my point is pragmatism. Tell a human being he is not responsible for his next action and you have created a monster. Apply that to every human on earth, and you have something unmanageable. Philosophy is sophistry. Plant your feet in the real world, don’t jump off the cliff===deal with it.
3. “Basically, there is no logical basis for assuming that determinism leads to anarchy.” //// Hah, hah. Talk about the excluded middle!!!!!! Your excluded middle is common sense====COMMON SENSE, the bane of philosophy. Tell practically anyone they don’t have a choice in what comes next, and guess what comes next? Thats right bucko! Maybe if all I had was an ivory tower and a room of books, such a statement could make sense in a complete vacuum devoid of human experience—but that doesn’t describe “the real world.”
4. “detminism is a metaphysical premise. Anarchy is a political theory” /// No. Anarchy would be the real world observation if determinism was in fact operative. “You know” slapping “metaphysical” onto any discussion does not make it indecipherable? No, it doesn’t. Most words have more than one defintion, and even with one definition, there are many contexts in which the word/idea plays out. Anarchy==the unavoidable result of a universe driven by determinism–if it existed. Hah, hah!!!!!!!
Hmmmm. The minute I assessed your intellect, I popped open a can of beer. Looking forward to the total emmersion experience and trying to equalize the playing field. But I see to continue responding point by point would take too long to maintain the thread for you and others who are invited to partake.
As to length, yes things can get too long and truncation always has its harm. But I will stop here as enough has been covered to warrant a response. I can continue thereafter on the remainder of your post or respond to your new post as you may direct. Hopefully, we can enjoy the motion of the ocean and not the size of the boat?
I’m on my 4th beer, but will eat dinner shortly, so should be good for a few hours and I will check thread for continuing responses over the next few days.
#47–ROP===don’t get roped into the scapegoats for mass hysteria. Just slap a label on it and stop thinking.
You know, words are the most important thing in the world. Trumped only by the aggregate meaning the words together have.
Don’t like the word “stupid?” Fine. Only a retard stops the analysis at that point. What about the “idea” the words used were pointing to?
The MOB. Sometimes a mob, sometimes its the culture, sometimes its an individual failing. People do get stupid about kiddies, true that.
I will reply to you tomorrow bobbo. I have to go to bed right now though. Watch this space
Re: Fat_Anarchy:
“All actions could be traced back to the big bang.”
I love that!
“Okay buster, why did you kill him?”
“Well ossifer, it all started with the big bang….”
#52–FA==Nothing fills the belly and clears the beer soaked mind like fried rice cakes, shrimp pancakes, and homemade cheese. I’m ready to go!!!!
Please excuse my personal tendency to be overly familiar and mock-dismissive. When I said I perceived your intellect, I meant I knew I was facing an able adversary, someone to learn from. When I said I drank a beer to equal the playing field, I was being passive aggressive==any argument lost would be the beers fault.
So, we don’t have to find causation with the Big Bang==who needs to go past the nearest brewery?
Sleep well, and see you tomorrow, the gods willing.
I pray that God may show mercy upon this family and reunite them in the afterlife.
#48 continued.
5. “In theory, all actions could be traced back to the big bang. I do not see why this would be meaningless.” /// Because any theory that would trace causation back to the big bang would be meaningless. Look to #53 for a common sense demonstration of the idiocy determinism advances. In theory, my hand will pass thru a wall because both are mostly empty space. In the crucible of real life, we have to abandon sophistry and deal with hard objects.
6. “All we need to know is that our current actions are the result of previous ones, in a cause and effect universe, and are yet to see anything that transcends it.” /// Sounds more like dogma and faith than reality. Free Will arises spontaneously. Any causation is so attenuated even at one degree of separation as to be indeterminate and variable. Multiply that by the googleplex upon googleplex of intervening causation from the First Cause and you have meaninglessness even if it is true.
Lets say you want the answer to how to create cold water fusion and the answer is in a sealed box. The answer exists, but it is sealed. Sealed in a box called determinism. Its “there” but you can’t use it. Same thing as if it didn’t exist at all because it can’t be used. Meaningless. Same utility as non-existent.
7. “However, this would still mean that actions are outside our own control, whether from pure randomness at a quantum level, or pure cause and effect.” /// I see us moving to mirror complaints of one another. Definitions. If I define my voluntary action as free will, but you define the same thing as determinism, how do we resolve our impasse? I suggest pragmatism, you suggest philosophy. Your reliance on determinism MUST BE substantiated like science on the ability to make accurate predictions. You can’t do it so your determinism if it exists at best exists in a locked box of no meaning.
8. “I think again you are bringing issues regarding ethics and meaning into an argument about metaphysics” /// Again, NOTHING OF THE SORT. My hypothetical was to demonstrate inability to predict causation one degree removed. I can decide or not to take action based on a random event. Now, it is impossible to argue with you if you take the position that random numbers of a computer are completely determined. You just look silly, with your pants down around your ankles, if you maintain the argument while not being able to predict a single number. HAH!!!!
Substitute “god” for your determinism and we have Alfie dressed in metaphysics. NOT a pretty picture.
9. “The fact you are choosing to shoot me shows that your brain has decided this based on the neurons firing in a certain combination and making your brain in a state to want to do this.” /// Ok, scratch shooting people if the ethics of it upsets you. How about drinking or not drinking a glass of water? In either and all hypotheticals, you are again WRONG!! My neurons aren’t deciding anything. Any even number comes up, I drink. Odd numbers I don’t. Where is your determinism? Predict which parents will kill themselves because of the death of a child. Predict who will become a serial killer. A system of knowledge that results in ZERO predictive power is meaningless.
10. “(in theory that is. Obviously, due to chaos, this will never be objectively done, as the information needed to do it is massive). /// Hah, hah. So, you can’t prove anything and in fact admit determinism CANNOT BE PROVEN because of chaos, but that is the position (of faith) you adopt? Whats it all about Alfie? Faith? There is no chaos if I tell you I will drink a glass of water tomorrow and I do it. MY Freewill DEMONSTRATED. 100% Predictable.
Lets see. Which “theory” is more likely true: 100% predicability, or admission of 100% non-predictability. Tough call.
11. “As I say though. the only way free will can exist is if it exists outside the laws of physics.” //// Well, thats the real nub here isn’t it. Not physics and causation but the non-physical world of consciousness. A mystery. A mystery where freewill appears to work and determinism is meaningless with no prospects for that assessment to change.
12. “If you do then you must believe in a soul, or supernatural aspect of your brain which is not bound by such laws.” /// Soul==No. Supernatural==No. Mystery==yes. Can you accept determinism as asymptotic to free will? If so, I am very comfortable with giving you a theoretical win while keeping the practical effects.
13. 1. Consiousness is a result of the brain.==Agree
2. The brain exists is the physical universe.==Agree
3. The physical universe is bound by cause and effect.==Agree
4. Therefore consiousness is a result of cause and effect, AKA, determined.==Disagree. The idea/consciousness of morality is not a physical thing and therefore not subject to the laws of cause and effect. A mystery. Freewill by definition and common experience.
Who you gonna believe–some dead German, or your own perceptions?
#55–RSweeny==well god certainly missed his first chance. Maybe your prayers will change his mind. I’m with you.
I couldn’t even imagine what these poor people had been through.
I, for one, admire and am dumbfounded by their demonstration of total devotion to their child, and the depth of their feeling. To commit such an act to communicate to the world the depth of their love, the totality of their connection with one another, is truly moving and horrifying. Definitely gives me pause.
A poignant reminder of life’s frailty.