#50326  
Old 02-01-2017, 05:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.
Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.
But so is my claim that the color blue causes evil! I have observed it. Astutely, even. I just saw a pattern in human behavior, and perceived the relations that show blue causes the ability to do bad things.

So we have two claims, both backed up by observation. And yet you dismiss one, but not the other! How odd! Could it be that you determine which one you believe in some other way?
Oh boy, what a non sequitur. Why are you ignoring my previous post? Let me repeat: The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-01-2017 at 06:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50327  
Old 02-01-2017, 07:46 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I, too, have made this astute observation of the connection of the color blue to crime and evil. But Flo always kept it to herself out of fear of ridicule. I am glad to see that Mr. Sectus has made a similar astute observation.

With my extensive background in home economics, I have long observed that very few people commit crimes while eating. But here’s the point: There are virtually no blue foods in nature. Even “blueberries” are actually purple. The lack of blue foods and the lack of crime commission while people eat is a sure tipoff to the danger of Blue.

Then, too, the sky is blue.

In the Golden Age to come, people will be compelled of their own free will to wear tinted glasses converting the blue sky to a nice gold color — hence, “Golden Age.”

This astute observation of mine brooks no dissent and is indisputably true.

#NoBlue
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-01-2017), The Man (02-01-2017), thedoc (02-01-2017)
  #50328  
Old 02-01-2017, 07:48 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCCCXXXVIII
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
That is not even remotely true, and you know it. If it were, this conversation* wouldn't be taking place.


*Of course, this is not -- and never has been -- a true conversation, since you've stated (literally from Day One) that you have no intention of considering anyone else's perspectives.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), The Man (02-01-2017), thedoc (02-01-2017)
  #50329  
Old 02-01-2017, 07:50 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.
Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.
But so is my claim that the color blue causes evil! I have observed it. Astutely, even. I just saw a pattern in human behavior, and perceived the relations that show blue causes the ability to do bad things.

So we have two claims, both backed up by observation. And yet you dismiss one, but not the other! How odd! Could it be that you determine which one you believe in some other way?
Oh boy, what a non sequitur. Why are you ignoring my previous post? Let me repeat: The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
That has only been claimed and not supported by any evidence, and just claiming that it is true, is not evidence. It has been stated that it is based on observations and the recognizing of certain relationships in books that have been read, but that evidence has not been presented, it has only been claimed to exist, and the claimed book that is the source, is a historical account that was compiled many centuries after the events, and so can hardly be credited as an accurate account of the motives of the people in question. There is no reason that blame is necessarily a condition for the shifting of responsibility, that is only one of Lessans claims that is not supported. Lessans is certainly not the authority on human behavior, his claims about love and marriage clearly demonstrate his lack of understanding of human behavior.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017)
  #50330  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
That is not even remotely true, and you know it. If it were, this conversation* wouldn't be taking place.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was talking about how the penal system works. This conversation has nothing to do with what I was referring to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
*Of course, this is not -- and never has been -- a true conversation, since you've stated (literally from Day One) that you have no intention of considering anyone else's perspectives.
What does this comment have to do with anything?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50331  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
GPS navigation, star light bending and others

Every observed phenomenon that is claimed as proof of relativity can be explained by simple reasoning based on classical physics. But the religion of relativity has mesmerized and spoiled the scientific minds so much that the latter now believe only in weird phenomena and absurd interpretations and can’t see or accept things as they are.

GPS and Relativity

Spoiled by the relativity ‘demon’, both lay people and scientists repeatedly claim that satellite navigation systems do not work accurately unless the time dilation phenomenon of relativity is taken into account. Let’s explore the truth.

The observation is that there is difference between the times recorded by the satellite clock and the earth based clock.

According to the religion of relativity, this difference in the time between the two clocks is due to the phenomenon of Time dilation. Relativity assumes that it is the Time that gets affected by gravity and motion (but not the clocks).

The more sensible argument is – Time as such runs the same everywhere but it is the Clocks that get affected by gravity and motion. So the clocks tick differently in different gravitational fields despite the Time running same everywhere; and hence is the above observed difference.

People with least commonsense would realize that Time and Space are nonmaterial concepts while clocks are material things (including the atomic clocks upon which the relativists swear). So how can gravity affect the nonmaterial concepts and not affect the material things? So relativity and time dilation are ridiculous.

Bending of star light

cont. at: GPS navigation, star light bending and others | Debunking Relativity
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50332  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:41 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCLXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Awww, the brainless, booze-addled harridan and corruptor is pretending to know stuff about relativity and GPS again. Isn't that cute?

:aww:
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), ChuckF (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-01-2017)
  #50333  
Old 02-02-2017, 03:27 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXI
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
People with least commonsense would realize that Time and Space are nonmaterial concepts while clocks are material things
Hm...strictly speaking, I do agree with this as written.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), Stephen Maturin (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50334  
Old 02-02-2017, 06:48 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Dear Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla:

Quote:
Spoiled by the relativity ‘demon’, both lay people and scientists repeatedly claim that satellite navigation systems do not work accurately unless the time dilation phenomenon of relativity is taken into account. Let’s explore the truth.
Yes, let’s. :)

Quote:
The observation is that there is difference between the times recorded by the satellite clock and the earth based clock.
OK, are we done here? You admit there is a difference between times recorded between satellite clock and earth clock. So the GPS has to be constructed with that difference accounted for, else it will not function properly! Thus with your second paragraph you directly contradict your first paragraph (in which you imply that satellite navigation systems would work just fine without making this correction, or else that there is no difference in satellite and earth time). How can you contradict yourself in the space of a single paragraph without noticing? It boggles the mind and beggars belief!

Wait … there is more?

Quote:
According to the religion of relativity …
lol

Quote:
… this difference in the time between the two clocks…
Now remember, you’re conceding that there indeed is a difference between the two clocks — something you challenged in Paragraph One. There is a difference. It’s because of time dilation.

Quote:
… is due to the phenomenon of Time dilation.
Right! It is! :) Or better, the difference between the two clocks is not due to time dilation; it is time dilation

Quote:
Relativity assumes that it is the Time that gets affected by gravity and motion (but not the clocks).
:foocl:

And there you have it. The Big Red Stupid Flag comes out! This kind of nonsense is catnip to peacegirl, of course, who can’t follow a word of your nonsense but likes it anyway. :)

But not the clocks? On the contrary, relativity theory says just the opposite of what you claim it says! Time dilation affects the clocks (and all other physical processes!). Clocks ticking slower (which you have already agreed happens) just is time dilation. What part of this don’t you get, you jabbering oaf?


Quote:
The more sensible argument is – Time as such runs the same everywhere but it is the Clocks that get affected by gravity and motion.
:lol:

But, you big dummy, as noted above, the clocks running slower is time dilation; and since different clocks will tick at different rates in gravity wells or in different inertial frames, it follows that there is no universal time! So to say that time runs the same everywhere is a totally meaningless statement! Time is what clocks measure and that’s it!

Quote:
So the clocks tick differently in different gravitational fields despite the Time running same everywhere; and hence is the above observed difference.
So time is running the same everywhere even though it isn’t! Fascinating! Do expound more on this self-contradictory claim in a later blog post, please! Perhaps you can tell us how to measure this “time running the same everywhere” — shall we do it, with, say, a fucking clock? But the clocks are running at different rates as you have already conceded! Do you have inkling of what a kook you are?

Quote:
People with least commonsense would realize that Time and Space are nonmaterial concepts while clocks are material things*(including the atomic clocks upon which the relativists swear). So how can gravity affect the nonmaterial concepts and not affect the material things? So relativity and time dilation are ridiculous.
:lol: @ “relativists.”

Right, clocks are material things, and relativity affects material things. It is you who claims time is some big mysterious nonmaterial extra-physical entity when you assert “time is running the same everywhere”! So this is the third time in a short blog post you have contradicted yourself, glaringly!

But the most assgrabulous thing is this: This kook has followers. There are a bunch of comments on that post, each one rooting on this guy’s drivel! One of them calls himself or herself “Stone-Head.” How beautiful is that? :)

Peacegirl, why don’t you have followers? This guy is a kook but you’re twice the kook he is. You ought to be running your own cult by now! Maybe this guy will let you share a platform with him and you can have ready-made acolytes like Stone-head!

P.S. A little Googling reveals that this guy is a “doctor” in India who writes: “Soon I realized that Homeopathy is not just a medical system that cures ailments but hidden deeply in this holy medicine are secrets of nature, universe and God!”

Right up your alley, peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), ChuckF (02-02-2017), Dragar (02-02-2017), Stephen Maturin (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50335  
Old 02-02-2017, 09:18 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.
Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.
But so is my claim that the color blue causes evil! I have observed it. Astutely, even. I just saw a pattern in human behavior, and perceived the relations that show blue causes the ability to do bad things.

So we have two claims, both backed up by observation. And yet you dismiss one, but not the other! How odd! Could it be that you determine which one you believe in some other way?
Oh boy, what a non sequitur. Why are you ignoring my previous post? Let me repeat: The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
I don't think that word means what you think it means!

I could simply say: the color blue is what allows you to do bad things. This is clearly observed and indisputable.

You would naturally ask me to support that assertion, or you would have no reason to believe it. The same is true for your statement about blame. It really isn't rocket science.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), Dragar (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50336  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:43 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I think we covered this before, but you are using the word "observation" in a rather strange way.

We can lift up an apple, and then drop it. We can observe it falling to the floor. If we want to be more precise, we can measure the speed at which it does so.

We have not observed gravity. We infer something we call gravity from our observation of the rock falling. Even that is not a super-accurate name for it, but I think it will do for the purposes of this discussion.

When you say

Quote:
The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
You seem to be claiming that we directly observe conscience. That is simply not true. We observe behavior, and then we can try to infer some sort of principle, natural law or whatever that explains this behavior, which could be something we call conscience.

Then we have to check if we are correct. We have to see if the predictions that flow from our rule, principle, natural law or whatnot are confirmed by what we observe in reality, not just in a way that is compatible, but in a way that makes it pretty sure that it is our particular rule that is causing it.

This last step is what you are missing. But that is hard to see, because of the way you use the word observation.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50337  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.
Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.
But so is my claim that the color blue causes evil! I have observed it. Astutely, even. I just saw a pattern in human behavior, and perceived the relations that show blue causes the ability to do bad things.

So we have two claims, both backed up by observation. And yet you dismiss one, but not the other! How odd! Could it be that you determine which one you believe in some other way?
Oh boy, what a non sequitur. Why are you ignoring my previous post? Let me repeat: The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
I don't think that word means what you think it means!

I could simply say: the color blue is what allows you to do bad things. This is clearly observed and indisputable.

You would naturally ask me to support that assertion, or you would have no reason to believe it. The same is true for your statement about blame. It really isn't rocket science.
That's what I'm trying to do Vivisectus. I am showing you that the knowledge that a person has --- that he will be blamed for doing something considered wrong by the justice system, if caught -- allows him the advance justification he needs to go ahead with what he is contemplating because he knows he can always shift his responsibility to someone or something else as the cause, which lessens the hold conscience has on his behavior.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50338  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I think we covered this before, but you are using the word "observation" in a rather strange way.

We can lift up an apple, and then drop it. We can observe it falling to the floor. If we want to be more precise, we can measure the speed at which it does so.

We have not observed gravity. We infer something we call gravity from our observation of the rock falling. Even that is not a super-accurate name for it, but I think it will do for the purposes of this discussion.

When you say

Quote:
The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
You seem to be claiming that we directly observe conscience. That is simply not true. We observe behavior, and then we can try to infer some sort of principle, natural law or whatever that explains this behavior, which could be something we call conscience.

Then we have to check if we are correct. We have to see if the predictions that flow from our rule, principle, natural law or whatnot are confirmed by what we observe in reality, not just in a way that is compatible, but in a way that makes it pretty sure that it is our particular rule that is causing it.

This last step is what you are missing. But that is hard to see, because of the way you use the word observation.
Okay, that's fair. He is inferring that conscience (that little voice inside of us that tells us when something is right or wrong [in terms of hurt]) increases under certain conditions, and decreases under certain conditions.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50339  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:43 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.
Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.
But so is my claim that the color blue causes evil! I have observed it. Astutely, even. I just saw a pattern in human behavior, and perceived the relations that show blue causes the ability to do bad things.

So we have two claims, both backed up by observation. And yet you dismiss one, but not the other! How odd! Could it be that you determine which one you believe in some other way?
Oh boy, what a non sequitur. Why are you ignoring my previous post? Let me repeat: The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
I don't think that word means what you think it means!

I could simply say: the color blue is what allows you to do bad things. This is clearly observed and indisputable.

You would naturally ask me to support that assertion, or you would have no reason to believe it. The same is true for your statement about blame. It really isn't rocket science.
That's what I'm trying to do Vivisectus. I am showing you that the knowledge that a person has --- that he will be blamed for doing something considered wrong by the justice system, if caught -- allows him the advance justification he needs to go ahead with what he is contemplating because he knows he can always shift his responsibility to someone or something else as the cause, which lessens the hold conscience has on his behavior.
If you were showing me, that would be a different matter, but you are actually not. You are claiming that it is so. And just like in my example, you now need to back that claim up somehow. What reasons are there to assume it is correct?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50340  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I'm going to try this one more time. If you don't understand this excerpt you won't understand anything that follows, so this is a litmus test to determine if it is worth my time going forward. And by the way, the phrase "I was compelled, of my own free will," is not contradictory if you read the text. This just shows the ignorance of David and others who are trying to make fun of this expression. He explains that doing something of my own free will does not mean my will is free. It is a colloquial expression that means I did something of my own desire, because I wanted to, nothing forced me to do it. But, to repeat, doing something because I wanted to do it does not mean my will is free.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much
confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely nothing,
not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes him to
do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him
to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire
is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but
remember his particular environment is different because he himself
is different otherwise everybody would desire to commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child
says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you didn’t make
him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and
not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to
shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why
else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also
true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished
for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him
think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and
punishment he doesn’t want. A great confusion exists because it is
assumed that if man does something to hurt another he could always
excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications which turned
philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following
dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical
points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve
this enigmatic corollary but it seems to me that this knowledge would
give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any
fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not
free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his
responsibility?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through
which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at
first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift
his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed
to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the
fear of punishment and public opinion which judged his actions in
accordance with standards of right and wrong, but this is inaccurate
simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your
responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when
you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other
words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for
hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are
held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance
for doing something considered wrong by others.

The very act of
justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person
or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the
behavior unacceptable in some way, otherwise, there would be no need
for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing
which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to
extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion
of your action. If you do what others judge to be right is it necessary
to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t
help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me
elaborate for greater understanding.

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to
wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody,
is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him?
This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells
you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to
do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he
wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then
it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something
judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are
interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you
for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse, to extenuate the
circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action,
otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong you would
not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one
is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one
is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that
they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible
for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you
know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming
you?”

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I
agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I
couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other
kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him
in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility,
right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of
judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will
not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of
your responsibility for hurting someone, or for doing what is judged
improper, when you are held responsible by a code of standards that
criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by
others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that
man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not
free (don’t jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my
problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically
impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause
for what you know you have done simply because you know that no
one is blaming you. Being constantly criticized by the standards that
prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of
satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while
refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed
various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that
were considered wrong, because he didn’t like being in the wrong. But
the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that
no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his
will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more
criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented
from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented
from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given
an opportunity to do so which compels him completely beyond
control, but of his own free will or desire not only to assume full
responsibility for everything he does, but to be absolutely honest with
himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying
to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or
blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity
to lie; and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your
responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free
will man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and
wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very
things our new knowledge positively prevents.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50341  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:47 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I think we covered this before, but you are using the word "observation" in a rather strange way.

We can lift up an apple, and then drop it. We can observe it falling to the floor. If we want to be more precise, we can measure the speed at which it does so.

We have not observed gravity. We infer something we call gravity from our observation of the rock falling. Even that is not a super-accurate name for it, but I think it will do for the purposes of this discussion.

When you say

Quote:
The advance knowledge that you will be blamed or questioned for behavior considered wrong by others allows you to shift your responsibility to something other than yourself. This is clearly observed and indisputable.
You seem to be claiming that we directly observe conscience. That is simply not true. We observe behavior, and then we can try to infer some sort of principle, natural law or whatever that explains this behavior, which could be something we call conscience.

Then we have to check if we are correct. We have to see if the predictions that flow from our rule, principle, natural law or whatnot are confirmed by what we observe in reality, not just in a way that is compatible, but in a way that makes it pretty sure that it is our particular rule that is causing it.

This last step is what you are missing. But that is hard to see, because of the way you use the word observation.
Okay, that's fair. He is inferring that conscience (that little voice inside of us that tells us when something is right or wrong [in terms of hurt]) increases under certain conditions, and decreases under certain conditions.
So now we need to take the next step: how do we check that the inference is correct? Are there reasons to believe it is correct right now? If so, what are they?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50342  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:51 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm going to try this one more time. If you don't understand this excerpt you won't understand anything that follows, so this is a litmus test to determine if it is worth my time going forward. And by the way, the phrase "I was compelled, of my own free will," is not contradictory if you read the text. This just shows the ignorance of David and others who are trying to make fun of this expression. He explains that doing something of my own free will does not mean my will is free. It is a colloquial expression that means I did something of my own desire, because I wanted to, nothing forced me to do it. But, to repeat, doing something because I wanted to do it does not mean my will is free.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much
confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely nothing,
not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes him to
do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him
to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire
is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but
remember his particular environment is different because he himself
is different otherwise everybody would desire to commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child
says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you didn’t make
him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and
not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to
shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why
else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also
true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished
for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him
think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and
punishment he doesn’t want. A great confusion exists because it is
assumed that if man does something to hurt another he could always
excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications which turned
philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following
dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical
points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve
this enigmatic corollary but it seems to me that this knowledge would
give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any
fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not
free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his
responsibility?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through
which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at
first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift
his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed
to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the
fear of punishment and public opinion which judged his actions in
accordance with standards of right and wrong, but this is inaccurate
simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your
responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when
you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other
words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for
hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are
held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance
for doing something considered wrong by others.

The very act of
justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person
or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the
behavior unacceptable in some way, otherwise, there would be no need
for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing
which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to
extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion
of your action. If you do what others judge to be right is it necessary
to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t
help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me
elaborate for greater understanding.

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to
wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody,
is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him?
This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells
you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to
do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he
wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then
it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something
judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are
interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you
for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse, to extenuate the
circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action,
otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong you would
not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one
is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one
is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that
they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible
for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you
know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming
you?”

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I
agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I
couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other
kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him
in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility,
right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of
judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will
not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of
your responsibility for hurting someone, or for doing what is judged
improper, when you are held responsible by a code of standards that
criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by
others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that
man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not
free (don’t jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my
problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically
impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause
for what you know you have done simply because you know that no
one is blaming you. Being constantly criticized by the standards that
prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of
satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while
refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed
various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that
were considered wrong, because he didn’t like being in the wrong. But
the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that
no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his
will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more
criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented
from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented
from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given
an opportunity to do so which compels him completely beyond
control, but of his own free will or desire not only to assume full
responsibility for everything he does, but to be absolutely honest with
himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying
to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or
blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity
to lie; and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your
responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free
will man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and
wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very
things our new knowledge positively prevents.
Right, that is the claim - what your book infers.

So now the question is: how do we know it is correct?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50343  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm going to try this one more time. If you don't understand this excerpt you won't understand anything that follows, so this is a litmus test to determine if it is worth my time going forward. And by the way, the phrase "I was compelled, of my own free will," is not contradictory if you read the text. This just shows the ignorance of David and others who are trying to make fun of this expression. He explains that doing something of my own free will does not mean my will is free. It is a colloquial expression that means I did something of my own desire, because I wanted to, nothing forced me to do it. But, to repeat, doing something because I wanted to do it does not mean my will is free.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much
confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely nothing,
not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes him to
do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him
to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire
is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but
remember his particular environment is different because he himself
is different otherwise everybody would desire to commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child
says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you didn’t make
him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and
not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to
shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why
else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also
true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished
for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him
think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and
punishment he doesn’t want. A great confusion exists because it is
assumed that if man does something to hurt another he could always
excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications which turned
philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following
dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical
points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve
this enigmatic corollary but it seems to me that this knowledge would
give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any
fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not
free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his
responsibility?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through
which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at
first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift
his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed
to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the
fear of punishment and public opinion which judged his actions in
accordance with standards of right and wrong, but this is inaccurate
simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your
responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when
you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other
words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for
hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are
held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance
for doing something considered wrong by others.

The very act of
justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person
or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the
behavior unacceptable in some way, otherwise, there would be no need
for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing
which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to
extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion
of your action. If you do what others judge to be right is it necessary
to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t
help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me
elaborate for greater understanding.

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to
wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody,
is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him?
This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells
you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to
do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he
wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then
it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something
judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are
interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you
for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse, to extenuate the
circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action,
otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong you would
not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one
is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one
is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that
they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible
for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you
know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming
you?”

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I
agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I
couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other
kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him
in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility,
right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of
judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will
not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of
your responsibility for hurting someone, or for doing what is judged
improper, when you are held responsible by a code of standards that
criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by
others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that
man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not
free (don’t jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my
problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically
impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause
for what you know you have done simply because you know that no
one is blaming you. Being constantly criticized by the standards that
prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of
satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while
refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed
various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that
were considered wrong, because he didn’t like being in the wrong. But
the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that
no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his
will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more
criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented
from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented
from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given
an opportunity to do so which compels him completely beyond
control, but of his own free will or desire not only to assume full
responsibility for everything he does, but to be absolutely honest with
himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying
to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or
blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity
to lie; and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your
responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free
will man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and
wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very
things our new knowledge positively prevents.
Right, that is the claim - what your book infers.

So now the question is: how do we know it is correct?
See if anyone can excuse their behavior when they know they are already excused. This is so obviously impossible. If you don't see that in order to come up with an excuse, one needs the opportunity to explain his behavior to those who are standing in judgment, there is nothing more I can tell you. We just don't have a basis to move forward which is unfortunate.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50344  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:31 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
See if anyone can excuse their behavior when they know they are already excused. This is so obviously impossible. If you don't see that in order to come up with an excuse, one needs the opportunity to explain his behavior to those who are standing in judgment, there is nothing more I can tell you. We just don't have a basis to move forward which is unfortunate.
But it is not so obviously impossible now is it? Killing a person is wrong. A soldier is already excused for doing so. Does this mean they can now not justify pulling the trigger?

Not at all.

We could say "that does not count: it is not a free will environemnt!"

But in that case it was not a valid test for the inference anyway, so we are still back to square one.

The question remains: why should we assume it is correct?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50345  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
See if anyone can excuse their behavior when they know they are already excused. This is so obviously impossible. If you don't see that in order to come up with an excuse, one needs the opportunity to explain his behavior to those who are standing in judgment, there is nothing more I can tell you. We just don't have a basis to move forward which is unfortunate.
But it is not so obviously impossible now is it? Killing a person is wrong. A soldier is already excused for doing so. Does this mean they can now not justify pulling the trigger?

Not at all.

We could say "that does not count: it is not a free will environemnt!"

But in that case it was not a valid test for the inference anyway, so we are still back to square one.

The question remains: why should we assume it is correct?
After all this time it is shocking to me how little you understand. You could not have carelly studied (let alone read) this book which explains all of your sarcasm.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50346  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:54 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
See if anyone can excuse their behavior when they know they are already excused. This is so obviously impossible. If you don't see that in order to come up with an excuse, one needs the opportunity to explain his behavior to those who are standing in judgment, there is nothing more I can tell you. We just don't have a basis to move forward which is unfortunate.
But it is not so obviously impossible now is it? Killing a person is wrong. A soldier is already excused for doing so. Does this mean they can now not justify pulling the trigger?

Not at all.

We could say "that does not count: it is not a free will environemnt!"

But in that case it was not a valid test for the inference anyway, so we are still back to square one.

The question remains: why should we assume it is correct?
After all this time it is shocking to me how little you understand. You could not have carelly studied (let alone read) this book which explains all of your sarcasm.
I see you feel compelled to start name-calling again. You generally do this when you have no answer and do not feel like admitting it.

But the question remains, and will remain there for anyone reading your book: why should anyone assume the book is correct? What reason do we have to believe conscience works that way?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50347  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:54 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCDXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
:lol:

And the same thing again. Not burdened by having to make quantifiable predictions, the crackpot can make up whatever the hell he wants and babble on and on.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), Stephen Maturin (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50348  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:59 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
See if anyone can excuse their behavior when they know they are already excused. This is so obviously impossible. If you don't see that in order to come up with an excuse, one needs the opportunity to explain his behavior to those who are standing in judgment, there is nothing more I can tell you. We just don't have a basis to move forward which is unfortunate.
But it is not so obviously impossible now is it? Killing a person is wrong. A soldier is already excused for doing so. Does this mean they can now not justify pulling the trigger?

Not at all.

We could say "that does not count: it is not a free will environemnt!"

But in that case it was not a valid test for the inference anyway, so we are still back to square one.

The question remains: why should we assume it is correct?
After all this time it is shocking to me how little you understand. You could not have carelly studied (let alone read) this book which explains all of your sarcasm.
I see you feel compelled to start name-calling again. You generally do this when you have no answer and do not feel like admitting it.

But the question remains, and will remain there for anyone reading your book: why should anyone assume the book is correct? What reason do we have to believe conscience works that way?
Where did I name call? All I said is that you could not have studied this book. You know I'm right. There is no reason to believe the book is correct, none whatsoever. Isn't that what you want to hear? After all, can you imagine the shame people will feel knowing the things they said about my father which they only wish they could take back?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #50349  
Old 02-02-2017, 03:07 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

You are once again avoiding the question, this time by throwing a little hissy fit. It allows you to still feel like you are right, even though you have no answer to a pretty fundamental question regarding your book.

The question remains, no matter what any of us feel about it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), But (02-02-2017), The Lone Ranger (02-02-2017), The Man (02-02-2017)
  #50350  
Old 02-02-2017, 03:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
You are once again avoiding the question, this time by throwing a little hissy fit. It allows you to still feel like you are right, even though you have no answer to a pretty fundamental question regarding your book.

The question remains, no matter what any of us feel about it.
I don't feel like I'm right, I know I'm right when it comes to the claim that through these principles, world peace can be achieved.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-02-2017 at 07:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.35252 seconds with 14 queries