A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please have patience.

You've had more than 600 pages to promote this bilge, and have failed utterly, embarrassing yourself repeatedly in the process, and you ask for patience?

Wow, you've got gall, lady.

These are the only three responses that anyone should ever give you from now on:

"In my pants."

"Potato."

"Moons of Jupiter."

Thanks to Rigorist for 1. and 2.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He used a very flexible form of determinism against a very hard form of free will. That's not fair is it? We have some say in our choices and multiple options to choose from...that means that the will has some level of "freedom", right? It's a form of compatibilism. Some factors are determined by our mindset and circumstances, others chosen.

Nothing special about that.

Yes, we are free to decide, but once again this does not mean we have free will. Lessans was trying to show that the argument itself creates an artificial division. There is nothing that appears compatible because the definitions are incompatible with each other (but that doesn't mean the definitions reflect reality). Let me clarify this once again: Man's will is not free, but that does not mean we can't decide between alternatives which is the definition of free will. It only means that our choices are not free because we can't choose that which we believe is worse for ourselves. Self-preservation, which is the fundamental law of nature, supports this truth but in a slightly different way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by rigorist

Did Lessans take the brown acid?

Oh my goodness, how wrong can you be rigorist? Your ignorance is so not funny.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, if I believe one plus one equals two based on every single formula tested, and someone comes along and says that it's three, I will reject that argument because I saw for myself that this is wrong from my very own observations.

Really, "every single formula tested"?

Let me see, 1 mommy + 1 daddy = 1 baby or 3 family members.

Or are you only allowed to have twins?
Or after every single child you must divorce?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, how wrong you are rigorist. Your ignorance is so not funny.

More likely it was the brown liquid.

[davidm]

OK, now we've got four great responses to peacegirl, with another good one from Rigorist:

"In my pants."

"Potato."

"Did Lessans take the brown acid?"

"Moons of Jupiter."

All anyone really needs to say.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, forget what you know about the discovery or whether it's right or not. If something feels untrue, it is normal for someone to reject it. But this causes a problem. In other words, if I believe one plus one equals two based on every single formula tested, and someone comes along and says that it's three, I will reject that argument because I saw for myself that this is wrong from my very own observations. I don't need someone to tell me that this is wrong, I already know it. By the same token, Lessans' argument defies logic, because everyone believes that the argument that defies one plus one equals three must be wrong. The bottom line is that this knowledge can be tested empirically, but unfortunately most people believe that man's will is free so the testing will be biased. They will misinterpret everything to prove they are right. Can't you see the problem, or are you too blind?

The fact that Lessans theory is illogical has nothing to do with preference or belief. If this wasn't the case, you would be able to refute the logical problems in, why yes, a logical way, since you believe it with all your heart.

However, you cannot. This is not your fault: the material is full of fallacies. These fallacies are not somehow caused by other people's bias.

Your arithmetic example is poorly chosen by the way. I can observe that one plus one is two, and I can describe to you how I observed it by telling you what it was I observed (let is say, one stick to which I added another) and you can then try to repeat this observation.

With Lessans example this is impossible - we just have to assumed he observed *something* astutely, we are not told what and how, and we cannot repeat it. Just saying that it is as basic as one plus one does not make it so.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by davidm

I still haven't read it yet either, but I gather what's new is they are claiming that there is a way to experimentally confirm that the wave function is real and not just a statistical description.

Well we've known about that for a long time, too. Ever since Bell's theorem! So I suspect editorial spin is taking place here.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well we've known about that for a long time, too. Ever since Bell's theorem! So I suspect editorial spin is taking place here.

Well I'm not sure that BT proves the wave function is real rather than a statistical description; what I take from the abstract of this piece anyway is that it sounds like an endorsement of Many Worlds, but then again a quick gloss of it on search yields nothing about that. *sigh* I suppose I shall have to read before commenting on what I haven't read!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The fact that Lessans theory is illogical has nothing to do with preference or belief. If this wasn't the case, you would be able to refute the logical problems in, why yes, a logical way, since you believe it with all your heart.

I have been defending this knowledge in a logical way. It's just hard to wrap your mind around the fact that peace is possible.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, you cannot. This is not your fault: the material is full of fallacies. These fallacies are not somehow caused by other people's bias.

Well they're certainly not caused by flaws in Lessans' observations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your arithmetic example is poorly chosen by the way. I can observe that one plus one is two, and I can describe to you how I observed it by telling you what it was I observed (let is say, one stick to which I added another) and you can then try to repeat this observation.

That's because this fact is easily observed by the average person. The fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction may not be as obvious, but it's just as factual.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

With Lessans example this is impossible - we just have to assumed he observed *something* astutely, we are not told what and how, and we cannot repeat it. Just saying that it is as basic as one plus one does not make it so.

It can be proven Vivisectus. If will wasn't free, these principles would not work, but they do. And they can be tested. I don't know why people keep saying that they can't.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been defending this knowledge in a logical way.

Obsession is not logic. It takes rationality to be logical and you have none.

It's just hard to wrap your mind around the fact that peace is possible.

Of course peace is possible. It may take the extermination of the entire human race, but it is not only possible, it is inevitable. Just not the way Lessans claims it will happen.

[Stephen Maturin]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am a witness to an event --- and my description of what took place is accurate --- there is nothing to prove. There is a difference between proving and describing. If I saw someone go into someone's house and take out a flat screen t.v., I don't have to prove to the police what I saw for them to take my account seriously; I have to describe what I saw.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But how do we analyze and verify whether your description is accurate?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's very easy to see that this observation is accurate if you give yourself a chance to actually test this in your own life. That's what he meant by being your own guinea pig. If this knowledge is scientific, each person will be able to recognize the truth of this knowledge based on their own experience.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's easy to test which observation in my own life? Test it how? What would disprove it? What if my unique interpretation of the same experience doesn't match Lessans'...is my accurate description of my own personal experiences proof of anything? And if I did "recognize the truth of Lessans" does that make it factual?

Your recognition that this knowledge is factual does not make it so, but the fact that it works universally does make it so.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Millions of people "recognize the truth" of Islam. Thousands "recognize the truth" of Scientology. Does that mean Islam and Scientology are both proven?

No, it doesn't. But there is no real proof of either of these worldviews.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you really, honestly not see that your argumentation style matches religious thinking and not scientific thinking?

That's because we never got past Chapter One. You would be able to test this knowledge for yourself in Chapter Three. But we're never going to get there unfortunately.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By what processes can we eliminate the very real possibility that instead of an accurate description we are hearing an inaccurate one? You might be lying. You might have been hallucinating. You might have been mistaken. You might have misremembered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Each person has can test this for himself, which is the ultimate proof that this knowledge is accurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Detail the construction of an individual, personal test that doesn't rely on assuming the accuracy or infallibility of Lessans "observations" before conducting it. Detail the controls. Predict some possible biases that would skew the results.

We can't test this in this fashion. We can test these principles by imagining how we would react in real life. That's what Chapter Three is all about. You should know if you read the book like you said you did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A description of how something works can be proof if that description is accurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it cannot be proof. It can be evidence at the very most. You need corroborating evidence to strengthen the position, and lots and lots of evidence from multiple sources (to eliminate bias) to even begin approaching proof.

You're wrong. All that needs to be done is to simulate a "no blame" environment. Other than this, each person can test himself by imagining how he would feel hurting someone when he cannot justify what he did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that this knowledge is accurate because his description of reality is accurate, whether you are convinced or not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know The Book of Mormon is accurate because it described reality accurately, whether you are convinced or not.

These religious texts are just rules of behavior. This discovery is the opposite. It doesn't give you a set of rules. It gives you no rules to follow. Your conscience is your guide.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So let the testing begin. We've wasted way too much time already.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Construct and describe the test parameters that we can all use.

We can't empirically test this way because we live in a "free will" environment. We need to simulate a "no free will" environment, which can be done but it will be difficult to construct. The other way is for each person to become his own guinea pig and to imagine how it would feel to hurt someone and not be blamed. That's what Chapter Three is all about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To illustrate my point:

The WTC on 9/11. If only one person described seeing a plane smash into the tower, and nobody else described seeing that, but only described the subsequent fire and collapse, would you just assume that the 1 person who described seeing a commercial airliner hit the tower was correct, with no other evidence? Would you consider his description proof?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would have no reason not to believe this person especially if he was reliable in other aspects of his life.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's a stranger on the scene. How would you determine his reliability in other aspects of his life? Do you mean to say you would want more evidence before simply accepting his description as accurate?

All I'm saying is that suspicion can work against you. You were questioning whether Lessans even wrote the book. If you don't believe in the honesty of the person you're talking to, you are not going to take what he (or she) is saying seriously.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is certainly possible that under different circumstances only that one person was in position to see that, however that wouldn't be proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really depends on the situation. One person's testimony can be quite reliable, whereas people who have a vendetta could try to establish a motive especially if there isn't any empirical proof.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One person's testimony may be a dead on, accurate, and detailed account of what happened in factual reality, but there is no way for other people to know that or be convinced of that without additional evidence.

The evidence is there if each person uses himself as a guinea pig. Each person has to test this for himself.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 43-46

Once it is proven mathematically — which takes into
consideration the implications — there can be no more opinions or
theories expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying,
“I believe the earth is flat,” once they knew for a fact it was round.
There is a great deal of irony here because the philosophers who did
not know it was impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in
this theory because they were under the impression their reasoning
had demonstrated the falseness of determinism. The reason proof of
determinism is absolutely necessary is to preclude someone quoting
Durant and interjecting a remark about man not being a machine.
Is there anything about my demonstration thus far that would make
the reader believe man is now a machine?

On page 87 in Mansions
of Philosophy he writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to
blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had
slipped a cog in generating him.” In other words, he assumes that this
kind of knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free,
allows a person to shift his responsibility for what he does. One
individual blames society for his crimes as he rots in prison while
another blames the mechanical structure of the machine which slipped
a cog and made him into a fool.

You will soon see that not only
Durant but all mankind are very much confused by the misleading
logic of words that do not describe reality for what it is. This is why
it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable, not logical, manner
otherwise someone may quote Durant, a priest, professor, lawyer,
judge or politician as an authority for believing in freedom of the will.
I recently had a conversation with a friend who was very sincere in his
desire to understand the principles in my book. His questions were
predictable coming from a superficial understanding of man’s nature
and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue of
determinism comes up.

“Isn’t it obvious that we must have standards of some kind so that
a child can be taught the difference between right and wrong, good
and evil? Supposing all individuals in a society are told that it is
wrong to steal (I hope you’re not going to tell me this is right), yet
certain ones deliberately ignore this and take what belongs to someone
else; isn’t it obvious that we must blame them because they were
warned in advance that if they should steal they will be punished? Are
you trying to tell me there is no such thing as a standard of right and
wrong?”

“If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you also
know that a person cannot be blamed or punished for what he does
because his will is not free, isn’t it obvious that we are given only one
alternative and that is to prevent the desire to do what is wrong from
arising which then makes it unnecessary to blame and punish? Just
as long as man has this safety valve of blame and punishment, he
doesn’t have to find the solution to this doing of what is wrong.
Parents can be very careless and excuse themselves by blaming their
children; and governments can be careless and excuse themselves by
blaming their citizens while plunging the entire world into war.”

“But supposing they are not careless and they are doing everything
in their power to prevent children and citizens from doing what is
wrong so that blame and punishment are not necessary, what then?
Are we not supposed to blame and punish them for our own
protection when they do something wrong?”

“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through
mathematical reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it
becomes impossible to blame an individual for what he is compelled
to do; consequently, it is imperative that we discover a way to prevent
his desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were
previously necessary, as the lesser of two evils.”

“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form so far (since you haven’t
shown me yet how to rid the world of war and crime — two most
important items), it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t,
it took the Greeks two millennium to convince mankind that the
earth was a sphere. Even today, there are still some people who don’t
believe it, so how do you expect people to listen to something that not
only sounds impossible, but is so far removed from contemporary
thought?”

“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”

“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent
man from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6
million people, etc., is that right?”

“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it
is extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what
hurts us, but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by
mathematically extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is
that both sides of this equation are correct. Christ said, “Turn the
other cheek” and Durant said, “This is impossible.” Just think about
this for one moment. Would you believe that both principles are
mathematically correct?”

“How is that possible?”

“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time
when He would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you
can see what had to be done first since the paths leading up to this
understanding were camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that
concealed the truth.”

“Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and
your second discovery?”

“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed
to get the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we
can come face to face with the fiery dragon (the great impasse of
blame), and I will prove it in a mathematical, undeniable manner.
Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then I shall cut
out his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I shall
pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead.”

“I thought you killed him already.”

“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead of giving
everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him so the
whole world can see he is dead.”

“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”

“That’s absolutely true.”

“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever
discovered.”

“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However,
before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is
necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step by step manner. This
dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years,
and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these
undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man
Does Not Stand Alone as Morrison understood from his scientific
observations; that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical
reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage
that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And aside from malicious intent, one can make honest mistakes, one can misinterpret, one can misremember, one can unconsciously fill in holes or even embellish without even knowing they are doing so (the brain does that). They are telling the truth in their own eyes, even though it might not match the facts.

That's very true, but this is not one of those cases.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Investigators might then what? Call the airlines to see if any planes were missing and if so see if their flight path on radar indicated there was plane in the area of the WTC? Investigate the rubble for signs of an aircraft? Talk to witnesses to see if they maybe heard a plane even if they didn't see it? Analyze the pattern of fire to see if it matched what is known about jet fuel burning? Nobody would just say "Oh that guy described what he saw, and we assume it is accurate so there's our proof"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that in itself does not mean that he was wrong in his observation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course not, but it doesn't mean he was right either, and it certainly isn't "proof"

You're right. If someone says something happened and we don't see any way to prove it happened, we will have to trust someone's eyewitness account. But this knowledge is different because it has nothing to do with a written account of a miraculous event; it has to do with having the ability to tease out certain behavioral patterns. If it was so easy to see everyone would see it. But it took someone who had the ability to perceive certain type relations others could not see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, there was further evidence to confirm that he was correct, but to automatically discredit what he saw would be outlandish.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said automatically discredit? All I was saying is that there is no reason to automatically assume his description is accurate and matching with the facts. Critical analysis and skepticism and a rational search for the "truth" demands that we seek corroboration.

I understand that there has to be corroboration but there will never be if people keep cracking jokes and laughing. I appreciate that you're at least listening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans' observations took insight. They are not the kind of observations where there is a trail to follow, although they can be tested for reliability.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tested how? Let's see the test parameters.

There is no trail to follow. We can't follow a trail to figure out if one plus one equals two. It's an observation. For the sake of this knowledge, I'm asking you to allow me to continue so you will be able to see how these principles work as we transition into the new world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As it is, even with hundreds of witnesses and extensive film footage, people believe that the crashing aircraft was not responsible for the fire and collapse!

There's no doubt that some people are delusional. There are people who still believe the earth is flat.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was friends with a homeless girl who was delusional and believed that 9/11 was caused by aliens. I hope you're not attributing Lessans astute observations to those who are truly delusional.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Delusions are not the only reason one might think differently. 9/11 Truthers (as they are known) believe there was a conspiracy, and that there were other hidden factors in the explosion and collapse. They have engineers and scientists and everything who claim that the planes could not have caused the resulting collapse on their own.

So what are you saying? I thought it was the building's structure that ultimately caused the collapse as the fire spread. In this case, evidence is extremely important.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One person's description cannot be known to be accurate, and therefore cannot be considered proof.

I think you have crossed the line from normal skepticism into extreme paranoia.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's paranoid to not uncritically accept the word of every stranger with a claim or assertion as proven and true?

Of course not, but you know me by now, at least I thought you did. And now you're questioning whether Lessans actually wrote the book?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My not being a gullible airhead does not mean I am paranoid.

You're right. Poor choice of words on my part. Sorry.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations are proof enough, but the final proof is that they work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His recorded observations are only proof that Lessans, or someone claiming to be Lessans, wrote some stuff down and said he observed it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have his voice on tape, so please don't use this crazy conspiracy theory to distract people from the subject matter under discussion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to make the point that we don't know that any of what you are saying is true because we don't have any evidence to base it on.

That's not what you said. You said you weren't even sure if it was Lessans who wrote this book. Now you're saying that the tapes may not even be real. I realize you're saying this to make a point, and it's very true that you can't believe everything people say, but I would hope by this time you would know that I'm not an imposter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do not believe you wrote all of this yourself, FTR. I am simply illustrating a point that one person's claims are not proof of anything.

After all, it's possible I am really an 65 year old homeless man posting from a public library....isn't it?

People can claim anything they want, but there has to be proof of that claim. We're really on the same page; I just hope you eventually see that this claim is valid. I am trusting that you are who you say you are as well. If you are a homeless 65 year old man, there is nothing to be ashamed of. I have a friend who is 57 and homeless. He posts from the public library and sleeps in a run down shed. Here is his blog:

http://homelesscide.blogspot.com

[davidm]

Look, a bunch more stupid shit from peacegirl.

*Thumbs through book of responses to peacegirl*

Let's see ... oh, yes.

Potato.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am being as truthful as anyone can be...

Are you admitting to yourself that you have accepted Lessans' claims on the basis of faith rather than evidence? If not then you aren't being as honest with yourself as you could be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you keep making this into a tautology and you want me to admit that this is what it is. It is your logic that is faulty, not Lessans' discovery.

Where is my logic faulty? Why do you keep repeating this mantra without ever supporting the charge?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that you are the one doing what you are accusing me of doing? You are trying desperately to make his knowledge wrong because it doesn't fit into your epistemological category. I think you feel very threatened by determinism and you are not being as objective as you think you are.

I'm not doing what you are doing, because I am not relying upon faith. You are free to choose any epistemological category you like, so long as you can show how it qualifies as knowledge rather than faith. If you are going to reject all currently known epistemological categories, then you will need to justify whatever new ones you choose to invent. And as already explained I am not threatened by his claims, as I do not believe in libertarian free will, and his version of determinism is trivial and entirely non-threatening. Please address the objections instead of trying to guess at and criticize my motivations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His explanation is very simple. Man does not have free will because he must choose the alternative that is the most preferable, not the alternative that is the least preferable, each and every moment of time. This means that what we find most preferable changes from moment to moment based on previous experience. This also means that Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed, nor does it mean that we are robots that are programmed to respond a certain way. Lessans is reconciling these two opposing ideologies because they both are correct. In other words, his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices. But, according to proponents of free will, the ability to make choice IS the meaning of free will. They believe this is the very definition of what freedom of the will is. But, according to Lessans, being able to choose does not make our will free. I still don't think you understand the distinction between Lessans' definition vs. the conventional definition, which is why you're up in arms.

There are multiple meanings of free will. And as you admit here, his version of 'determinism' remains quite compatible with how people other than Lessans view free will. The 'free will' his principle refutes is a strawman, and fails to connect with our justifications for blame and punishment as his later argument requires. No-one has ever claimed that these practices require the ability to choose that which we believe is worse for ourselves. So his corollary about blame and punishment simply doesn't follow.

He offers a fallacious argument by redefinition of terms. His redefined version of 'determinism' (that one will always choose the direction of greatest expected satisfaction) remains compatible with both hard determinism and causal indeterminism. The resulting absence of his redefined version of 'free will' (i.e. the lack of any ability to choose that that which we believe is worse for ourselves) remains compatible with both libertarian and compatibilist free will.

Hence his redefinitions result in conclusions completely irrelevant to his subsequent reasoning. The truth of Lessans-determinism and the falsity of Lessans-freewill are not what matters when it comes to our practices of blame and punishment, which instead connect to the original meanings which he mistakenly ignores by redefining all of his terms.

No doubt you'll wish to disagree with all I've just said. So here's what you need to do in your reply:

(i) Establish that his conception of free will is not a strawman by showing where someone other than Lessans has claimed that free will requires one to be able to choose that which they believe will be worse for themselves.

(ii) Explain how his corollary of no blame follows from the alleged impossibility of this conception of free will by showing how we only apply blame and punishment when we believe that people have the ability to choose what they think will be worse for themselves.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course he has to show that conscience does in fact work the way he claims. If it doesn't, then his whole argument and 'discovery' collapses. There are three problems with your response here:

i) If his claims were based on specific concrete observations of particular events then those remain unknown to us, as he neglected to share them with you or anyone else.

ii) That his description of what he observed was accurate is not a given here, and is precisely what you are being challenged to support. I couldn't defend my claim to have seen an extraterrestrial UFO simply by stating that I'm merely describing what I saw, and that my claim that it was in fact of extraterrestrial origin is therefore beyond rational criticism.

iii) His claim is not a particular one about what happened in any one given instance, but is rather a general claim about how conscience does and must work in all cases for all people. Thus no description (no matter how accurate) can establish it as absolutely certain. My accurate observation that a dropped ball falls towards the carpet under my feet does not establish the general rule that all objects gravitate towards carpet.

What I am asking you is precisely how he could know, and how you can know, that his 'description' was accurate. My point wasn't that he said something without seeing the evidence, but that he said it without providing the evidence. How can you know that he was right without knowing what actual observed evidence he was basing his claims on? Why can't you admit that this is just an article of faith for you?

His 'observations' so far remain wholly unsupported and do not constitute any kind of 'proof'. No-one is arguing with success, as you don't have any. You do not have any kind of proof that his claims 'work'.

That his one and only faith-bound devoted disciple thinks he was smarter than everybody else can't be used as evidence supporting him, and shouldn't be used as an excuse for not properly addressing objections to his views.

My questions remain unanswered. His critical premise was this:

7) Conscience is innate and would be perfectly infallible were it not for the negative influence of our current practices of blame and punishment.

What I want to know is how he knew this to be true, and more importantly how you can know that he was right about this without having to rely upon faith. You have no answer to this because he didn't give you any evidence in support of it, and you have simply accepted this observation/assertion on faith.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you admitting to yourself that you have accepted Lessans' claims on the basis of faith rather than evidence? If not then you aren't being as honest with yourself as you could be.

This is getting ridiculous. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know you're all laughing, but all this means is that this knowledge works, so renouncing this discovery isn't going to change anything other than the length of time it will take for this new world to become a reality. If we could get the political leaders interested in these principles, we might be able to witness, in our lifetime, the beginning of the Great Transition. Wouldn't that be amazing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you keep making this into a tautology and you want me to admit that this is what it is. It is your logic that is faulty, not Lessans' discovery.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is my logic faulty? Why do you keep repeating this mantra without ever supporting the charge?

I have said numerous times that the premise of "greater satisfaction" is not an a priori assertion which would turn this into a tautology. This was an astute observation that he then described. If you can't see the validity of his observation, what can I do except to try to show you, in another way, that these principles are valid and sound because they work. The fact that we can create a world of peace is the best proof of all, isn't it? Isn't that the empirical proof you are looking for? But to create a mini new world which would confirm these claims is not going to be an easy task.

[davidm]

Moons of Jupiter.

[davidm]

Tsk, Tsk, spacemonkey! You're just not getting it!

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating!"



Or maybe the proof is also in the ramen?



We don't have a "pudding" smilie, alas!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is getting ridiculous. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know you're all laughing, but all this means is that this knowledge works, so renouncing this discovery isn't going to change anything other than the length of time it will take for this new world to become a reality. If we could get the political leaders interested in these principles, we might be able to witness, in our lifetime, the beginning of the Great Transition. Wouldn't that be amazing?

Are you admitting to yourself that you have accepted Lessans' claims on the basis of faith rather than evidence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said numerous times that the premise of "greater satisfaction" is not an assertion that he tries to prove circularly. This was an astute observation that he then described very carefully. If you can't see the validity of his observation, what can I do except to try to show you, in another way, that these principles are valid and sound because they work. The fact that we can create a world of peace is the best proof of all, isn't it? You cannot argue with success.

Where is my logic faulty? (Disagreeing with my conclusion does not show any flaw in my logic.)

No-one is arguing with success. We are instead explaining Lessans' failure.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

*sigh* I suppose I shall have to read before commenting on what I haven't read!

What are you talking about, you've been commenting on a book you haven't read for 2 long threads, just ask Peacegirl, she's been telling you you haven't read the book all along. Why start reading stuff before commenting now?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Is there no-one who will dare to attempt to answer this simple question, and possibly look silly.

(Is that better Vivisectus, I make no claim to be a good speller, and sometimes I'm just too lazy to look it up.)

Bunp.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

bump.

Bunps, again.

[Vivisectus]

Greater satisfaction has now also been filed under the header astute observations has it? Which means "stuff that needs to be accepted purely on your fathers say-so"?

Your father did the same thing you do: he treated this book as if it had already been proven to be able to create a perfect world. But it has not proven this.

In my opinion it is a silly bundle of juvenalia - it is a confused schoolboys attempt at a philosophical system. If your fanatic belief in a self-made religion did not interest me I would not give it another moments notice.

But even if it were sound, it is hampered by it's lack of quality. It just does not convince. In fact, it is rather offputting. For this reason alone, it will never take hold. There are people out there selling much more objectionable and idiotic nonsense a LOT more succesfully.

So my question is this: if your father was such a brilliant diviner of the human psyche, how come he wrote a book that puts everyone who reads it off? Why was he so utterly unconvincing? I would expect someone who is able to astutely observe the very basis of all our motivations to be able to do a little better than that. If he was so good at seeing what makes us tick, why did he write a book in such a way as to make even someone who invested 30 bucks in it consider it the most expensive toiler-paper he ever bought, and make him take the time to go online and warn other people not to waste their money?