[Vivisectus]

We are still stuck with the elephant in the room, which is the question of conscience.

We have no evidence in the book. We do not even have a clear case in favour of it working that way. It is merely claimed that it works that way, and then the rest of the book goes on as if it has been definitively established that it is so.

The book promises that everything in it is a logical progression, as "undeniable" as basic arithmetic. But that does not seem to be the case: I can check if 1 + 1 = 2 by counting. I cannot check if conscience works as described in the book without implementing the whole system as described in the book.

You said that the author was able to see that conscience works this way by "observing patterns", "astute observations", and because he was "incredibly in tune with what was going on in the world".

What reason do we have for believing that this is the case? Can you make a case for it at all, or is this another thing we will just have to believe?

I have asked you several times now but no answer seems to be forthcoming. Am I to draw the conclusion that you simply do not know?