A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In that post I was not poking fun. I was making an astute observation.

&feature=related

I want to be mad at you but after that video, I can't help but love you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

More to the point, does she have the capability to understand that Lessans is wrong, I doubt it.

I have the capability, but you're trying to force me into an admission of guilt. This is an underhanded strategy. You have become the interrogator, and you will not be happy until you get me to admit that he was wrong. But I don't believe he was wrong. Unfortunately, it could affect the way I answer because I don't want to be laughed at.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She's repeatedly proved (with Lessans' switching-on-the-sun example) that in her view Lessans was not even wrong when she explicitly disagrees with him.

Oh my gosh, why are you bringing the sun example up again? How underhanded can you get. Get over the fact that you really don't know for sure whether Lessans was right or wrong. Stop using yourself as the final authority.

[Vivisectus]

Obviously, Spacemonkey was not referring to determinism at all, but at your inability to accept even the possibility of your father being wrong.

He has patiently and painstakingly explained to you why he disagrees with your case for determinism, showing that it relies on a tautology, something that you have thus far not been able to refute.

[LadyShea]

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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"

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

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

[LadyShea]

Let's look at a less well evidenced event that people believe is an accurate, in fact infallible, description .

The Jews enslavement in Egypt and subsequent Exodus. This is described in Scripture only. The Egyptians recorded nothing about it. No other contemporary society or person recorded these extraordinary events. There has been no archaeological evidence produced. So, by what means can one determine if the description of these events is accurate?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Obviously, Spacemonkey was not referring to determinism at all, but at your inability to accept even the possibility of your father being wrong.

I am unable to accept the possibility that Lessans was wrong, BECAUSE HE WASN'T WRONG.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He has patiently and painstakingly explained to you why he disagrees with your case for determinism, showing that it relies on a tautology, something that you have thus far not been able to refute.

I have argued this. I have stated that the first premise (man's will is not free because he moves in the direction of greater satisfaction) is an assertion; not a proof. If that was his proof, then it would be a tautology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look at a less well evidenced event that people believe is an accurate, in fact infallible, description .

The Jews enslavement in Egypt and subsequent Exodus. This is described in Scripture only. The Egyptians recorded nothing about it. No other contemporary society or person recorded these extraordinary events. There has been no archaeological evidence produced. So, by what means can one determine if the description of these events is accurate?

I don't think it's fair to compare Lessans' astute observations to an event that may not be able to be explained scientifically.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it's at all fair to compare Lessans' astute observations to an event that may or may not be able to be explained in scientific terms.

But all we have to analyze is Lessans alleged description of his observations. We can't even know for sure that he wrote those books at all. You may have written every word for all we can tell!

You say you can't argue against lies, and we're telling you we can't argue against faith.

If it's not faith, as you keep saying, you better get your ass in gear in rounding up some corroborating evidence, because as of right now The Exodus is a very fair comparison.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am unable to accept the possibility that Lessans was wrong, BECAUSE HE WASN'T WRONG.

You can feel someone is right and still accept the possibility that this is not the case. In fact that is what rational people do: they allow for the possibility of being dead wrong.

You however, dogmatically believe that whatever Lessans says is an absolute, cast in rock objective truth.

Such absolutes are only to be found in religions.

I have been unable to refute this because IT'S NOT TRUE. I can't argue with a lie.

Au Contraire: lies and things that are not true are quite easy to refute. Your problem is that you have been carefully shown where the problem lies, and that you have no rational response to that. So now you are resorting to shouting and accusing people of being malicious, as is your wont.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm really curious Peacegirl, what is yours and your fathers experience with the piano or any other musical instrument?

bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

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.

Each person can test this for himself to see if he could take advantage of a 'no blame' environment.

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.

I know that this knowledge is accurate because his description of reality is accurate, whether you are convinced or not. So let the testing begin. We've wasted way too much time already.

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?

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

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

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 when there isn't any real proof.

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"

But that in itself does not mean that he was wrong in his observation. Yes, there was further evidence to confirm that he was correct, but to automatically discredit what he saw would be outlandish. 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

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!

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

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 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.

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

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...please don't use this crazy conspiracy theory to distract people from the subject matter under discussion.

Subject matter under discussion:

[LadyShea]

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Tested how? Let's see the test parameters.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am unable to accept the possibility that Lessans was wrong, BECAUSE HE WASN'T WRONG.

QED. Even if one knows a given idea or fact is correct, it is not difficult to imagine or contemplate the possibility of it being incorrect. Since you think everyone here worships at the altar of Einstien, we'll use him as an example. Special Relativity holds up quite solidly, so most people believe it to be correct, or at least mostly correct. It is not difficult, however, to imagine what things would look like were it incorrect. This is an important tool in critical thinking, as it gives ideas of what to check to verify a claim. If Special Relativity were incorrect we would expect, among other things, that clocks in orbit and clocks on the surface would not run at different speeds, as SR predicts. So, we then observe clocks both in orbit and on the surface. We find instead that they do run at different speeds, exactly as SR predicts. That doesn't conclusively prove SR to be accurate, but it does show that this prediction of its inaccuracy doesn't hold up.

So, if you were to use the same tool of critical thinking for Lessans work, the question to ask is "what could we expect to find if Lessans' was incorrect about claim X?" For example, if Lessans was incorrect about efferent vision, we would expect to still see something the way it was before a change, for a time-frame corresponding exactly to the time it takes light to travel from the object to the detector. In fact, this is exactly what we see, but let's leave that aside for now. Even if you "know" Lessans is correct, it shouldn't be difficult to think of what to look for if he wasn't.

Now you try: What would we look for, what would we expect to find, if Lessans was incorrect about, say, blame and punishment being the keys to ending first blows?

I have been unable to refute this because IT'S NOT TRUE. I can't argue with a lie.

Bullshit. Of course you can argue with a lie, they're the easiest things to argue with because all the facts should be on your side. If you know it's not true that Lessans' argument for determinism relies on tautology, or invokes the modal fallacy, it should be a trivial matter to demonstrate that logically. Those are easy mistakes to make in a debate, easy to point out, and easy to correct. It does, however, require that you understand what those errors are in the first place, and why they are errors. I think it likely that this is the difficulty you are having, not that you "can't argue with a lie."

[LadyShea]

If you know it's not true that Lessans' argument for determinism relies on tautology, or invokes the modal fallacy, it should be a trivial matter to demonstrate that logically.

I agree, and would like to see you address these two points. You once offered to go through the modal fallacy examples point by point to demonstrate how Lessans did not commit it. Are you still willing to do that?

If so, let's see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can have empathy for someone and not experience what they've gone through.
You don't have to experience the exact same thing to imagine what it must feel like. It's putting yourself in their shoes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I cannot empathize with a rape victim. I can sympathize with them, I can even ache for what I imagine they might be feeling, but I have never experienced any kind of violation on par with that.

Saying "I understand" or "I empathize" or "I know it must be difficult" would be an insult to them...because no, I do not understand. No, I do not know.

I agree that when someone has not experienced what the sufferer has, it can be an insult to say one does understand because that implies that they have been through the same thing.

This discussion was originally about compassion and whether it will become obsolete. I don't think so because there will always be a need for it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Conscience is the product of an internal values system, and that values system develops from one's experiences and cognition and temperament. Environment certainly has a large role, but is only one aspect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does temperament have to do with conscience? Are you saying only certain temperaments are conscientious? An internal values system? Does that mean knowing what's right and wrong? And how does cognition relate to conscience?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What the hell do you think conscience is that you don't understand the role of temperament, cognition, or one's personal internal values systems?

Temperament: Some people are more sensitive to others feelings. Some are more in tune with their own feelings. Some are more laid back and blase and others are very driven. Some people are more apt to ruminate negatively and judge themselves for mistakes while others view mistakes as opportunities to improve oneself and relationships. And on and on an on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of this has to do with the role of conscience and how it dictates our behavior.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Internal values system: One's personal framework of ethics and priorities aka values.

The terms "moral development" and "personal ethics" can only be used to separate those who haven't developed these traits. But when everyone is moral and ethical, these terms will have no meaning.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Knowing right from wrong" is how you express this concept to a small child. Did you never get past that stage of moral development?

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong.

Conscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Cognition:After reading the definition (or at least I hope you read it as well as copied and pasted it) you don't understand how congition plays a role in the development of conscience?

You don't see any role for learning and thinking about and considering the issues of morality, ethics, emotional responses, coping mechanisms, and problem solving etc. or how cognitive processes inform one's value system which is an inherent part of conscience?

Definition: Cognition is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving. These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination, perception and planning.

There is no direct relationship between conscience and cognition. We can be cognitive of many things and have a very weak conscience, or we can be lacking in our ability to think cognitively and have a very strong conscience.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, what the hell do you think conscience is, exactly? Don't tell me Lessans tiny phrase "feelings of guilt" is the entirety of your understanding or the entirety of his definition, because that would mean I am discussing this concept with someone on the level of a toddler.

Conscience: Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong.

CONSCIENCE (noun)

The noun CONSCIENCE has 3 senses:
1. motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions
2. conformity to one's own sense of right conduct
3. a feeling of shame when you do something immoral
Familiarity information: CONSCIENCE used as a noun is uncommon.

• CONSCIENCE (noun)

Sense 1 conscience
Meaning:
Motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions
Classified under:
Nouns denoting goals
Synonyms:
conscience; moral sense; scruples; sense of right and wrong
Hypernyms ("conscience" is a kind of...):
ethical motive; ethics; morality; morals (motivation based on ideas of right and wrong)
Hyponyms (each of the following is a kind of "conscience"):
superego ((psychoanalysis) that part of the unconscious mind that acts as a conscience)
small voice; voice of conscience; wee small voice (an inner voice that judges your behavior)
sense of duty; sense of shame (a motivating awareness of ethical responsibility)

Sense 2 conscience
Meaning:
Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct
Classified under:
Nouns denoting attributes of people and objects
Context example:
a person of unflagging conscience
Hypernyms ("conscience" is a kind of...):
morality (concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct)
Hyponyms (each of the following is a kind of "conscience"):
conscientiousness (the quality of being in accord with the dictates of conscience)
unconscientiousness (the quality of being willing to ignore the dictates of conscience)

Sense 3 conscience
Meaning:
A feeling of shame when you do something immoral
Classified under:
Nouns denoting feelings and emotions
Context example:
he has no conscience about his cruelty
Hypernyms ("conscience" is a kind of...):
shame (a painful emotion resulting from an awareness of inadequacy or guilt)

What does conscience mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You seem to be throwing words around.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am sorry you do not have the vocabulary or comprehension to understand the words I am using, which were carefully chosen for their precision in describing the concepts I am conveying.

Sorry, but I just didn't see the connection between cognition and conscience.

When we see someone is in distress and we feel their pain as if it were our own, and strive to eliminate or lessen their pain, this is compassion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay great, you either looked it up or thought about more because this is a far cry from your "being understood" and "less emotive than empathy"?

Being understood is a huge part of the healing process and it's the receiving end of someone's who is being understanding. Being empathic is the ability to listen to what someone is going through and putting yourself in their place. This, in turn, can help to lessen someone's pain.

Empathic responses are genuine responses indicating that you have heard the other person's concerns and understand them on an emotional level. The statement "That sucks for you, that your mom died" is a response. The statement "I am sorry your mom died" is a sympathy response. The statement "It must have been very heartbreaking to see someone you cared for so much in pain. The key to the response is to identify the emotion a person might be feeling based on your previous interactions.

What is empathic response

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to distinguish compassion from empathy, compassion would be the less emotive reaction. It's feeling sympathy or sorry for someone's circumstances without having to actually experience the pain they are going through firsthand.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that's not the commonly understood meaning of compassion at all. Where did you come up with your definition?

Compassion is an extension of strong feelings of empathy and sympathy into a deep desire to act on them to alleviate suffering.

I agree.

“Compassion is one aspect of love. Compassion may grow from feelings, but true compassion represents a practical attention to someone’s needs. It doesn’t require us to feel: it requires us to act. Sympathy says, ‘I feel bad that you’re hungry.’ Empathy says, ‘I know something about how you feel; I was hungry once myself.’ But compassion says, ‘Friend, let’s go get something to eat.’ Sympathy and Empathy don’t require us to do anything; but compassion will cause us to touch, lift, feed, and help those in need as Jesus did for the leper.”

Leadership and Other Ramblings: Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion: "There's A Difference?"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can be compassionate just by showing concern. I don't necessarily have to do anything. There might not be anything for me to do other than to be there for the person. This can alleviate the perception of pain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Listening and showing concern are both "doing something", so yes those are compassionate acts.

So these definitions can be blurred as listening to someone can be an empathic response as well as a compassionate response.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is commonly understood to be the most intense of these related emotions, not the least.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree. Sympathy seems to be the least intense.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I see you now agree. Did you read something that changed your view?

I guess I never thought that deeply about the slight nuances in definition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, I now would probably add "pity" as the least intense and involved after discussing this a little with mickthinks

Pitying someone to me feels like the comparison of one's circumstances to someone else's; being sad for them but happy that you're not in the same situation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking in terms of the person receiving compassion, not the one who is giving it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Recipients of compassion are having their suffering alleviated (to whatever degree possible) through the actions of another. It is way beyond "being understood"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all depends. If someone takes the time to listen to someone who is in need of a listening ear, this could definitely help to alleviate their suffering because it's important to feel understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, true, but you didn't include anything except "being understood" originally, so yet again it sure seems like you changed your definitions today. Which is fine and all, but you were vehemently disagreeing with me earlier.

What changed your mind?

I didn't change my definition. I just clarified it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think our definitions of compassion, sympathy, and empathy are pretty much the same. It certainly isn't worth debating about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They seem to be the same this afternoon, they were not this morning

They were not this morning because you were getting very literal with the terms. To me, they're almost identical because most people who are empathic are also compassionate and sympathetic. Empathy does not mean you had to go through the same experience; it means you are trying to identify with what someone is feeling. I still don't understand the point of this discussion. It started as a discussion on conscience, then went to compassion, and then took another detour to where we are now.

[thedoc]

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.

Each person can test this for himself to see if he could take advantage of a 'no blame' environment.

I know that this knowledge is accurate because his description of reality is accurate, .

What people think they see is notoriously innacurate. There are several examples from my own experience. I worked in an office and a group of us would walk to a local resturant for lunch, one day on the way back a large dog came running across a lawn toward us, I stopped and stood still and the owner called the dog back. When we got back to the office another person who was behind me related the encounter and said I had jumped about 3 feet in the air when the dog ran toward me. My feet never left the ground but I think the other person was startled and projected his reaction onto others.

A simple test for anyone who drives on the highway, and you can PM me your answers to avoid embarresment, "What Color is a Yield Sign" This may be getting a bit out of date with younger drivers but it illustrates that people don't always see what is in front of them.

Another time I was at an auction with my parents and we were getting something to eat and the person serving the food said something off color. My father later described my reactiion as that my eyes got as big as saucers, but I really had not even heard what was said and didn't react to that at all.

It is possable that some people just exagerate to make a good story and possably Lessans was doing this as well. So answer my question and prove that you can actually see what you are looking at.

[Vivisectus]

RAAAH I CANNOT TAKE IT ANY MORE IT IS POSSIBLE, DOC, WITH AN I!!!!!

*ahem* sorry about that. Back to our regular programming!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't have to prove that conscience works a certain way. He is describing how conscience works according to what he sees occurring. 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.

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true Spacemonkey. He is not just stating something without seeing the evidence. If you keep denying that his observations mean anything, you will never understand this knowledge because you are expecting a different kind of proof; the kind that only meets your definition. A description of how something works can be proof if that description is accurate.

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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations are proof enough, but the final proof is that they work. You can't argue with success Spacemonkey, can you? Obviously, empirical evidence will be the final judge. I'm expending so much energy trying to prove to you that these principles are accurate, that I don't if we are ever going to get beyond the vestibule.

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'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that this is not obvious to anyone doesn't surprise me and cannot be used against him.

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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of this has to do with the role conscience and how it dictates our behavior.

It all informs conscience. Conscience is a process in the brain..it doesn't dictate our behavior. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The terms "moral development" and "personal ethics" can only be used to separate those who haven't developed these traits.

Every person has an internal values system that is unique to them (and changes over time as they do), because it is developed from their own unique mind and experiences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But when everyone is moral and ethical, these terms will have no meaning.

So you believe there is an absolute and perfect ethical or moral system with no variance between different people?

Do you have a list of all things that are moral and ethical that all people will know and adhere to?

Do you understand that even with some perfect absolutist moral and ethical system people would still have their own unique personal values systems that information would be filtered through and potential actions compared to, because morals and ethics are only a part of that?

Are you on drugs?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no direct relationship between conscience and cognition. We can be cognitive of many things but not have a strong conscience because of the environment we live in.

There is a direct relationship between all brain functions; our cognitive processes inform our conscience as they add to and/or change our values systems

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but I just didn't see the connection between cognition and conscience

Then you are supremely arrogant to believe you have any justification to make claims about conscience, you are completely ignorant of the pertinent information.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am unable to accept the possibility that Lessans was wrong, BECAUSE HE WASN'T WRONG.

I have been unable to refute this because IT'S NOT TRUE. I can't argue with a lie.

Wow. It's posts like these - where you get frustrated and drop all pretence of rationality - that truly reveal your faith-bound fundamentalist approach to your father's work.

There are plenty of things I believe and accept with great certainty - such as plate tectonics, or the age of the Earth for example - without being unable to conceive of them as possibly being wrong. The fallibility and provisionality of even the best supported scientific knowledge is what any rational person recognizes and accepts. This is because we recognize both that we are fallible and liable to error, and that our sources of information are equally fallible and at least capable of being wrong.

And falsehoods (no-one is actually lying to you) are usually the easiest thing to refute, for if you know them to be wrong (as opposed to merely having faith that they are wrong) then all you have to do is provide the evidence by which you know this. If you cannot disprove that which is false, then what can you disprove? You obviously can't disprove what is actually true, so if you can't disprove what is not true either, then it follows that you are admitting that you are completely incapable of disproving anything at all. Which sounds about right, actually.

[Vivisectus]

So now that you know this is a dogma of yours, a belief that you hold no matter what the evidence and often in spite of it, has anything changed? Are you going to examine why this is the case, how it became one, and if it should remain one? Or are you just going to call us all ignorant meanies and find somewhere else to do this for another decade?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you know it's not true that Lessans' argument for determinism relies on tautology, or invokes the modal fallacy, it should be a trivial matter to demonstrate that logically.

I agree, and would like to see you address these two points. You once offered to go through the modal fallacy examples point by point to demonstrate how Lessans did not commit it. Are you still willing to do that?

If so, let's see it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

RAAAH I CANNOT TAKE IT ANY MORE IT IS POSSIBLE, DOC, WITH AN I!!!!!

*ahem* sorry about that. Back to our regular programming!

WOW is it possible that some people actually see what is in front of them?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Perhaps you, or davidm, would be good enough to locate a really well worded and easy to understand example for peacegirl to use for a compare/contrast?