A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Originally Posted by peacegil

This definition leaves out the will, or agent, entirely and turns us into pre-programmed automatons

How on Earth did you read that into the definition? "State of affairs" can include most anything, including agency.
The definition is not incompatible with my own view of the subject, as the agent, or individual, has a unique set of desires, thoughts, worldviews, tendencies, etc. etc. based on antecedent "states of affairs" including their genetic predisposition, experiences of all kinds, emotions, cognitive processes, etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

reacting to antecedents events without any say in the matter.

They react based on their unique brain and mind, which is in turn caused by their genes and experiences (or environment if you prefer). Absolutely they have say so in this model, as long as they are conscious and have thoughts and feelings because they can use these to change the "state of affairs" at any given time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also removes responsibility because the definition implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions.

Where is an outside force implied in the definition?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, there are no "tactics" to divert your attention. You exhaust me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

No? Then why have you not refuted my summary using any form of rational argument in multiple responses to it?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, there are no "tactics" to divert your attention. You exhaust me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course they are not tactics. It's the best you can do with what you have upstairs.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Another one for the collector.

I am guessing that she meant to write "an old wives' tale". Even then it doesn't make a lot sense in this context.

It makes a great deal of sense if she has been repeatedly diagnosed with mental illness.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No? Then why have you not refuted my summary using any form of rational argument in multiple responses to it?

LadyShea, you've spent too much time homeschooling young plastic minds. What exactly are you expecting from a deluded old person with obvious mental problems?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am guessing that she meant to write "an old wives' tale". Even then it doesn't make a lot sense in this context.

Well I've heard 'old wives tales' that have run the gamut from sound advice to total nonsense, Usually they are accepted or rejected without any proof or support, till someone tests it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Welcome Lettice. I pretty much learned all this stuff hanging around these types at IIDB back in the day and here.

Sorry to call you out, I am just nosy.

Hi Lettice, I really liked your post until you got to the brainwashing part. I'm disappointed. I hope one day you change your mind. Lessans never mentioned "patterns" directly so there are no page numbers. I used this term because he had to have seen certain patterns of behavior after years of reading history that allowed him to make these inductive generalizations.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Lettice, I really liked your post until you got to the brainwashing part. I'm disappointed. I hope one day you change your mind. Lessans never mentioned "patterns" directly so there are no page numbers. I used this term because he had to have seen certain patterns of behavior after years of reading history that allowed him to make these claims.

And there you have it! peacegirl's weirdness laid bare, by her own admission.

Does she know what patterns he saw that allowed him to make these claims? No, of course she does not know! But he must have seen them, because Seymour made his claims and he is never wrong! Had he been wrong he would have said so; but because he never said so he was right! And because he was right he must have seen these patterns, even though he never says what they are and peacegirl has just got through admitting that she does not know what they are!

Brilliant!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Originally Posted by peacegil

This definition leaves out the will, or agent, entirely and turns us into pre-programmed automatons

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How on Earth did you read that into the definition? "State of affairs" can include most anything, including agency.

Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 43

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The definition is not incompatible with my own view of the subject, as the agent, or individual, has a unique set of desires, thoughts, worldviews, tendencies, etc. etc. based on antecedent "states of affairs" including their genetic predisposition, experiences of all kinds, emotions, cognitive processes, etc.

That's the naturalistic approach to determinism.

Inclusive naturalism – the view that human beings and human behavior are completely included in the natural world – implies that we don’t have libertarian free will, the capacity to cause without being caused in turn. Under naturalism there are no causally privileged agents that could have done otherwise in situations exactly as they arose. Those sympathetic to naturalism often suppose that this view of human agents as only proximate, not ultimate, originators of their behavior will attenuate the tendency to place blame (or credit) solely on the individual. After all, factors unchosen by the person play an essential role in shaping action, and when those factors are appreciated, this can dampen our retributive impulses. And in turn, as the desire for retribution diminishes, we are better able to look outside the person to the wider causal context, with an eye to the more effective prevention of future offenses.

Criminal Justice

Originally Posted by peacegirl

reacting to antecedents events without any say in the matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They react based on their unique brain and mind, which is in turn caused by their genes and experiences (or environment if you prefer). Absolutely they have say so in this model, as long as they are conscious and have thoughts and feelings because they can use these to change the "state of affairs" at any given time.

I agree. This is closer to Lessans' definition because it does not remove the will, nor does it relieve one of responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also removes responsibility because the definition implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where is an outside force implied in the definition?

I'm not talking about force. Because our actions are based on a causal chain of events, hard determinism implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions whether it is our heredity, environment, society, God, etc. That is what has turned many philosophers off because they believe, in a civilized world, we must hold people responsible when they do wrong. This dilemma has been unresolved until now.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation p. 70

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. Determinism (as normally defined).

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

deterministic - definition of deterministic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

This definition leaves out the will, or agent, entirely and turns us into pre-programmed automatons, reacting to antecedents events without any say in the matter. It also removes responsibility because the definition implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions. This creates another artificial dividing line between these two opposing ideologies by the way they are defined, not because they are in true opposition. Lessans reconciles these two artificial divisions which makes them look incompatible, by correctly defining the terms. We can then see that they are not only compatible, but responsibility for one's actions remains intact.

2. Causal indeterminism.

The core idea of indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some philosophers is an event without a cause. But we can have an adequate causality without strict determinism, the "hard" determinism which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future.
Causality does not entail determinism
An example of an event that is not strictly caused is one that depends on chance, like the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.

Indeterminism

There is confusion with this theory as well. Even though there is not adequate causality of "hard determinism" which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future, this in no way means that there are two possible futures. The choices, although not predictable according to hard determinism, are still just as determined because we can only move in one direction (which was never understood). That's why I mentioned that the definition of "hard" determinism presents an artificial dichotomy with "freedom" of choice.

3. Lessans' version of determinism.

Here is his definition in a nutshell.

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

4. Libertarian free will.

The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He “foreknew” to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.

Libertarian free will - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

You can easily see the confusion here. Man has free will because his decisions are not caused. If he doesn't ask for help to change his ways, he is subject to punishment because God gives man a choice and [this gets really confusing] He predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation and anxiously waits to see what each person will do. So for those who don't ask for salvation (which he already predestined), he destroys by sending them to hell for their bad choices.


5. Compatibilist free will.

The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man’s nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature — He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.

Libertarian free will - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

The idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible, are not compatible ideas. If God has determined what man freely chooses, it's not a free choice at all. Therefore man cannot be held responsible, but the implications are feared since it is believed if man is not held responsible for his choices, he would become even less responsible. Lessans faces the implications head on. The compatibilist view is an effort to close the gap between these two opposing ideologies, but they have fallen short of a coherent explanation.

6. Lessans' version of free will.

He has no version of free will because we have none. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to choose what we want, but what we want is in the direction of "greater" satisfaction which is fixed because we cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction, or what is less preferable when a more preferable alternative is available [in our eyes].

Well that's not what I asked for, is it Peacegirl? In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite of what I asked for...

If you're actually serious about being understood, here is a constructive task for you to complete. Define the following (as clearly and concisely as you can, but in your own words instead of directly quoting from other sources):

1. Determinism (as normally defined).
2. Causal indeterminism.
3. Lessans' version of determinism.
4. Libertarian free will.
5. Compatibilist free will.
6. Lessans' version of free will.

Then state which of these theses his account is and is not compatible with, and explain why.

Point (6) doesn't require Lessans to think we have free will, but is just asking for the meaning of the term as he uses it. It can be the meaning of free will in the sense that he thinks does not exist. If he uses the word in two ways then you may need two answers.

You've also made the error of looking things up on a Christian website, meaning all your definitions are only formulated with reference to God and theological concepts.

Can you try again, and this time provide what I actually asked you for? (In your own words, without quoting or referencing other websites.) For each point just a simple:

1. Determinism (as normally defined) is the thesis that...

Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...

And none of your definitions should mention God (unless He is a necessary part of Lessans' meanings for (3) or (6)).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will if you give me a chance...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who's stopping you? Go ahead, explain to me how you or he could know his descriptions of conscience to be accurate in advance of any empirical confirmation.

I will, but I don't want to keep going back and forth from one premise to another. I want to finish up with determinism first.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were the one that told me you were not going to read any of the copy-pastes. Moreover, your response to this question made me believe you either did not read the excerpt or you didn't understand what you read.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. I never told you that. And what other than my continued disagreement indicates to you that I didn't read what I most certainly have read?

I didn't post that as any kind of proof. If that's what you were looking for no wonder you said that his argument presupposes. I posted this so you have an understanding of why conscience isn't always able to control behavior in today's world. It hasn't reached the necessary temperature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole purpose of this book is to show which conditions must be met before the new world can become a reality. So many things have to change in the environment before these principles can work. That's why I am surprised that no one is interested in seeing what these changes are and how they are implemented.

This is as mathematically certain as any mathematical equation, therefore I cannot agree that his claims are not certain and undeniable. I understand that if it's not a priori, it must be based on empirical evidence which is a contingent truth. I really don't know how to answer you.

I told you that Lessans' knowledge is as scientific as landing men on the moon.

Despite David Hume's critical attack on the necessity of causes, many philosophers embrace causality strongly. Some even connect it to the very possibility of logic and reason.

Even in a world that contains quantum uncertainty, macroscopic objects are determined to an extraordinary degree. Newton's laws of motion are deterministic enough to send men to the moon and back. Our Cogito model of the Macro Mind is large enough to ignore quantum uncertainty for the purpose of the reasoning will. The neural system is robust enough to insure that mental decisions are reliably transmitted to our limbs.

We call this determinism, limited as it is in extremely small structures, "adequate determinism." The world is adequately determined to send men to the moon. The presence of quantum uncertainty properly leads logical philosophers to call the world "indetermined." But indeterminism gives a misleading impression when most events are overwhelmingly "adequately determined."

There is no problem imagining that the three traditional mental faculties of reason - perception, conception, and comprehension - are all carried on deterministically in a physical brain where quantum events do not interfere with normal operations.

Indeterminism

I am, but we have to get to Chapter Two. Do you feel you understand enough about Chapter One to move on?

You read Chapter Two?

I asked you to explain how he was not arguing in the fallacious manner I described in the passage you quoted. You still haven't done that.

Lessans: "To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate."

Me: "This is a perfect example if the very same circular reasoning you have been engaging in. What "must follow" from his new conditions will only follow if his claims about conscience are correct, so understanding these alleged consequences of his new conditions cannot also support those claims about conscience. The alleged consequences cannot explain the truth of his claims about conscience when his claims about conscience are what explains the alleged consequences."

This is not meant to support his claims. It was assumed that you understood his reasoning, and this was the last paragraph of the chapter. That's why posting out of order is not the best thing, but I have no choice. I actually have a choice but this is the best option under the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where does my objection misrepresent what he said?

You assumed that this was meant to support his claims. It was a summary of the chapter which explains why conscience gets stronger when these principles are put into effect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm upset because you are making yourself an authority on all subjects philosophy.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No I'm not. Why would you say that? I know more than you or Lessans when it comes to philosophy, but that doesn't exactly make me any great expert.

That's what I meant. You most certainly do not know more than Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are condemning Lessans without even hearing his entire proof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nonsense. I have heard his entire 'proof'. He was wrong.

So spit it out if you know what his entire proof is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your negative comments will have a definite impact on whether this knowledge is received positively or negatively.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not creating anywhere near the same negative influence on the reception of his work that you are.

That's only because of how everyone is acting in here, which puts Lessans in a negative light. If this forum was more welcoming, there would be much less negative influence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank goodness you are not the final authority on this subject.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you the final authority? Or is it possible that you might be wrong about the alleged accuracy of his 'observations'?

The truth is the final authority.

[peacegirl]

Intermission time. This video is very apropos because it shows that even animals can have a guilty conscience.

Denver Official Guilty! Dog Video ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Another one for the collector.

I am guessing that she meant to write "an old wives' tale". Even then it doesn't make a lot sense in this context.

Thanks for your input. I changed my answer because it made more sense when I wrote it than when I read it back.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never mentioned "patterns" directly so there are no page numbers. I used this term because he had to have seen certain patterns of behavior after years of reading history that allowed him to make these inductive generalizations.

Thank you for this. A more straightforward admission that yours is purely a faith-based position would be difficult to imagine.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will, but I don't want to keep going back and forth from one premise to another. I want to finish up with determinism first.

Then you shouldn't be replying to this post at all, as this post does not concern determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't post that as any kind of proof. If that's what you were looking for no wonder you said that his argument presupposes. I posted this so you have an understanding of why conscience isn't always able to control behavior in today's world. It hasn't reached the necessary temperature.

Wha...? This bears no logical relation to what you were replying to. I asked: What other than my continued disagreement indicates to you that I didn't read what I most certainly have read?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole purpose of this book is to show which conditions must be met before the new world can become a reality. So many things have to change in the environment before these principles can work. That's why I am surprised that no one is interested in seeing what these changes are and how they are implemented.

What are those conditions? How will they be met? And what has to be true of conscience for it to become perfect once this occurs? How should the premise I gave you be modified on account of the role of these conditions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is as mathematically certain as any mathematical equation, therefore I cannot agree that his claims are not certain and undeniable. I understand that if it's not a priori, it must be based on empirical evidence which is a contingent truth. I really don't know how to answer you.

If his claims were mathematically certain, then they are a priori and cannot be inductive generalizations based on empirical observation as you claimed, nor can they be supported through empirical testing. Mathematical certainty and undeniability would require that denying his assumptions about conscience would imply a contradiction of some sort - which you know you cannot show.

So you need to either show how his assumptions about conscience constitute a priori knowledge by showing how denying them entails a contradiction, or accept that they can at best be a posteriori inductive generalizations in which case they cannot be mathematically certain. What you cannot do is continue flipflopping between these options or sitting on the fence between them with a finger in both pies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that Lessans' knowledge is as scientific as landing men on the moon.

And I explained why that analogy is flawed. "Scientific" means the opposite of "mathematically certain". The methods of getting men to the moon were scientific, but they were not mathematically certain. Their limited probabilistic certainty was derived from exactly the kind of empirical testing and experimentation which Lessans never did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am, but we have to get to Chapter Two. Do you feel you understand enough about Chapter One to move on?

I know enough to know what is wrong with it. Why won't you explain how you can know that conscience is innately perfect to the extent required for it to 'go up' under the specific changed circumstances of Lessans' new world? That was the whole point of this post, and you haven't addressed it anywhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not meant to support his claims. It was assumed that you understood his reasoning, and this was the last paragraph of the chapter. That's why posting out of order is not the best thing, but I have no choice. I actually have a choice but this is the best option under the circumstances.

His previous reasoning does not change the fact that what he here says is blatantly circular. He claims that understanding what follows from his assumption about conscience can explain why that assumption is correct. He says X follows from Y, and Y is explained by X. That is blatantly and viciously circular, exactly as I just explained.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You assumed that this was meant to support his claims. It was a summary of the chapter which explains why conscience gets stronger when these principles are put into effect.

I didn't assume anything other than exactly what he said. His summary is an instance of circular reasoning. If you think this summary itself does not support his claims then you shouldn't have posted it in support of his claims. If you think the rest of his chapter supports (rather than presupposes) his assumptions about conscience, then that is what you should have been, and should now be explaining to us (and I do mean explaining, not just quoting in full).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You most certainly do not know more than Lessans.

When it comes to philosophy and science I do. As do most other posters here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So spit it out if you know what his entire proof is.

I've already given you my summary. Have you forgotten already?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's probably because of everyone's influence in here. If this forum was more welcoming, there would be much less negative influence.

Like I said, the greatest source of negative influence on the reception of Lessans' ideas here is yourself. You do more to discredit him than all the rest of us combined.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is the final authority.

So you are not the final authority on these topics, and neither is Lessans. Is it possible that you might be wrong about the alleged accuracy of his 'observations'?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission time. This video is very apropos because it shows that even animals can have a guilty conscience.

Denver Official Guilty! Dog Video www.facebook.com/guiltydog - YouTube

You should have seen the follow-up video where he recognizes his owner from a photograph...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Thank you for this. A more straightforward admission that yours is purely a faith-based position would be difficult to imagine.

It's not an admission of anything. He never used the word pattern himself, but I believe seeing patterns in behavior is what allowed him to make certain generalizations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You should have seen the follow-up video where he recognizes his owner from a photograph...

Very funny.

[Lettice]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not an admission of anything. He never used the word pattern himself, but I believe seeing patterns in behavior is what allowed him to make certain generalizations.

So did he tell you that he saw patterns in Decline & Fall or have you just assumed that?
I find it strange that he never told his sole acolyte exactly what these patterns were and how he discovered them.

But I suppose being just a humble guy he didn't like to brag about it......

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not an admission of anything. He never used the word pattern himself, but I believe seeing patterns in behavior is what allowed him to make certain generalizations.

It's a faith-based position because you are admitting you believe something you have no evidence for - i.e. that he saw particular patterns which justified his generalizations. That is faith on your part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you shouldn't be replying to this post at all, as this post does not concern determinism.

It doesn't, but they were short responses. I will continue with the topic of conscience if you want.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't post that as any kind of proof. If that's what you were looking for no wonder you said that his argument presupposes. I posted this so you have an understanding of why conscience isn't always able to control behavior in today's world. It hasn't reached the necessary temperature.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wha...? This bears no logical relation to what you were replying to. I asked: What other than my continued disagreement indicates to you that I didn't read what I most certainly have read?

I don't think you understood the purpose of my post, but it's not important.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are many changes that are going to take place before these principles can work.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World pp. 177-178

Once the transition gets officially launched, that is, as soon as the
leaders have become citizens by passing their examination it will be
mathematically impossible for war to continue or begin again and the
greatest transition in the history of mankind will be well on its way.
Assuming that you fully understand what it means that man’s will is
not free, the next step in our blueprint (our diagram of how it is now
possible to remove all evil from our lives) is to remove from around
the entire earth, regardless of who gets displaced, all those people who
are in any way associated with blame including the leaders and their
subordinates (remember, everything is exactly the same except for the
written test and the IBM offices); politicians, governors, senators, all
the way up to the President and his Cabinet. Everybody
notwithstanding gets displaced if their manner of earning a living is
the least bit redolent of blame.

This raises an important question
which must be addressed. Is it humanly possible to believe that the
solution to the problem of war and crime involves the end of all
government or, to phrase it more appropriately since many aspects of
government will continue to function, the end of all authority and
control? If this is true (which is not yet proven), could the
commander in chief find any satisfaction in being denied the privilege
of making speeches as to what he is going to accomplish even though
this denial results in the very thing all the speeches in the world could
never bring about? Is it not true that if the President truly cares
about ending all war, could he possibly desire to tell others what to do
when it can be revealed in a mathematical manner that such authority
would only result in the very war he is making efforts to prevent?

Similarly, if every member of the government who is engaged in
telling others what is right and wrong should learn that the most
harmonious relations imaginable will exist on earth the moment all
government comes to an end, are these people given a choice if this is
really what they want? Because this is a very crucial point it is
imperative that you completely understand what is meant by the
mathematical corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, so I suggest that you
reread the second chapter to fully understand why any person who
judges what is right for another is absolutely wrong (as two plus two
equals five is wrong) since it strikes the first blow and demonstrates
how any judgment of another, before something is done, is an advance
accusation which offers unconscious justification to do what is
criticized by the standard imposed in the tacit blame. If you know
that you can prevent the very thing you do not want by being a certain
way, do you have a choice as to which direction you must go for
greater satisfaction?

The very first thing this book reveals in a
mathematical manner is that no individual or group of individuals can
ever again desire to govern another because it will be seen that not
governing is truly better for themselves. For this reason it is
impossible for government to discover the solution when this entails
the removal of all government. This does not mean that the
politicians are responsible for what now exists, but their removal is
necessary for the cure which will come about of their own free will.

If his claims were mathematically certain, then they are a priori and cannot be inductive generalizations based on empirical observation as you claimed, nor can they be supported through empirical testing. Mathematical certainty and undeniability would require that denying his assumptions about conscience would imply a contradiction of some sort - which you know you cannot show.

I'm very sorry if you don't like my analogy, but I believe that these principles are just as certain. They are as certain as any mathematical equation can be.

And I explained why that analogy is flawed. "Scientific" means the opposite of "mathematically certain". The methods of getting men to the moon were scientific, but they were not mathematically certain. Their limited probabilistic certainty was derived from exactly the kind of empirical testing and experimentation which Lessans never did.

They would never have sent men to the moon as an experiment unless they were certain that they were correct in their computations. This certainty was based on their knowledge of mathematics and physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am, but we have to get to Chapter Two. Do you feel you understand enough about Chapter One to move on?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know enough to know what is wrong with it. Why won't you explain how you can know that conscience is innately perfect to the extent required for it to 'go up' under the specific changed circumstances of Lessans' new world? That was the whole point of this post, and you haven't addressed it anywhere.

This whole area of conscience gets into the actual discovery, and I can't jump around. I can post a few excerpts at a time and hopefully you will begin to understand why conscience goes up. I'll post it on another page.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans: "To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate."

Me: "This is a perfect example if the very same circular reasoning you have been engaging in. What "must follow" from his new conditions will only follow if his claims about conscience are correct, so understanding these alleged consequences of his new conditions cannot also support those claims about conscience. The alleged consequences cannot explain the truth of his claims about conscience when his claims about conscience are what explains the alleged consequences."

This is not meant to support his claims. It was assumed that you understood his reasoning, and this was the last paragraph of the chapter. That's why posting out of order is not the best thing, but I have no choice. I actually have a choice but this is the best option under the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His previous reasoning does not change the fact that what he here says is blatantly circular. He claims that understanding what follows from his assumption about conscience can explain why that assumption is correct. He says X follows from Y, and Y is explained by X. That is blatantly and viciously circular, exactly as I just explained.

But he isn't saying that what follows is correct based on his assumption about conscience. He describes how conscience works by giving clear examples.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You assumed that this was meant to support his claims. It was a summary of the chapter which explains why conscience gets stronger when these principles are put into effect.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't assume anything other than exactly what he said. His summary is an instance of circular reasoning. If you think this summary itself does not support his claims then you shouldn't have posted it in support of his claims. If you think the rest of his chapter supports (rather than presupposes) his assumptions about conscience, then that is what you should have been, and should now be explaining to us (and I do mean explaining, not just quoting in full).

I will repeat: You can't tell me how I should demonstrate this knowledge. If I want to post, I'll post. If I want to elaborate, I'll elaborate. My goal is to get people to understand, and it's hard enough as it is without you telling me that I have to do this in some circumscribed way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You most certainly do not know more than Lessans.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When it comes to philosophy and science I do. As do most other posters here.

In your dreams you are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So spit it out if you know what his entire proof is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've already given you my summary. Have you forgotten already?

That was not his entire proof. It didn't even include his actual discovery which is what this whole discussion is about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's probably because of everyone's influence in here. If this forum was more welcoming, there would be much less negative influence.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Like I said, the greatest source of negative influence on the reception of Lessans' ideas here is yourself. You do more to discredit him than all the rest of us combined.

So do you think I should I leave?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is the final authority.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you are not the final authority on these topics, and neither is Lessans. Is it possible that you might be wrong about the alleged accuracy of his 'observations'?

No, because they're not wrong. If it was possible that his observations could be wrong, I would admit it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's a faith-based position because you are admitting you believe something you have no evidence for - i.e. that he saw particular patterns which justified his generalizations. That is faith on your part.

That he saw patterns in human behavior is what [I believe] allowed him to make these inductive generalizations. I'm confident that he's right because I see for myself that these principles work.

[peacegirl]

You will see how conscience is made stronger as we go through this chapter, so please be patient.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation pp. 70-71

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?

To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which
perception was utterly impossible without the development...and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see, for the very first time, how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance
of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite
principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against
his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance.
Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the one was willing
to cheat to get what she wanted while he was willing to be cheated
rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for
himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice
because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of
what he was entitled to by law.

Both of them were moving in the
direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no
understanding of this knowledge nor did the world at that time,
although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free.
Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by
turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the
synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a
contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for
being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated man. The fact
that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the
sun is also a reality but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump
for joy?

There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He
was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for
stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and
believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never
advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage
by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to
take what belonged to me I’d fight him tooth and nail. Turning the
other cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which
is why many people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly
possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes
back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or
retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to
hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human
conduct.

Most of mankind is compelled, for greater satisfaction, to
move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should
suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is
not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to
extend it, to see exactly where it takes us; something that investigators
like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them
from opening the door beyond the vestibule.

The fact that man’s will
is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction
of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get greater satisfaction
in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means
that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your
realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this
knowledge is understood we will be compelled to continue living in the
world of free will, otherwise, we would only make matters worse for
ourselves.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't, but they were short responses. I will continue with the topic of conscience if you want.

But you haven't. In this whole post you've done nothing whatsoever to establish or explain what his arguments must presuppose about conscience, or what his examples actually demonstrate about the nature of conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are many changes that are going to take place before these principles can work.

<snip>

I'll ask you again (for the third time now): What are the conditions? How will they be met? And what has to be true of conscience for it to become perfect once this occurs? How should the premise I gave you be modified on account of the role of these conditions?

(Your latest copypaste establishes only the removal of blame, which is obviously not an additional and distinct condition from the removal of blame.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm very sorry if you don't like my analogy, but I believe that these principles are just as certain. They are as certain as any mathematical equation can be.

They would never have sent men to the moon as an experiment unless they were certain that they were correct in their computations. This certainty was based on their knowledge of mathematics and physics.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking your analogy. It has been demonstrated to be inaccurate. His principles are not as certain as any mathematical equation, because the former but not the latter can be denied without contradiction. You cannot just assert that his principles have a priori certainty. You must earn that by demonstration (showing their denial to lead to contradiction).

The certainty of the principles used to get to the moon was very high, but it was not mathematically certain. It was only very probable, and that degree of certainty was due to the kind of extensive empirical testing which Lessans never did.

If you want his claims to have the certainty of mathematics, then you need to support them with demonstrative deductive proofs showing their denial to be contradictory. And if you want his claims to have the certainty of science, then you need to support them with empirical experimental evidence.

But you can't claim either kind of certainty while providing neither proof nor evidence, and it is completely retarded to try to claim both together by conflating the two.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he isn't saying that what follows is correct based on his assumption about conscience. He describes how conscience works by giving clear examples.

What is in question here is the very assumptions about conscience which his examples presuppose. And you haven't addressed the circularity here at all. Lessans claims conscience is such that it will go up under his changed conditions. How do we know that? He says we can know this by looking at how people will behave under his changed conditions. But we don't know that they will behave as he describes unless we assume his account of conscience to be correct! It is hopelessly circular.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat: You can't tell me how I should demonstrate this knowledge. If I want to post, I'll post. If I want to elaborate, I'll elaborate. My goal is to get people to understand, and it's hard enough as it is without you telling me that I have to do this in some circumscribed way.

Clearly your only goal is to keep using the same flawed methods and techniques, whether they get people to understand or not. A sane person would not still be using the exact same methods which after 8+ years have failed to get a single person anywhere to 'understand' (i.e. agree).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not his entire proof. It didn't even include his actual discovery which is what this whole discussion is about.

My summary covered his entire first 'discovery'. If you think something crucial was missing, feel free to inform us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because they're not wrong. If it was possible that his observations could be wrong, I would admit it.

So now you are the final authority again, as he could not possibly be wrong unless you were aware of it, in which case you would admit it. Why can you not admit that you are not infallible in your judgment of the alleged accuracy of his 'observations'?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That he saw patterns in human behavior is what [I believe] allowed him to make these inductive generalizations. I'm confident that he's right because I see for myself that these principles work.

You believe that they will work because you have completely unsupported faith that he was able to base his generalizations on specific yet completely unknown patterns of behaviour.

Why are you so completely blind to your own faith?