A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only describe to you how conscience works under the changed conditions. I can't tell you why it works that way; that you'll have to take up with God.

Even if you can't explain why conscience does, or will, work the way Lessans claims, you should be able to explain how he knows that it works, or will work, that way (the claim that this was the result of his "astute observations" does not constitute an adequate explanation) and why anyone else should believe his claims.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only describe to you how conscience works under the changed conditions. I can't tell you why it works that way; that you'll have to take up with God.

As for taking the matter up with God, is this the same god that is synonymous with the impersonal laws of the universe? If so, how do you propose that someone take up any matter with such a god?

This raises one of my particular beefs. That is, the inconsistent and equivocal way you and Lessans use the term 'God'. If I understand Lessans' position correctly he intends that the word God should be understood as synonymous with the impersonal forces and laws of the universe. I have no particular objection to him using the word that way. Both pantheism and panentheism have respectable pedigrees. My objection is to your and Lessans' inconsistent and equivocal use of the word. Both of you repeatedly use the term 'God' in a manner that suggests that this God has a plan for the universe and acts with intentionality. Those are characteristics of a personal deity. They are not characteristics that one could reasonably apply to an impersonal force or body of laws. So, make up your mind. Either use the term 'God' in a manner that is consistent with God being synonymous with the laws and forces governing the universe or use it in a manner that is consistent with God being an intentional and personal deity. To coin a phrase, you can't have your pudding and eat it too.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the compatibilist definition is fine in the sense that we have the ability to choose. Lessans made that very clear. He said he often used the expression "I did it of my own free will" which only means "I did it because I wanted to". But that doesn't mean we actually have free will. I'm being very rational.

But you've now reversed your previous position and started claiming that on Lessans' view we still have moral responsibility. That means his view not only satisfies the definition of compatibilist free will, but is also consistent with the thesis of free will (which says that meeting this definition is sufficient for moral responsibility). That means the kind of free will he thinks we still have is a significant and morally relevant version of free will. On his view we act according to our choices and retain our moral responsibility. So his account is a version of compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not repeating the claims you're asking me to justify. I'm explaining why conscience won't allow us to hurt others as we extend the corollary "Thou Shall Not Blame". I can only describe to you how conscience works under the changed conditions. I can't tell you why it works that way; that you'll have to take up with God.

You've used this weasel-response before and been called on it. But you just don't learn, do you? I'm not asking you to explain why conscience works the way it actually does. I'm asking you to support the claim that it works the way you and Lessans claim it does, by explaining how you can know these claims to be true.

Your response also reveals another questionable presupposition about conscience, as you are presupposing that it is something gifted to us from a deity, rather than an evolved and imperfect aspect of our cognitive psychology. These are exactly the kind of assumptions I've been asking you to identify and support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We cannot begin to feel morally responsible if we are able to shift the blame to others as the cause for what we know we did...

There's no blame or guilt to shift if we know we are only 'responsible' but not morally responsible for the action. And if we are morally responsible, then blame will be just as justifiable as guilt via conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't fool your conscience into believing that your actions are acceptable, which is why these principles work.

Conscience won't need fooling if the person knows they were simply compelled to move in their direction of greater satisfaction. They will know they were not morally responsible and therefore will not feel guilty. If this doesn't work for a person's conscience, then it hasn't convinced that person. And if it doesn't convince him, then why would it convince anyone else, as it must to prevent blame?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we know intuitively when we are hurting someone. Yes, if I didn't realize I took your dinner from the fridge and ate it, then of course I wouldn't feel sorry until it was pointed out to me, and then I'd make restitution, but our conscience knows what a serious hurt is. Actually, our conscience will be so strong in the new world that we would not want to take advantage of anyone's mistakes, even if we could. For example, if we were given the wrong change by mistake, we would be compelled to return it. In this world most of us would find reasons to keep it.

This has nothing to do with the point you were replying to. Nor have you ever explained why conscience will be 'so strong' in the new world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, this is much harder than I thought. This entire equation is for the purpose of making us feel morally responsible, but there's a difference between the term "moral responsibility" and "responsibility". I can be responsible for doing something to someone, and not feel morally responsible. This law increases our moral responsibility tenfold in a "no blame" world.

Could you possibly be any less consistent? What was the point of your distinguishing between 'responsibility' and 'moral responsibility', if you're going to claim now that we are still morally responsible for our actions in the no-blame world? The whole point of the distinction was to allow you to claim that we do have responsibility (because we can't we compelled to act against our will) while we don't have moral responsibility (due to the satisfaction principle). Now you say we'll have even more moral responsibility than before.

Please pick a position and stick with it: Do we have moral responsibility for our actions under his changed conditions or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you loud and clear what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, but if you can't see it, that's your problem.

When you say something this blatantly and obviously false, you make it very hard for us to attribute your comment to mental illness rather than pure dishonesty. You have never once even tried to answer my question by telling me what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, nor have tried to support or justify these presuppositions. Every single time I've asked you this question you've simply ignored or evaded it. Every. Single. Time.

Prove me wrong. Please quote for me the post where I asked this question and you attempted to present an answer to it.

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Vivisectus]

I do not think we will ever see an answer to that question, because the book has none. The book just says that it is so, and then continues as if it is self-evident that the author is right. It seems that no-one ever critically examined this book and mentioned to him that this is the case.

If there was a convincing argument to be made, then she would have made it by now. Claiming there is one without providing it is the next best option, for this still allows her to pretend the system works, and just dismiss all indications to the contrary. So there is an answer, but look! The meanies won't let me get to it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Dishonest little weasel. Saying that the list does not prove Lessans wrong is meaningless; you have to show WHY the list does not make Lessans wrong.

Lessans claimed we see in real-time. Anyone with an ordinary inexpensive telescope who points it at the moons of Jupiter can DISPROVE real-time seeing. We walked you through this step-by-step repeatedly, and in the end you were forced to agree that the moons of Jupiter example refuted real-time seeing.

If the moons of Jupiter example refutes real-time seeing, how, then, can you continue to maintain that Lessans was right about real-time seeing?

All the other examples on Dragar's list also refute real-time seeing; unless you can explain, in detail, why this is wrong -- why those items on the list don't refute real-time seeing -- then everyone on this forum, and indeed anyone you encounter on any forum, or in real life, will regard you either as a pathological liar, mentally ill, or both.

In sum, it's not enough to simply say that Dragar's list fails to refute real-time seeing, since clearly each item on the list DOES refute real-time seeing. You have to show, with a detailed step-by-step explanation, WHY those items on the list fail to refute real-time seeing.

And, of course, you CAN'T DO THAT, because those items on his list do indeed refute real-time seeing; refute it incontrovertibly. Therefore you are reduced to the pathetic, pathological liar that you are: sticking your fingers in your ears and whining "Iz not!" at reality itself.

No David, I don't have to refute that list. All I have to do is show how Lessans came to his conclusion that we see in real time. If he's right about his observations then that causes a conflict with an established "fact". I'm sorry this has caused such an upheaval (I had no idea there would be this much contention) but I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As far as I can tell, we have Lessans the Infallible Scholar of Human Nature who managed to write a book that does not convince anyone, makes predictions that do not come true, appears to fail to notice that a central part of the book is based on his claim alone, and then makes some more claims that require a re-write of modern physics... without noticing! At no point does he even indicate that he is aware that anything but our attitude towards the eyes as a sense organ needs to change! Nor does he seem to be aware that the only reasons given for this radical departure are common misconceptions about dog-sight and infant sight: the entire description of how we see beauty because we are conditioned to see what is not really there is an extension of the previous and extremely thinly supported claim.

The radical departure is based on his astute observations. Dog-sight and infant-sight only confirm what he knew to be true. The empirical tests that are trying to say that dogs can recognize their masters from pictures and the ciliary muscle is responsible for the inability of infants to focus their eyes are not conclusive. Moreover, his claim does not change all of physics. I have no idea where you got this from. Physics, light, the eyes, all work the same way. The only thing that changes is that we see in real time, which means that we don't interpret images of objects from light alone; we see those objects directly using the same light but as a condition, not a cause.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet this is the same man whose say-so we have to trust enough to venture into an enormous social experiment. This man who seems to have been oblivious to the complete lack of evidence, who did not seem to realize that people would want some kind of explanation, a compelling reason to believe that what he said was not just some stuff he made up and liked to believe!

I don't consider this a social experiment. That to me indicates that an experiment is high risk. There can only be good from this "social experiment", especially when the first thing that needs to be done is for the leaders of all nations to destroy their weapons.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So while he was capable of divining the hitherto unplumbed depths of the human psyche by means of the much-vaunted "astute observation", he was unable to spot that he was asking radical social change without providing any evidence, any compelling reason for us to believe that it would work?

His evidence is there not in the form of empiricism because that would have been impossible, but through understanding man's nature through his careful observations. Sometimes an observations comes first; then the proof follows. He was so ahead of his time it's no wonder I'm getting this kind of response. People can't wrap their mind around the possibility of world peace.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why is the work of this supposed unprecedented genius so utterly unconvincing? Why does it not do what he said it would - IE start the revolution? It has been more than half a century, and already you have been forced to copy the early Christians and move your version of the Second Coming into some hazy afterlife.

It's unfair to bring up a half a century because this book was never distributed. The number of people that know about this book is a drop in the bucket. And his third discovery has nothing to do with his first discovery, so why are you trying to mix the two together? He doesn't refer to a Second Coming. He does refer to a Golden Age, which is an age of peace and prosperity that is not just a wish or a dream. In the sense that the Christians have hope of a better world (not just a hazy afterlife), they were right to have this hope. They are not just Polyanna's.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How could he be so foolish about what it takes to convince people? If he could see what makes people tick, would he not have written a book that would convince them?

There's nothing wrong with the book; mankind is just not ready for it. The time will come when this knowledge is accepted because it's true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And if he simply did that as best he could, is it not also reasonable that he did the rest of his thinking as best he could as well, but that that best was perhaps not quite on the earth-shattering level he imagined it was?

No. If this book is genuine, it is quite earth-shattering which is why I believe there is so much skepticism.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can you not at least see how this would be how it can strike someone who is not already convinced that he is a genius?

I can see why, but that doesn't change the authenticity of his discovery.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except the laws of nature don't have a timetable, nor do they give a shit about human undertakings such as bringing about new worlds.

You can't have it both ways. Either God is nature's laws -which don't feel, think, or plan- so ascribing human traits to them is meaningless rhetoric, or God is a guiding force with human-like cognitive processes and emotions.

From a week ago. This speaks to Ang's point too.

Scientific discoveries do not rely on Deus Ex Machina to work and Lessans uses it frequently.

If he's right about his observations then that causes a conflict with an established "fact". I'm sorry this has caused such an upheaval (I had no idea there would be this much contention) but I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed.

So you're back to it being a belief system.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1015265]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As far as I can tell, we have Lessans the Infallible Scholar of Human Nature who managed to write a book that does not convince anyone, makes predictions that do not come true, appears to fail to notice that a central part of the book is based on his claim alone, and then makes some more claims that require a re-write of modern physics... without noticing! At no point does he even indicate that he is aware that anything but our attitude towards the eyes as a sense organ needs to change! Nor does he seem to be aware that the only reasons given for this radical departure are common misconceptions about dog-sight and infant sight: the entire description of how we see beauty because we are conditioned to see what is not really there is an extension of the previous and extremely thinly supported claim.

The radical departure is based on his astute observations. Dog-sight and infant-sight only confirm what he knew to be true.

Ah! More astute observations. In other words, cases were have to take his word for it.

We are talking about common misconceptions about dog sight and infant sight. Tests have proven them to be just that.

The empirical tests that are trying to say that dogs can recognize their masters from pictures and the ciliary muscle is responsible for the inability of infants to focus their eyes are not conclusive.

You deem them inconclusive solely because they contradict Lessans! Because what is missing here is you explaining in any way what was inconclusive about them. I guess just claiming things and not backing them up runs in the family.

Moreover, his claim does not change all of physics. I have no idea where you got this from. Physics, light, the eyes, all work the same way. The only thing that changes is that we see in real time, which means that we don't interpret images of objects from light alone; we see those objects directly using the same light but as a condition, not a cause.

And as has been explained to you, seeing in real time requires that we change all of physics. It entails instant transfer of information, for starters. Trying to hide behind ignorance does not make that go away.

I don't consider this a social experiment. That to me indicates that an experiment is high risk. There can only be good from this "social experiment", especially when the first thing that needs to be done is for the leaders of all nations to destroy their weapons.

Not an experiment? That is an amazingly ideosyncratic definition of social experiment you have there, then.

His evidence is there not in the form of empiricism because that would have been impossible, but through understanding man's nature through his careful observations. Sometimes an observations comes first; then the proof follows. He was so ahead of his time it's no wonder I'm getting this kind of response. People can't wrap their mind around the possibility of world peace.

There is no non-empirical other support either - just a claim. If this is not the case then please produce it. There is no reason to believe that he was right: all we have evidence for is that he felt it worked like he said it would. Because of "astute observations", a concept you use like a magic wand whenever someone says "prove it!" to pretend that you do not need evidence.

It's unfair to bring up a half a century because this book was never distributed. The number of people that know about this book is a drop in the bucket. And his third discovery has nothing to do with his first discovery, so why are you trying to mix the two together? He doesn't refer to a Second Coming. He does refer to a Golden Age, which is an age of peace and prosperity that is not just a wish or a dream. In the sense that the Christians have hope of a better world (not just a hazy afterlife), they were right to have this hope. They are not just Polyanna's.

The facts remain nonetheless. His predictions failed, his book is utterly unconvincing, and now the promised golden age is suddenly going to happen long after we are all safely dead, so you will never have to face up to the fact that it will never happen, even though the book explicitly states that it would happen before the last century was over.

I realize that you have decided this is because we just have the wrong kind of reality, so you are waiting for a new one to show up, but to the rest of us that is just crazy.

There's nothing wrong with the book; mankind is just not ready for it. The time will come when this knowledge is accepted because it's true.

And there we have it: it is not that this book, which was supposed to transform mankind half a century ago, does not work. It is just that we have the wrong kind of mankind! But soon,mankind will be different somehow and then the book will work.

In other words: since the book conflicts with reality, there must be something wrong with reality! Well done! You have made another important discovery about the nature of your belief in this book. Will it change anything for you, I wonder?

No. If this book is genuine, it is quite earth-shattering which is why I believe there is so much skepticism.

Amazing how you can always have your cake and eat it. So the book that was supposed to transform this mankind (it explicitly says so) but didn't, and that was apparently written for a different mankind is nevertheless perfect now as well as in the future after we are dead, when people are going to be so different that they will find it convincing enough to begin a global social engineering project?

Fascinating!

Do you realize that you are now consistently rejecting reality in favour of your belief?

I can see why, but that doesn't change the authenticity of his discovery.

Actually it rather does. Remember - we are to accept that things work the way he says merely because he says so. We also have to rely on the book to convince people to start adopting it.

Relying in us deciding to trust his word on the basis of his supposed genius, a genius that certainly is not evident from his writings, is rather a shortcoming.

The question remains: if he was such a genius, how come the book is so unconvincing? How come the only person he managed to persuade was you? If the book was meant only for the future, when apparently critical thinking will have deteriorated enough to make this book palatable (when I look around me and see the kind of preposterous things people believe in, I would say it is not inconceivable!) then why does the book explicitly state that the revolution would have already happened by now?

Either he was wrong about mankind, or he was wrong about how his own system.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As for taking the matter up with God, is this the same god that is synonymous with the impersonal laws of the universe? If so, how do you propose that someone take up any matter with such a god?

This raises one of my particular beefs. That is, the inconsistent and equivocal way you and Lessans use the term 'God'. If I understand Lessans' position correctly he intends that the word God should be understood as synonymous with the impersonal forces and laws of the universe. I have no particular objection to him using the word that way. Both pantheism and panentheism have respectable pedigrees. My objection is to your and Lessans' inconsistent and equivocal use of the word. Both of you repeatedly use the term 'God' in a manner that suggests that this God has a plan for the universe and acts with intentionality. Those are characteristics of a personal deity. They are not characteristics that one could reasonably apply to an impersonal force or body of laws. So, make up your mind. Either use the term 'God' in a manner that is consistent with God being synonymous with the laws and forces governing the universe or use it in a manner that is consistent with God being an intentional and personal deity. To coin a phrase, you can't have your pudding and eat it too.

@ Peacegirl: For brevity, you could just tell us whether your interactions with your God are afferent or efferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

@ Peacegirl: For brevity, you could just tell us whether your interactions with your God are afferent or efferent.

I know you couldn't help yourself, especially with the conditioning that is happening in this thread. Because of this I need to ask you in definite terms: Have you now become a part of the mob with no ability to think for yourself? Just wondering Ceptimus because you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

[Vivisectus]

Don't worry. Come the revolution, he will be the first against the wall.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1015268][quote=LadyShea;1012844]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Except the laws of nature don't have a timetable, nor do they give a shit about human undertakings such as bringing about new worlds.

You can't have it both ways. Either God is nature's laws -which don't feel, think, or plan- so ascribing human traits to them is meaningless rhetoric, or God is a guiding force with human-like cognitive processes and emotions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From a week ago. This speaks to Ang's point too.

Scientific discoveries do not rely on Deux Ex Machina to work and Lessans uses it frequently.

Why the French LadyShea? Does that make your response more believable? No it doesn't. It just shows me that you're grasping for anything that will prove Lessans wrong. BUT HE ISN'T WRONG.

The fact that you are so cozy with your fellow participants only adds to the prejudice I see in here because you don't want to be wrong. That's the bottom line. You want to preserve your belief that you are the epitome of knowledge and therefore can shoot down wrong knowledge. It's not that different from a witch hunt, just a different time in history.

If he's right about his observations then that causes a conflict with an established "fact". I'm sorry this has caused such an upheaval (I had no idea there would be this much contention) but I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you're back to it being a belief system.

Of course I am. You're dogmatic belief that you're right (based on your impeccable qualifications, which is inaccurate) gives no more credibility to what you believe than what I know is true. I know you're trying to ruin Lessans with every bone in your body, but you won't be able to do it because he's not wrong. We can end this discussion at any time, but it does not mean that this knowledge was wrong. It just means that you were incapable of understanding the principles.

[Vivisectus]

Why the French LadyShea?

So am I allowed to say that it is Latin and that I find that funny, or does that imply there are people who do not speak either French or Latin so well, thus doing them a grave disservice and harming them by making them feel bad about themselves? I know ignorant or uneducated is right out, but I am vague on this particular instance.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed.

I've always thought that Harlan Ellison said it best with regard to the "everybody's entitled to an opinion" nonsense.

I'm paraphrasing from memory here from an interview I once saw on television.

"People like to say that 'everyone is entitled to his opinion.' That's the reasoning of an idiot. Let me be clear: no you do not have a right to your own opinion. You have the right to an informed opinion. If your opinion is not based on facts and logic, then you're only exposing yourself as an idiot -- and so your opinion is worthless."

[Vivisectus]

Of course I am. You're dogmatic belief that you're right

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why the French LadyShea? Does that make your response more believable? No it doesn't. It just shows me that you're grasping for anything that will prove Lessans wrong. BUT HE ISN'T WRONG.

The fact that you are so cozy with your fellow participants only adds to the prejudice I see in here because you don't want to be wrong. That's the bottom line. You want to preserve your belief that you are the epitome of knowledge and therefore can shoot down wrong knowledge. It's not that different from a witch hunt, just a different time in history.

Quite the persecution complex you have there. FYI, it's Latin, not French, a phrase referring to the use of supernatural or unexplained phenomena to solve problems in a story or narrative. In a work such as Lessans', it could be accurately used both to describe his apparent attitude toward an actual god (he is always talking about how all is according to God's plan, and God's timetable, and isn't God wonderful, and how God made people this way so that it will all work out in the end), and to the use of his own "astute observations" to shut down criticism of his "discoveries." The latter of which you are particularly good at parroting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't worry. Come the revolution, he will be the first against the wall.

Against the wall? This makes me feel like I'm back in Alice in Wonderland where people are so lost that they can't find their way out. Great trick Vivisectus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the kind of post that is a total waste of time; just as much a waste as the Christians who say peace is coming. You're losing ground Vivisecus, and you don't know it. The people who agree with you are your cronies. This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever encountered, and I have encountered quite a few.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the kind of post that is a total waste of time; just as much a waste as the Christians who say peace is coming. You're losing ground Vivisecus, and you don't know it. The people who agree with you are your cronies. This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever encountered, and I have encountered quite a few.

I bow to your expertise on ridiculous threads. It seems all you need to do is appear on a forum, and they happen almost immediately, doesn't it?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you couldn't help yourself,

You know that about everyone - you believe that we all 'must move towards greater satisfaction' which is the same as saying that everyone is a mindless zombie.

- especially with the conditioning that is happening in this thread.

I've read very little of this thread. Still, I suppose there is a chance that I've been conditioned by the bits I have read.

Because of this I need to ask you in definite terms: Have you now become a part of the mob with no ability to think for yourself?

See my answer to part one above.

Just wondering Ceptimus because you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

That's right!

[Vivisectus]

This is true, there is terrible conditioning in this thread. Every time someone says "Astute Observation" I have become conditioned to eat a cookie.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is true, there is terrible conditioning in this thread. Every time someone says "Astute Observation" I have become conditioned to eat a cookie.

Fun fun, it's all in fun. Unfortunately, while you are having fun, this world is a mess.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You know that about everyone - you believe that we all 'must move towards greater satisfaction' which is the same as saying that everyone is a mindless zombie.

It means nothing of the sort, but it does mean that we must do what we think is best.

I've read very little of this thread. Still, I suppose there is a chance that I've been conditioned by the bits I have read.

Of course we're all conditioned to hearing certain words and getting comfortable with them, but this is not proof.

Because of this I need to ask you in definite terms: Have you now become a part of the mob with no ability to think for yourself?

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

See my answer to part one above.

I don't need to. You just told me who you are.

That's right!

Ceptimus, with all due respect, you are no different from the rest; premature in your conclusions. It's okay, I'm use to it but what you have to say, therefore, means nothing.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fun fun, it's all in fun. Unfortunately, while you are having fun, this world is a mess.

Fortunately the book is infallible, and so the revolution already started about a dozen years ago. It better have, or else I will have bought this sexy jacket and translucent robe for nothing.