Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #10526  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:13 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know Spacemonkey. This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested.
Claiming it has empirical content and can be falsified is just another empty faith claim until you can specify the nonactual but possible counterfactual circumstances in which it would be false. If you don't know what those circumstances are, then you don't know that it is falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable then it is a tautology.
So if I can't prove a possible counterfactual circumstance that would make it false, it can still be proven true by creating a no blame environment on a smaller scale. Therefore it can be empirically tested for its truth value.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10527  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:47 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know Spacemonkey. This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested.
Claiming it has empirical content and can be falsified is just another empty faith claim until you can specify the nonactual but possible counterfactual circumstances in which it would be false. If you don't know what those circumstances are, then you don't know that it is falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable then it is a tautology.
So if I can't prove a possible counterfactual circumstance that would make it false, it can still be proven true by creating a no blame environment on a smaller scale. Therefore it can be empirically tested for its truth value.
Nope, sorry. Something for which there are no possible counterfactual circumstances that would make it false is a proposition with no empirical content, and so cannot be proven either true or false. It cannot be tested at all. You cannot test something until you know what potential results would show it to be wrong.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-05-2012), But (12-05-2012), LadyShea (12-05-2012)
  #10528  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:09 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
It wasn't me. I blame thedoc.

In any case, it was not your first thread that thedoc brought back. It was your second thread (notice where it says Part Two in the title). Your first thread as never been out of commission.
At least Peacegirls threads have never been out of commission?
I wasn't paying attention to what thread it was. I don't have the time for this nonsense.

And yet you are spending time responding to 'This Nonsense".
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-05-2012)
  #10529  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:21 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never heard that a law of nature (which is by definition true in all circumstances; no one's will is free) cannot be proven or falsified.
Bzzzt. A law of nature is true in all actual but not all logically possible counterfactual circumstances. A tautology or logical truth is true in both. We've explained this to you before.
I am using the term "law of nature" in actual circumstances which can be proven.
Which means there must be nonactual but possible counterfactual circumstances where it would be false. So in what possible circumstances would Lessans' claims about satisfaction and free will have been false?
None that I know of. I don't see where there could be possible counterfactual circumstances where this could be false.
Then it is not falsifiable.
It might be the case that Peacegirl is just parroting words that she only thinks she understands. I know there are terms here that are new to me and from context I think I understand them, but just in case, and to be sure we are all on the same page, could these terms be clearly defined 'for sake of argument'.
-Counterfactual,
-Falsifable,
-Nonactual,
Sorry if I'm just being thick, but I don't like being on the outside looking in.
Reply With Quote
  #10530  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:19 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Counterfactual-running counter to facts or a counterfactual conditional statement (if then type statements where the "if" is not a fact). For example "if we could see in real time, then instantaneous transfer of information would be possible"

Falsifiable- basically falsifiability means that if a hypothesis is wrong (false) then it can be demonstrated to be false by empirical means. Statements/theses that are not falsifiable can't really be scientifically tested...it must be at least theoretically possible to get results that disprove the idea for a test to be devised

The statement "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction" isn't falsifiable, because greater satisfaction cannot be quantified or measured or objectively observed, and there is no way to test if someone is moving in a metaphorical direction, and there is no way to anticipate what kinds of empirical results would indicate it is false.

Nonactual-Possible and plausible things that can happen or can have happened but did not or do not actually happen.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-05-2012), ceptimus (12-05-2012), Crumb (12-05-2012), Dragar (12-05-2012), Spacemonkey (12-05-2012), thedoc (12-05-2012)
  #10531  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:19 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

duplicated
Reply With Quote
  #10532  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:35 AM
The Bodhisattva The Bodhisattva is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: X
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Reply With Quote
  #10533  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:45 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Gah, dupe again
Reply With Quote
  #10534  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:45 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

This is the second thread. The first one is even longer.

The IIDB threads (4 or 5?) were really long, but they closed them. Other forums have closed her threads too. We don't close threads here...so indefinite lifespan.
Reply With Quote
  #10535  
Old 12-05-2012, 08:56 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Hmm, there is the countdown from one million thread.
Reply With Quote
  #10536  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:10 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Isn't it gloriously idiotic?
Reply With Quote
  #10537  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:41 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Counterfactual-running counter to facts or a counterfactual conditional statement (if then type statements where the "if" is not a fact). For example "if we could see in real time, then instantaneous transfer of information would be possible"

Falsifiable- basically falsifiability means that if a hypothesis is wrong (false) then it can be demonstrated to be false by empirical means. Statements/theses that are not falsifiable can't really be scientifically tested...it must be at least theoretically possible to get results that disprove the idea for a test to be devised

The statement "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction" isn't falsifiable, because greater satisfaction cannot be quantified or measured or objectively observed, and there is no way to test if someone is moving in a metaphorical direction, and there is no way to anticipate what kinds of empirical results would indicate it is false.

Nonactual-Possible and plausible things that can happen or can have happened but did not or do not actually happen.
I have already expressed (have you not been paying attention?) that we can't see someone moving in the direction of greater satisfaction directly, but we can see the results of this. If it is impossible for man to hurt another under the changed conditions (which can be created in a test format), we could easily look at the results to determine whether Lessans' was right or not. So you don't know what you are talking about when you say that "greater satisfaction" cannot be tested for accuracy. For once LadyShea, admit that you are wrong or you have no credibility with me whatsoever. :(
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10538  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:44 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
This is an indirect proof which can be empirically tested.
If it can't be falsified it can't be empirically tested. You need to come up with a counterfactual conditional "if/then" statement in order to determine falsifiability or a non-actual hypothetical where your claim holds true.

So can you come up with the "then" part of the following: "If the greater satisfaction principle is false, then X would be the result of a an empirical test"

Can you respond to Spacemonkey's hypothetical of an amnesiac watching a video of a crime and what he/she might feel?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-05-2012), Spacemonkey (12-05-2012)
  #10539  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Isn't it gloriously idiotic?
Who is Bodhisattva? This person hasn't offered one post and yet can so easily condemn. This person either isn't real (a bot), or he is incapable of hearing anything that questions his own worldview, which is most likely the case.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 12-05-2012 at 09:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10540  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
This is an indirect proof which can be empirically tested.
If it can't be falsified it can't be empirically tested. You need to come up with a counterfactual conditional "if/then" statement in order to determine falsifiability or a non-actual hypothetical where your claim holds true.

So can you come up with the "then" part of the following: "If the greater satisfaction principle is false, then X would be the result of a an empirical test"
I don't have to come up with a story that this principle is false in order to prove it is true. I just explained how it could be done by observing how a person reacts when this principle is in effect. If this has to be tested on a smaller scale, then so be it. The bottom line is: It can be tested for accuracy without creating a situation where it would be false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Can you respond to Spacemonkey's hypothetical of an amnesiac watching a video of a crime and what he/she might feel?
His hypothetical video of a crime is useless here because crime will be prevented in the new world, so there is no such judgment whether I performed the crime or someone else. Every person has to judge himself according to his life circumstances. I would not think it is wrong if I had performed a crime that I felt was in my best interest, and I wouldn't judge someone else, because they chose to do it as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction for reasons unknown to me. Only when the desire to hurt another becomes the worst possible choice can we change people's behavior. But in order for this to occur, we need to remove the judgment, the blame, and the punishment. It's ironic that until we remove the very blame and punishment that was necessary in order for mankind to develop to this point, it will never carry us to the home stretch. Why can't you see this LadyShea or at least admit that you aren't sure? We move in a certain direction because it makes sense to us, not because of what other people judge as right or wrong. Don't you see why this hypothetical movie doesn't apply?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10541  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:09 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Isn't it gloriously idiotic?
Who the fuck is Bodhisattva? This person hasn't offered one post and yet can so easily condemn. This person either isn't real (a bot), or he is incapable of hearing anything that questions his own worldview, which is most likely the case.
Do you still not understand what a bot is? Are you incapable of using the forum tools to determine information about other members?

Given that Bodhisattva is a term from Buddhism, that's a good first clue that the forum member may be Buddhist. Buddhists are generally open to hearing other worldviews.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (12-05-2012)
  #10542  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:13 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
This is an indirect proof which can be empirically tested.
If it can't be falsified it can't be empirically tested. You need to come up with a counterfactual conditional "if/then" statement in order to determine falsifiability or a non-actual hypothetical where your claim holds true.

So can you come up with the "then" part of the following: "If the greater satisfaction principle is false, then X would be the result of a an empirical test"
I don't have to come up with a story that this principle is false in order to prove it is true.
Yes, you do. That's how empirical claims work.

Quote:
since a law claim is universal in scope (in simplest form, "All As everywhere and everywhen are Bs"), it cannot possibly be verified: there are always actual or potential instances beyond those so far observed. Yet a universal claim can be falsified by a single negative instance.

Since law claims can be falsified but not verified, Popper concluded that the way to truth is indirect, by elimination of falsehood.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/9302/...fiability.html

Last edited by LadyShea; 12-05-2012 at 04:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-05-2012), Spacemonkey (12-05-2012)
  #10543  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:56 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Let's add some further conditionals to the hypothetical then

Quote:
His hypothetical video of a crime is useless here because crime will be prevented in the new world, so there is no such judgment whether I performed the crime or someone else.
The crime is committed during the Great Transition, so not everyone is a citizen yet. The amnesiac does not know whether he/she is or is not a citizen, and does not know if the crime is being committed by him or herself or another person.

Quote:
Every person has to judge himself according to his life circumstances. I would not think it is wrong if I had performed a crime that I felt was in my best interest, and I wouldn't judge someone else, because they chose to do it as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction for reasons unknown to me.
This person is watching a robbery and assault, for example. Due to amnesia the person does not know if the person beating up and robbing another person is him or herself.

How do you think the person would feel watching such an act?
Reply With Quote
  #10544  
Old 12-05-2012, 05:21 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
This is the second thread. The first one is even longer.

The IIDB threads (4 or 5?) were really long, but they closed them. Other forums have closed her threads too. We don't close threads here...so indefinite lifespan.

The thread on Dissident Philosophy is still open but no-one has posted on it since Oct. 19 '11 and Peacegirls last post was Mar. 20 '11, the rest of us just chatted for awhile. And Peacegirl actually left that forum of her own free will. But it had started to get seriously off topic, talking about grandchildren and murder cases. The odd thing is that there were 1 or 2 people who seemed to be buying into her ideas, makes you wonder why she left?

A revolution in thought
Reply With Quote
  #10545  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:53 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Adequately Crumbulent
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LXMMDXLVIII
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Hmm, there is the countdown from one million thread.
:offended: But that thread has a clear and well defined point. :glare:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (12-05-2012), Stephen Maturin (12-05-2012)
  #10546  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know Spacemonkey. This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested.
Claiming it has empirical content and can be falsified is just another empty faith claim until you can specify the nonactual but possible counterfactual circumstances in which it would be false. If you don't know what those circumstances are, then you don't know that it is falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable then it is a tautology.
So if I can't prove a possible counterfactual circumstance that would make it false, it can still be proven true by creating a no blame environment on a smaller scale. Therefore it can be empirically tested for its truth value.
Nope, sorry. Something for which there are no possible counterfactual circumstances that would make it false is a proposition with no empirical content, and so cannot be proven either true or false. It cannot be tested at all. You cannot test something until you know what potential results would show it to be wrong.
If the changed environmental conditions that Lessans claims would prevent someone from striking a first blow did not work in the way he proposed, it would prove that man can choose to hurt others in a no blame society, and this would be evidence that he was wrong.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10547  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Isn't it gloriously idiotic?
Who is Bodhisattva? This person hasn't offered one post and yet can so easily condemn. This person either isn't real (a bot), or he is incapable of hearing anything that questions his own worldview, which is most likely the case.
Do you still not understand what a bot is? Are you incapable of using the forum tools to determine information about other members?

Given that Bodhisattva is a term from Buddhism, that's a good first clue that the forum member may be Buddhist. Buddhists are generally open to hearing other worldviews.
I figured that he was from India, but that's not the point LadyShea. I cannot believe what some people say having not asked a question or participated at all. To say that this thread is pointless is pure ignorance.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10548  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Let's add some further conditionals to the hypothetical then

Quote:
His hypothetical video of a crime is useless here because crime will be prevented in the new world, so there is no such judgment whether I performed the crime or someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The crime is committed during the Great Transition, so not everyone is a citizen yet. The amnesiac does not know whether he/she is or is not a citizen, and does not know if the crime is being committed by him or herself or another person.
I'm not sure why you brought up the Great Transition since it would have nothing to do with the crime that was committed, if the person was not a citizen yet.

Quote:
Every person has to judge himself according to his life circumstances. I would not think it is wrong if I had performed a crime that I felt was in my best interest, and I wouldn't judge someone else, because they chose to do it as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction for reasons unknown to me.
This person is watching a robbery and assault, for example. Due to amnesia the person does not know if the person beating up and robbing another person is him or herself.

How do you think the person would feel watching such an act?
He would probably feel terrible. He may react with anger and hope that the guy was caught. If he found out that he was the one that beat up the person and performed the robbery, he would probably be shocked if he wasn't that type of individual. He would probably try to understand the events that led up to the robbery in order to understand what made him do what he did.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10549  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:19 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Let's add some further conditionals to the hypothetical then
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His hypothetical video of a crime is useless here because crime will be prevented in the new world, so there is no such judgment whether I performed the crime or someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The crime is committed during the Great Transition, so not everyone is a citizen yet. The amnesiac does not know whether he/she is or is not a citizen, and does not know if the crime is being committed by him or herself or another person.
I'm not sure why you brought up the Great Transition since it would have nothing to do with the crime that was committed, if the person was not a citizen yet.
I was trying to get you to put the scenario in a context where a crime could still happen, since you used the absence of crime as a weasel to avoid the thought experiment.

The person doesn't know if he or she is a citizen

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Every person has to judge himself according to his life circumstances. I would not think it is wrong if I had performed a crime that I felt was in my best interest, and I wouldn't judge someone else, because they chose to do it as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction for reasons unknown to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This person is watching a robbery and assault, for example. Due to amnesia the person does not know if the person beating up and robbing another person is him or herself.

How do you think the person would feel watching such an act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He would probably feel terrible. He may react with anger and hope that the guy was caught.
In other words he would judge the person as having done a bad thing that he should feel bad about.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-07-2012), But (12-05-2012), Spacemonkey (12-05-2012)
  #10550  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:08 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva View Post
This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.
Hmm, there is the countdown from one million thread.
:offended: But that thread has a clear and well defined point. :glare:
True, if you interpret it in that way. On the other hand, counting down from one million is pretty pointless, which doesn't mean that thread doesn't have good stuff in it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.08193 seconds with 14 queries