A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You would have to find a way to measure conscience that is objective enough not to be a waste of time. Then you would have to measure it, probably starting with a fairly homogenous group, thus limiting your initial study to "conscience in people selected with method X".

Then, when you make your claim, you have to submit your results so other people can check them, and can try to replicate that test independently.

THEN you can say something like that. Not before.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Noooooo Vivisectus. You're 100% wrong! All babies are born with the potential to develop a strong conscience. It's the environment that causes conscience to be weakened. In a free will environment we are able to rationalize, shift responsibility to something or someone else as the responsible party, or to justify our actions. I don't want to have to put you on ignore too but you're getting real close. I have no desire to continue this conversation with people who are not truly interested, and you're one of them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can claim I am wrong as much as you like, but until you actually support that claim it remains a mere puff of hot air.

He did support the claim and it can be tested. Conscience has already been tested in young children, even as young as 2 years old.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you like to think that. But what reason do you have to believe it except for your desire to believe it? Please note all copypasta will be ignored. I read the damn thing and I was not impressed. Say it succinctly and say it yourself or do not say it at all.

If you can't meet me halfway after I have gone out of my way to post important excerpts that are relevant, there is no reason to continue talking to you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also please note you just objected to any kind of sensible testing of what you proposed. Apparently you do not want that kind of thing: what you want is anything that could possibly be thought of as supporting your dogmatic belief.

Testing "greater satisfaction" empirically doesn't work because we can't prove through this method that what one chooses is in this direction. But testing to see if one can find "greater satisfaction" taking risks that hurt others is possible. The conditions would have to be such that it would simulate the new world environment, which involves more than just the removal of blame.

You can't even explain the discovery in your own words. You have no idea what the discovery is, so any refutation that you have is baseless.

[Vivisectus]

He did support the claim and it can be tested. Conscience has already been tested in young children, even as young as 2 years old.

You yourself said he just observed it and that it just works that way, and that there was no other support for it in the book.

Sure - you could devise tests for conscience. I recommend you try to find some tests that could be used to support your assertions.

If you can't meet me halfway after I have gone out of my way to post important excerpts that are relevant, there is no reason to continue talking to you.

There never was any reason except for your desire to, Peacegirl. Talk to me or not - up to you entirely. But your inability to come up with a reason, and your immediate retreat is duly noted however.

Testing "greater satisfaction" empirically doesn't work because that's now how it can be proven. But testing to see if one can find "greater satisfaction" taking risks that hurt others is possible. But the conditions would have to simulate the new world, which involves more than just removing blame.

That is another fine example of circular reasoning you have there.

You can't even explain the discovery in your own words. You have no idea what the discovery is, so any refutation that you have is baseless.

I understand the book just fine, thanks. And you are the one that keeps refusing to put it in your own words and responds in copypasta time and again, not me. You can dismiss what I have to say all you like, but the fact remains that your only reason for believing this nonsense is your desire to believe it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not "simulating" a no-gravity environment. It is a (temporary) no-gravity environment, strictly speaking. Do you even know what the phrase "no gravity environment" means? Apparently not.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The point I was making is that the Earth has gravity. We can create (is that better?) a no gravity environment on Earth, but we can't sustain it without extreme measures.

Nope. Just pointing out an observation. Not a very astute one, admittedly; it's a very obvious and easily-demonstrated observation.

This all goes back to how knowledge is attained. You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion. But you're wrong because he saw a pattern in human behavior that is universal. If you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all goes back to how knowledge is attained. You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than assertion. But you're not right because he saw a pattern in human behavior across the board (that others didn't see) that allowed him to make these astute observations.

You can't even be consistent about what you believe, I wouldn't be so quick to tell others what they believe if I were you. For starters, it would be a grand improvement if Lessans had tested anyone's conscience, never mind everyone's.

Additionally, something presented without evidence is by definition an assertion. Being an assertion doesn't make it wrong, it just means the only support for it is his say-so.

If you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

See, that's not the way things work.

[The Lone Ranger]

Would it kill you to learn how to use the quote feature properly?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all goes back to how knowledge is attained. You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion. But you're wrong because he saw a pattern in human behavior that is universal.

Stop telling me what I believe. You're only embarrassing yourself further.

In any event, how do you know this pattern actually exists, other than Lessans' say-so? More importantly, how on Earth do you know that it's universal?

After all, it takes only one counterexample to disprove a "universal" claim.

And even you have admitted that some people are born with mental "issues" that prevent them from developing normal feelings of empathy for others. That fact alone blows the "universal" claim right out of the water. And that's not even getting into the vast range of behaviors that falls within the "normal" parameters of human behavior.

If you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

So ... if we accept -- in spite of all logic and evidence to the contrary -- that Lessans was right, we can move on. Not the way that it works.


As I mentioned before, the real world is vastly more complex than you or Lessans seem/seemed to be capable of understanding. But it's also a vastly better-understood place than either you or Lessans seem/seemed to be capable of understanding. That you choose to wallow in willful ignorance is pitiable at best. (I know that some people find your peculiar mixture of willful ignorance and supreme confidence to be hilarious, but it seems rather sad to me.)

As has also been repeatedly pointed out, no one does a better job of illustrating how utterly baseless and preposterous Lessans' claims are than you yourself. So if you wish for Lessans to be remembered only as a laughable example of aggressive ignorance coupled with an inability to comprehend basic logic, then by all means, continue in your efforts to "defend" his claims.

[davidm]

Oh, and ... moons of Jupiter.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all goes back to how knowledge is attained.

Oh, yeah, you mean the epistemological categories you refused to address previously. What are the methods (categories) by which knowledge can be obtained? Which did Lessans use?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion.

Empirical testing is one category/method, but there are others. Which should we use to appraise his work?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're wrong because he saw a pattern in human behavior that is universal.

How and in whom did he see these patterns? So far, you've only mentioned one specific instance...he saw them while reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. We've explained the objections to that, the big one is how he made the giant leap from patterns seen in interpretive, biased, and non-first hand accounts of historic events to "Universal law of nature". Lessans described some sort of epiphany about free will while listening to a preacher, that sounded very much like a religious experience (chills and such). What else you got?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

We can't move forward unless you provide convincing reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt that don't require a leap of faith or discarding the tools of critical analysis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

You can't even be consistent about what you believe, I wouldn't be so quick to tell others what they believe if I were you. For starters, it would be a grand improvement if Lessans had tested anyone's conscience, never mind everyone's.

Additionally, something presented without evidence is by definition an assertion. Being an assertion doesn't make it wrong, it just means the only support for it is his say-so.

See, that's not the way things work.

Well if you're so smart that you know that he's wrong, we can end the conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all goes back to how knowledge is attained.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, yeah, you mean the epistemological categories you refused to address previously. What are the methods (categories) by which knowledge can be obtained? Which did Lessans use?

LadyShea, your smug attitude has finally gotten to me. You think you are part of a panel that can determine truth because you think you have the objective qualifications to determine what that is. You are not the best example example of what a scientist should be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Empirical testing is one category/method, but there are others. Which should we use to appraise his work?

BECAUSE HE'S RIGHT AND YOU'RE GOING TO MISS IT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're wrong because he saw a pattern in human behavior that is universal.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How and in whom did he see these patterns? So far, you've only mentioned one specific instance...he saw them while reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. We've explained the objections to that, the big one is how he made the giant leap from patterns seen in interpretive, biased, and non-first hand accounts of historic events to "Universal law of nature". Lessans described some sort of epiphany about free will while listening to a preacher, that sounded very much like a religious experience (chills and such). What else you got?

That was not his proof. It just led him in a certain direction. Why can't you accept what happened to him in order to give him a fair shake? You won't even let me get past Chapter One.

Empirical testing will prove he is right, but until then I need people to not rush to judgment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can't move forward unless you provide convincing reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt that don't require a leap of faith or discarding the tools of critical analysis.

Why can't you temporarily accept his basic premise so we can move on. That's only fair, isn't it?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion.

BECAUSE HE'S RIGHT AND YOU'RE GOING TO MISS IT.

Well that settles that, eh? Such ironclad logic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Would it kill you to learn how to use the quote feature properly?

I'm doing the best I can, but I have a lot of posts to answer. Maybe you could help me when I make an unintentional mistake. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all goes back to how knowledge is attained. You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion. But you're wrong because he saw a pattern in human behavior that is universal.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Stop telling me what I believe. You're only embarrassing yourself further.

Didn't you say that this was just an assertion? I feel like I'm in the looney bin.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In any event, how do you know this pattern actually exists, other than Lessans' say-so? More importantly, how on Earth do you know that it's universal?

Because he observed these patterns through YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS OF READING HISTORY. The only way this can be proved true, is if we spread this knowledge until it reaches those who can actually test the validity of these principles. If that is premature, then a smaller version of a "no blame" environment could be created. Isn't that the empirical proof you are looking for? We're wasting way so much time arguing when war is taking people's lives. Don't you think it's time to take this knowledge seriously before throwing it in a scrap heap?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

After all, it takes only one counterexample to disprove a "universal" claim.

Don't you know I get that Lone Ranger. I'm putting myself on the line because I know he's right.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And even you have admitted that some people are born with mental "issues" that prevent them from developing normal feelings of empathy for others. That fact alone blows the "universal" claim right out of the water. And that's not even getting into the vast range of behaviors that falls within the "normal" parameters of human behavior.

No, it does not. If someone is born an anomaly of nature where he has no conception of right and wrong and enjoys hurting people because he was born a "bad" seed (which, by the way, has never been observed), that doesn't mean this principle doesn't work. It just means that we have to be even more compassionate to this individual because his will is not free to be any different.

If you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... if we accept -- in spite of all logic and evidence to the contrary -- that Lessans was right, we can move on. Not the way that it works.

That's not true Lone Ranger. You can temporarily accept the premises in order to follow the extension. If you still disagree, then fine. I'm not putting a gun to your head.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As I mentioned before, the real world is vastly more complex than you or Lessans seem/seemed to be capable of understanding. But it's also a vastly better-understood place than either you or Lessans seem/seemed to be capable of understanding. That you choose to wallow in willful ignorance is pitiable at best. (I know that some people find your peculiar mixture of willful ignorance and supreme confidence to be hilarious, but it seems rather sad to me.)

It would be sad if these principles were not real, but they are real. This is not a dream.

Originally Posted by "As has [i

also[/i] been repeatedly pointed out, no one does a better job of illustrating how utterly baseless and preposterous Lessans' claims are than you yourself. So if you wish for Lessans to be remembered only as a laughable example of aggressive ignorance coupled with an inability to comprehend basic logic, then by all means, continue in your efforts to "defend" his claims.

So are you telling me that you are not interested in how the extension of these principles work in real life? And you call yourself a scientist? If that's the case, I give more credit to the woo woo's than I would ever give to you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You brought up epistemology, I addressed it and asked a pertinent on point question about it, and that makes me smug? Hmm, you know your own weak spots and don't like me touching them...sound about right?

I think you aren't comfortable with me because you are finding that you can't bullshit or distract me. You certainly can't upset me with your insults.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think you are part of a panel that can determine truth because you think you have the objective qualifications to determine what that is.

Nope, I can only analyze claims, and think about what might or might not be true and why, for myself. I am my own panel...a panel of one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the worst example of what a scientist should be.

Good thing I am not a scientist then, I guess?

Your assertion in all caps that he is right, followed by an appeal to adverse consequences for me, is the epistemological category or critical analysis method we should use to appraise Lessans ideas? I don't think that will work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not his proof, dam it. It just led him in a certain direction. It was something that bothered him with those remarks. Why can't you accept what happened to him in order to give him a fair chance?

Why can't you answer the questions I asked? How and in whom did he see these patterns?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not the epitome of someone who knows how knowledge is acquired.

No, I am not. Never said I was. Once again, you brought up epistemology, I addressed it and asked pertinent on point questions about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell are you anyway?

I am a person you are choosing to respond to in an online discussion, and I am a person you are trying to convince of something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can tell I'm really really really really upset right now.

Yes, I can. I have no idea why you are so upset at me. I am just asking questions and stating my opinions...which is quite a normal thing to do in discussions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You go on and on about empirical observations. You are so stuck on your standard of proof and as a result you are missing his everything that I've tried to explain to you.

I said that empirical observations are one method of gaining knowledge, that there are others, and I asked you to offer them.

It's not my fault you can't do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so sad to me because you are the kind of person that would have gotten so much from this knowledge.

So you pity me, now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will never accept the possibility that Lessans could be right even if it's staring you right in the face.

If I saw any reason to think it's possible he was right, I would investigate that possibility. I have given you every opportunity to provide that reason. That you have failed, and continue to fail in that is not my fault. Your anger is directed at me, when it should be directed at yourself for not understanding or trying to understand your audience or the rational objections, or at Lessans for not providing you better material to work with.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot do this anymore unless there is more cooperation. I told you that there are tests that be done to simulate the new world environment, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you. This is not an objective forum at all.

Just because something can be tested, doesn't in any way, shape, or form indicate that the results of the test would support the hypothesis at hand. It very well might disprove the idea being tested.

Just because I can test whether water can boil in the freezer doesn't mean that idea has any merit and certainly there's no reason to think it will be supported by the test.

Also, you've already stated that the kind of test necessary cannot be conducted in the real world we live in.

Why would I do that? What reason can you give me to temporarily accept things that have utterly failed to stand up to even a cursory analysis?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can, but I have a lot of posts to answer. Maybe you could help me in those instances where I make a mistake. Just a thought.

Or better yet, you could learn how to use the frakking quote function. It's not difficult. The Ape Creatures of the Indus have a better mastery of it than you do. Either you cannot learn to use it properly, which implies stupidity, or you will not, which implies arrogance and/or laziness. Which is it?

Didn't you say that this was just an assertion? I feel like I'm in the looney bin.

Okay, so I guess we can add "assertion" to the long list of words that you use without an understanding of what they actually mean.

Because he observed these patterns through YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS OF READING HISTORY. The only way this can be proved true, is if we can't get this transition started, or if we can't do that, then test this on a smaller scale. We're wasting way too much time arguing when we could be saving lives.

So in other words, you don't know that that this alleged pattern is actually universal. You're just claiming it is.

Don't you know I get that Lone Ranger. I'm putting myself on the line because I know he's right.

Yet you just claimed that this alleged pattern is "universal" right after admitting that Lessans hadn't done the work to establish that this was so. All it takes is one person who doesn't fit this "universal" pattern to demolish the claim. Have you tested every single person who exists -- and has existed -- to demonstrate that the pattern is indeed universal?

That's not true Lone Ranger. You can temporarily accept the premises in order to follow the extension. If you still disagree, then fine. I'm not putting a gun to your head.

I cannot and will not accept illogical and unsupported claims. Give us some reason to think that there might be something to Lessans' claims. Your say-so is not a reason.

So are you telling me that you are not interested in how the extension of these principles work in real life? And you call yourself a scientist? If that's the case, I give more credit to the woo woo's than I would ever give to you.

I'm not terribly interested in the claims of someone who insists that there is an invisible and intangible dragon living on the dark side of the Moon, either. Not even if he claims that accepting this "fact" will lead to world peace. Not without some actual evidence to back this seemingly-preposterous notion.

Lessans' claims are no less preposterous on their surface. So absent some actual evidence to back them up -- and/or some sound reasoning on your part -- no sane person can or would accept these alleged "principles."


I am a scientist. How to evaluate arguments and data is part of my training. And I know poorly-reasoned, wholly-unsupported nonsense when I see it. You want any sane person to take Lessans' claims seriously? Then pony up some actual evidence for those claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Proof that Lessans was right about the word 'beautiful'.

Ugly People Prejudice - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 11/14/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Angakuk, you're elected for the job of finding the best videos. This economist didn't know he was onto something. Maybe I should send the book to him and Jon Stewart. One last comment: Do you see how people think that being "ugly" is just an unfortunate fact of life? That's why they think the whole discrimination idea is funny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

First clue, Vivisectus post

Note the use of the rhetorical and not even real "Rules of the Internet"
Note that losing the debate is your "punishment"
Note the smiley
All indicate sarcasm/parody/humor

They do, but my immediate reaction was that I did something wrong. I've been banned for lesser things ya know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Second clue, First sentence of the Wiki link: Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990

Right, but I forgot that you had posted this before so I didn't remember anything about Godwin and his Nazi Analogies.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times have we told you we almost never ban people at ?

I realize that now, but my immediate reaction was that this was probably a serious infraction of the rules.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only rules are no posting of illegal material (like child porn), no making death threats, no revealing other poster's personal info, no spamming, no copyright violations

I have to remember that the next time someone makes a sarcastic joke. It's much more fun that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times have I said that mathematical, in this context, does not have to do with numbers but is still accurate because it means "undeniable". I will continue to use this word, and I will not retract this claim.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The phrase "mathematical calculations" implies real math, not Lessans' made up math.

I used that the word "calculations", he didn't.

Definition of Calculate: take into account (allow or plan for a certain possibility; concede the truth or validity of something).

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Show the calculations that demonstrate that there will one day be peace on earth. Either that or retract the claim that this has been calculated mathematically.

You really need to expand the definition of "mathematical" because you are taking the meaning too literally when it was clearly explained in the introduction what he means by this word. I'm going to have to repeat this excerpt in the hope that it will eventually sink in.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 5-6

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be adequately
understood which requires that the reader does not apply himself and
his ideas as a standard of what is true and false, but that he
understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an
opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away
the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the
years.

For purposes of clarification please note that the words
scientific and mathematical only mean undeniable, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, yeah, you mean the epistemological categories you refused to address previously. What are the methods (categories) by which knowledge can be obtained? Which did Lessans use?

I have answered your question numerous times. If you can't believe that he found these truths through observation, reasoning, and analysis (which fits into the category of rational thought), and you can't believe that his premises are correct, then it's time to move on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that unless Lessans tested everyone's conscience on a case by case basis, his description of how conscience works would be nothing more than an assertion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Empirical testing is one category/method, but there are others. Which should we use to appraise his work?

You have to appraise this work on the basis of his keen observations and his sound reasoning. You are going to have to trust that he was right in order to move forward. Ultimately this discovery will be confirmed empirically. How many times do I have to say this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're wrong because he saw a pattern in human behavior that is universal.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How and in whom did he see these patterns? So far, you've only mentioned one specific instance...he saw them while reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. We've explained the objections to that, the big one is how he made the giant leap from patterns seen in interpretive, biased, and non-first hand accounts of historic events to "Universal law of nature". Lessans described some sort of epiphany about free will while listening to a preacher, that sounded very much like a religious experience (chills and such). What else you got?

It was a revelation for sure, but he didn't see the face of God so I wouldn't call it a religious experience. Stop turning this into woo LadyShea. The weird thing was he didn't even understand why he was so bothered by this expression because he never had given much thought to free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how this knowledge plays out, we can't move forward.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can't move forward unless you provide convincing reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt that don't require a leap of faith or discarding the tools of critical analysis.

I am not telling anyone to discard the tools of critical analysis. I'm telling you your toolbag is half empty. You don't have the right tools for the job. Therefore, these critical analysis tools are becoming a hindrance, not a help. I've said this and I'll say it again. You can always reject this knowledge after understanding how these principles work, not before, and we haven't even covered the most important parts of the book. That is not good science LadyShea.

[Vivisectus]

Everyone understands well enough, peacegirl. It is just that in your little world of circles inside circles, understanding equates complete agreement. Thus, you reason, everyone must not get it, otherwise they would agree!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not telling anyone to discard the tools of critical analysis. I'm telling you your toolbag is half empty. You don't have the right tools for the job. Therefore, these critical analysis tools are becoming a hindrance, not a help. I've said this and I'll say it again. You can always reject this knowledge after understanding how these principles work, not before, and we haven't even covered the most important parts of the book. That is not good science LadyShea.

You really should have been a comedienne.

[LadyShea]

I have answered your question numerous times. If you can't believe that he found these truths through observation, reasoning, and analysis (which fits into the category of rational thought), and you can't believe that his premises are correct, then it's time to move on.

You did not previously answer rationalism when asked about this.

I personally don't think it's possible to know the truth of Lessans ideas regarding the greater satisfaction principle or the workings of conscience through rational thought alone. So feel free to move on or not as you see fit. You don't need my permission.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to appraise this work on the basis of his keen observations and his sound reasoning

I have nothing on which to base justification for the use of the adjectives "keen" or "sound".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are going to have to trust that he was right in order to move forward.

I do not trust he was right. That's an absurd demand for you to make. Again, move forward all you want. You do not need me to move forward to do so yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ultimately this discovery will be confirmed empirically. How many times do I have to say this?

Saying it will be so doesn't make it so now, nor does it mean it will be so. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it is not a fact so you are repeating your article of faith.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was a revelation for sure, but he didn't see the face of God so I wouldn't call it a religious experience. Stop turning this into woo LadyShea. The weird thing was he didn't even understand why he was so bothered by this expression because he never had given much thought to free will.

I am not turning it into anything. He's the one that described his reaction, and what he described is similar to descriptions of religious experiences.

I am not telling anyone to discard the tools of critical analysis. I'm telling you your toolbag is half empty. You don't have the right tools for the job. Therefore, these critical analysis tools are becoming a hindrance, not a help. I've said this and I'll say it again. You can always reject this knowledge after understanding how these principles work, not before, and we haven't even covered the most important parts of the book. That is not good science LadyShea.

LOL, like you would know how critical analysis works if it crawled up your ass with a microscope and set of scales.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You yourself said he just observed it and that it just works that way, and that there was no other support for it in the book.

There is a lot of support in the book, but not what you expect. He carefully describes how conscience works in a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment), and why it fails to control man's actions to the degree that it could in a no free will environment (an environment without blame and punishment).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure - you could devise tests for conscience. I recommend you try to find some tests that could be used to support your assertions.

I'm sure empirical tests could be done to support all of Lessans' claims.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you like to think that. But what reason do you have to believe it except for your desire to believe it? Please note all copypasta will be ignored. I read the damn thing and I was not impressed. Say it succinctly and say it yourself or do not say it at all.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you can't meet me halfway after I have gone out of my way to post important excerpts that are relevant, there is no reason to continue talking to you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There never was any reason except for your desire to, Peacegirl. Talk to me or not - up to you entirely. But your inability to come up with a reason, and your immediate retreat is duly noted however.

No, this isn't just about my desire Vivisectus. This dialogue is a two-way street. That's what conversation is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also please note you just objected to any kind of sensible testing of what you proposed. Apparently you do not want that kind of thing: what you want is anything that could possibly be thought of as supporting your dogmatic belief.

Testing "greater satisfaction" empirically doesn't work because that's now how it can be proven. But testing to see if one can find "greater satisfaction" taking risks that hurt others is possible. But the conditions would have to simulate the new world, which involves more than just removing blame.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is another fine example of circular reasoning you have there.

Oh really? Show me where this is circular reasoning.

You can't even explain the discovery in your own words. You have no idea what the discovery is, so any refutation that you have is baseless.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I understand the book just fine, thanks. And you are the one that keeps refusing to put it in your own words and responds in copypasta time and again, not me. You can dismiss what I have to say all you like, but the fact remains that your only reason for believing this nonsense is your desire to believe it.

You cannot tell me that I can't reinforce a concept by adding excerpts from the book. Setting up preconditions as to how I should present this knowledge makes me question your motivations. Anything I can do to make this knowledge better understood should be welcomed. It's a benefit to be able to read from the text because it's the original source. I guarantee you that if a respected authority said that this discovery was genuine, you wouldn't care whether it was scribbled in crayon on a rooftop just so you could read it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure empirical tests could be done to support all of Lessans' claims.

Some of them have been empirically tested -- repeatedly, very carefully, and very thoroughly. Guess what the results have been?

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a lot of support in the book, but not what you expect. He carefully describes how conscience works in a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment), and why it fails to control man's actions to the degree that it could in a no free will environment (an environment without blame and punishment).

He asserts a lot, but he does not provide any support for these assertions. A good example is his assertion is that it is blame that enables justification. He merely states it, calls it an Undeniable Truth, and considers the job done. An interesting example of this kind of behaviour is you repeatedly saying that he DOES support it, and then not pointing out how or why.

I'm sure empirical tests could be done to support all of Lessans' claims.

There is your problem right there. You should say "tests could be done to TEST his ideas". But as you have shown by simply rejecting any evidence that does not support your fathers ideas, you are not interested in testing it at all.

No, this isn't just about my desire Vivisectus. This dialogue is a two-way street. That's what conversation is.

Then continue it or not, as you see fit, but stop the pathetic threats to stop participating. You know you would not be able to do it even if you really wanted to: these discussions are the only way you can retain the feeling of self-importance that this book gives you. If you stopped here you would have to go and find some other group to give this the time of day, something I am sure would not be easy and would leave you without for quite some time.

Oh really? Show me where this is circular reasoning.

You just said that in order to find the evidence that proves that this system improves the world, we must first apply it to improve the world, and then run the test to see if it people actually react in a way that is a requirement for the system to work in the first place.

You cannot tell me that I can't reinforce a concept by adding excerpts from the author himself. Setting up preconditions as to how I should present this knowledge makes me question your motivations. Anything I can do to make this knowledge better understood should be welcome whether it comes from me or directly from the horse's mouth. If you really wanted to understand this knowledge you wouldn't care whether I scribbled it in crayon on a rooftop, just so you would have a chance to read it.

The problem is that the book is far from economical in it's use of the english language and often makes use of flowery phrases that are pretty meaningless. The only way in which you can appreciate that they are actually nonsense is to try to re-phrase them in more precise ways. It also redefines words in loaded ways: by making "mathematical" equivalent to "undeniable" it attempts to stop people from arguing with it, for instance. You do a similar thing with your "mathematical relations" which you would have a hard time accurately paraphrasing because it is just a magical formula that sounds good, much like your "focussing out" and "field of vision".

This is why it is important for you to kick your addiction to copypasta.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are going to have to trust that he was right in order to move forward.

Peacegirl, you are the only one here who desperately wants to move forward in the book in the hope that at some point you and Lessans will have described a reality that is so wonderful that everyone will want to be there. Then the thought will be, this 'Golden Age' sounds so nice, what can we do to make it so, and you will be there with the book as a guide. Your hope is that everyone will do as Lessans has done, which is to devise his ideal world and invent the circumstances that would bring it about. The problem is that his lack of understanding of psychology and human nature led him into areas he knew nothing about, and so he invented a lot of fiction to support it. For myself, after reading Lessans description of his 'Golden Age' I don't want any part of it, the sacrifice of personal freedom, choice, and intregrety is too high a price to pay for the rather nebulous promice of world peace. His claim that eliminating blame as the justification for hurt is unsupported and really the conclusion does not follow from the premise. If Lessans was as smart and nice a guy as you claim, the only conclusion that fits is that the book is just a big joke and you are the only one who does not get it. I heard once "If you don't get the joke, you become the butt of the joke."