A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

I'm going to have to bump some critical points that Peacegirl has already blatantly ignored more than once...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you really want to return to other topics, then try providing some support for your claim that under Lessans' changed conditions a justification will always be required to harm another person. Give us some rational reason to believe his claims about conscience.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans never provided any direct observations, and did nothing at all to support his claims about conscience. Therefore his claims can and will be rejected. Again, I must ask: If Lessans was such an insightful person, why on Earth did he not anticipate that rational people would require him to provide some kind of evidential support for his claims and assumptions about conscience? Doesn't this strike you as a rather massive oversight on his part?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Brains cannot 'look'. Looking is what systems with eyes do. If something does not have eyes, then it cannot look. The brain does not have eyes. A person can look, but a brain cannot.

[koan]

Yes. That's what I'm looking at right now.

I noticed that the first chapter is already an ongoing discussion regarding how Lessans emphatic argument that choice is made, only clarifying that the decision isn't "free" makes him more a proponent of Compatiblism than Determinism. Has anyone asked how the decision of what is more satisfying is explained without choice? Tests have been done to show that a person's choice changes when exposed to different stimulus during or before the choice is required. So what satisfies them is entirely open to manipulation (by other humans and not just by God)

[koan]

To be fair to peacegirl, in asking how Lessans explains lack of free will in determining satisfaction, I will be showing empirical evidence against this idea as established by Terror Management Theory

I suggest peacegirl look at this to also become aware of how actual scientists go about proving hypotheses.

[koan]

Sorry, one more thing before I head off to work, to prove truth isn't stranger than fiction when it comes to determinism... Albert Camus and The Cure already covered everything Lessans says about it.

The Stranger

and (for everyone's listening pleasure)

The Cure - Killing an arab - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm going to have to bump some critical points that Peacegirl has already blatantly ignored more than once...

Would you please stop being so callous? Can't you say one positive thing ever, or is that too difficult?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you really want to return to other topics, then try providing some support for your claim that under Lessans' changed conditions a justification will always be required to harm another person. Give us some rational reason to believe his claims about conscience.

Because it's obvious that people need a justification to do harm to others. That is the very purpose of why we have a conscience. You are probably thinking of all the psychopaths and sociopaths in the world and imagining that a no blame environment would not deter them from hurting others; it would give them free rein to do whatever they wanted to do without any threats of punishment. If someone is so sick that he can't be controlled by this law he would be taken off the streets but without any blame, just like a mad dog would be taken off the streets, but mental illness is going to be virtually wiped out in one generation. I know what you're going to say so save yourself the trouble.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans never provided any direct observations, and did nothing at all to support his claims about conscience. Therefore his claims can and will be rejected. Again, I must ask: If Lessans was such an insightful person, why on Earth did he not anticipate that rational people would require him to provide some kind of evidential support for his claims and assumptions about conscience? Doesn't this strike you as a rather massive oversight on his part?

Not at all. You can't judge this man in such a harsh way. You have no idea how many years it took him to not only grasp the significance of what he discovered, but also to put it into words that others could comprehend. He never set out to make a discovery so he did not use the scientific method of hypothesis first, and empirical testing second.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The brain and eyes work together. The retina is part of the brain Spacemonkey so you can actually say that the brain uses the eyes to see through.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by koan

To be fair to peacegirl, in asking how Lessans explains lack of free will in determining satisfaction, I will be showing empirical evidence against this idea as established by Terror Management Theory

I suggest peacegirl look at this to also become aware of how actual scientists go about proving hypotheses.

Good luck, peacegirl has been remarkably resistant to learning new things - especially if she thinks it might at all contradict with the Holy Book of Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Sorry, one more thing before I head off to work, to prove truth isn't stranger than fiction when it comes to determinism... Albert Camus and The Cure already covered everything Lessans says about it.

The Stranger

and (for everyone's listening pleasure)
The Cure - Killing an arab - YouTube

I have no idea how terror theory relates to this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

To be fair to peacegirl, in asking how Lessans explains lack of free will in determining satisfaction, I will be showing empirical evidence against this idea as established by Terror Management Theory

I suggest peacegirl look at this to also become aware of how actual scientists go about proving hypotheses.

I am quite aware how scientists go about proving hypotheses. And I would put up money that you do not understand his definition of determinism, but you certainly have a lot to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Yes. That's what I'm looking at right now.

I noticed that the first chapter is already an ongoing discussion regarding how Lessans emphatic argument that choice is made, only clarifying that the decision isn't "free" makes him more a proponent of Compatiblism than Determinism. Has anyone asked how the decision of what is more satisfying is explained without choice? Tests have been done to show that a person's choice changes when exposed to different stimulus during or before the choice is required. So what satisfies them is entirely open to manipulation (by other humans and not just by God)

I just confirmed that koan has no idea what she's talking about. She just jumped into the conversation and is looking more and more ignorant of the subject matter. Koan, you do not understand this knowledge even a little bit. All of you have been bombarded with so many theories through the years that you can't tell which ones have actual merit. It's like you can't get a clear channel; the radio waves are all scrambled. That's why I don't have hope that any of you will understand what he tried so hard to communicate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop being so callous. Can't you say one positive thing ever, or is that too difficult?

What is callous about repeating points that you have ignored more than once? What positive things do you think could be said about your performance here? I sure can't think of any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's obvious that people need a justification to do harm to others. That is the very purpose of why we have a conscience. You are probably thinking of all the psychopaths and sociopaths in the world and imagining that a no blame environment would not deter them from hurting others; it would give them free reign to do whatever they wanted to do without any threats of punishment. If someone is so sick that he can't be controlled by this law he would be taken off the streets but without any blame, just like a mad dog would be taken off the streets, but mental illness is going to be virtually wiped out in one generation. I know what you're going to say so save yourself the energy.

Just saying "It's obvious" is not supporting the claim. Why do you think that under Lessans' changed conditions a justification will always be required to harm another person? Why do you think that someone who harms another without justification must be some kind of psychopath? Why do you think mental illness will be all but wiped out? Why can't you offer any rational reason to believe his claims about conscience?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. You can't judge this man in such a harsh way. You have no idea how many years it took him to not only grasp the significance of what he discovered, but also to put it into words that others could comprehend. He never set out to make a discovery so he did not use the scientific method of hypothesis first, and empirical testing second.

What does this have to do with what I asked? It is a simple fact that no-one has so far agreed with his claims about conscience. Everyone who has read him has so far considered his claims about conscience implausible, and has rejected them on the basis that he failed to provide any empirical evidence in support of them. Why did Lessans not anticipate this problem? Why did he not anticipate the fact that people would disagree with his claims about conscience and reject them due to his lack of evidence? How is this not a massive oversight on the part of someone supposedly so insightful? Why did he not anticipate that people would not accept his claims without evidence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain and eyes work together. The retina is part of the brain Spacemonkey so you can actually say that the brain uses the eyes to see through.

There is no disagreement over the direction in which the brain-eye system looks - it looks outwards in whichever direction the eyes are pointing. But for us this 'looking outwards' is explained in terms of light and information traveling inwards. On your account it is not explained at all, and you have no idea what your outwards component even is. Saying that the brain looks outwards through the eyes like a window is flat out wrong and impossible if it is taken as something the brain (distinct from the eyes) is meant to do in relation to the eyes. And taken as something done by the brain-eye system as a whole it is trivially true and accepted by both the afferent and efferent accounts.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just confirmed that koan has no idea what she's talking about.

And Koan has joined the growing ranks of people who have read his work and concluded that neither you nor Lessans have any idea what you are talking about.

Looks like Lessans just failed another test. Another opportunity to disprove the hypothesis that no-one will ever agree with him or value his alleged discoveries. And yet that hypothesis stands unscathed after surviving yet another potential falsification.

Looks like the percentage of readers who value his work remains at 0%.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And Koan has joined the growing ranks of people who have read his work and concluded that neither you nor Lessans have any idea what you are talking about.

Looks like Lessans just failed another test. Another opportunity to disprove the hypothesis that no-one will ever agree with him or value his alleged discoveries. And yet that hypothesis stands unscathed after surviving yet another potential falsification.

Looks like the percentage of readers who value his work remains at 0%.

She did not read this book Spacemonkey. Your hypothesis is full of holes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop being so callous. Can't you say one positive thing ever, or is that too difficult?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is callous about repeating points that you have ignored more than once? What positive things do you think could be said about your performance here? I sure can't think of any.

You know what I'm talking about. Don't act so innocent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's obvious that people need a justification to do harm to others. That is the very purpose of why we have a conscience. You are probably thinking of all the psychopaths and sociopaths in the world and imagining that a no blame environment would not deter them from hurting others; it would give them free reign to do whatever they wanted to do without any threats of punishment. If someone is so sick that he can't be controlled by this law he would be taken off the streets but without any blame, just like a mad dog would be taken off the streets, but mental illness is going to be virtually wiped out in one generation. I know what you're going to say so save yourself the energy.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just saying "It's obvious" is not supporting the claim. Why do you think that under Lessans' changed conditions a justification will always be required to harm another person? Why do you think that someone who harms another without justification must be some kind of psychopath? Why do you think mental illness will be all but wiped out? Why can't you offer any rational reason to believe his claims about conscience?

Because there's no other way a person could hurt someone under these conditions. They couldn't justify it and as a consequence conscience wouldn't permit it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. You can't judge this man in such a harsh way. You have no idea how many years it took him to not only grasp the significance of what he discovered, but also to put it into words that others could comprehend. He never set out to make a discovery so he did not use the scientific method of hypothesis first, and empirical testing second.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does this have to do with what I asked? It is a simple fact that no-one has so far agreed with his claims about conscience. Everyone who has read him has so far considered his claims about conscience implausible, and has rejected them on the basis that he failed to provide any empirical evidence in support of them. Why did Lessans not anticipate this problem? Why did he not anticipate the fact that people would disagree with his claims about conscience and reject them due to his lack of evidence? How is this not a massive oversight on the part of someone supposedly so insightful? [I]Why did he not anticipate that people would not accept his claims without evidence?

I answered you already. Didn't you read what I just wrote? Why are you repeating the same thing when I already explained to you that making a discovery was not his intention. He had no hypothesis. In fact, he had no idea that a revelation (not religious) was going to lead him in this direction years later.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain and eyes work together. The retina is part of the brain Spacemonkey so you can actually say that the brain uses the eyes to see through.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no disagreement over the direction in which the brain-eye system looks - it looks outwards in whichever direction the eyes are pointing. But for us this 'looking outwards' is explained in terms of light and information traveling inwards. On your account it is not explained at all, and you have no idea what your outwards component even is. Saying that the brain looks outwards through the eyes like a window is flat out wrong and impossible if it is taken as something the brain (distinct from the eyes) is meant to do in relation to the eyes. And taken as something done by the brain-eye system as a whole it is trivially true and accepted by both the afferent and efferent accounts.

I don't see where it's trivially true that the brain-eye system is one unit, even if it is accepted by both accounts. Saying that the brain looks through the eyes, as a window, might not prove the validity of efferent vision, but it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility either.

Synecdoche, New York (2008), eyes are part of the...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She did not read this book Spacemonkey. Your hypothesis is full of holes.

She clearly has been reading the book, yet just like everyone else she thinks it is crap. A hole in my hypothesis would be someone reading his work and agreeing with him or thinking his work is of value. But that hasn't happened, has it Peacegirl? Why do you think that is?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I'm talking about. Don't act so innocent.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. What is callous about repeating points that you have ignored more than once? What positive things do you think could be said about your performance here? I still can't think of any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there's no other way a person could hurt someone under these conditions. They couldn't justify it and as a consequence conscience wouldn't permit it.

Peacegirl, these are precisely the claims I am asking you to support. Why is it that all you can do is keep repeating them instead of supporting them? Why do you believe that someone couldn't hurt another under these conditions without a justification? Why do you think conscience would need to permit this for it to happen? What makes you think conscience would always be strong enough under these conditions to prevent the person from just doing it anyway without any justification? Why can't you support your claims?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you already. Didn't you read what I just wrote? Why are you repeating the same thing when I already explained to you that making a discovery was not his intention. He had no hypothesis. In fact, he had no idea that a revelation (not religious) was going to lead him in this direction years later.

I am repeating myself because what you are saying does not address what I'm asking you. I couldn't care less if he never intended to make a discovery, or if he had no hypothesis. I want to know why he didn't anticipate the fact that so many people would reject his claims about conscience (and vision) due to his lack of supporting evidence. Why didn't he anticipate that people would need evidence? Why is this not a massive oversight on his part?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where it's trivially true that the brain-eye system is one unit, even if it is accepted by both accounts. Saying that the brain looks through the eyes, as a window, might not prove the validity of efferent vision, but it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility either.

Then pay attention. This is not a difficult point. You said that the point of contention differentiating efferent from afferent vision is the direction in which the brain is looking. But 'looking' is not something the brain itself can do in relation to the eyes. It is only something that the brain-eye system as a whole can possibly do. And in that sense, EVERYONE already agrees that the brain-eye system looks outwards in the direction of objects. No-one has ever thought otherwise. (The difference is in how we explain this outwards looking, which is something you cannot do at all - it is a primitive notion in your account, and yet it is also the very thing you are meant to be giving an account of.) So it is trivially true, and not a point of contention between efferent and afferent vision. It cannot be what distinguishes efferent from afferent vision. The difference has to be something that the brain itself does, and that thing cannot be 'looking'.

Furthermore, you invalidate the claim yourself when you add the terms 'like a window'. Because when a person looks through a window, the window itself is not necessary for the looking. The looking is done by the person WITH EYES and the window is not a necessary component of the 'looking' that is being done. But that cannot be the case for the brain, as the brain itself does not have its own eyes. So looking can only be done by the brain-eye system as a whole, but then the eye is no longer comparable to a window for the eyes are no longer an unnecessary component like the window through which the looking is being done. Take the window away and the person can still look. Take the eyes away and the brain cannot still look. Therefore the brain cannot be looking through the eyes like a window.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. What is callous about repeating points that you have ignored more than once? What positive things do you think could be said about your performance here? I still can't think of any.

Peacegirl, these are precisely the claims I am asking you to support. Why is it that all you can do is keep repeating them instead of supporting them? Why do you believe that someone couldn't hurt another under these conditions without a justification? Why do you think conscience would need to permit this for it to happen? What makes you think conscience would always be strong enough under these conditions to prevent the person from just doing it anyway without any justification? Why can't you support your claims?

I am repeating myself because what you are saying does not address what I'm asking you. I couldn't care less if he never intended to make a discovery, or if he had no hypothesis. I want to know why he didn't anticipate the fact that so many people would reject his claims about conscience (and vision) due to his lack of supporting evidence. Why didn't he anticipate that people would need evidence? Why is this not a massive oversight on his part?

Then pay attention. This is not a difficult point. You said that the point of contention differentiating efferent from afferent vision is the direction in which the brain is looking. But 'looking' is not something the brain itself can do in relation to the eyes. It is only something that the brain-eye system as a whole can possibly do. And in that sense, EVERYONE already agrees that the brain-eye system looks outwards in the direction of objects. No-one has ever thought otherwise. (The difference is in how we explain this outwards looking, which is something you cannot do at all - it is a primitive notion in your account, and yet it is also the very thing you are meant to be giving an account of.) So it is trivially true, and not a point of contention between efferent and afferent vision. It cannot be what distinguishes efferent from afferent vision. The difference has to be something that the brain itself does, and that thing cannot be 'looking'.

Furthermore, you invalidate the claim yourself when you add the terms 'like a window'. Because when a person looks through a window, the window itself is not necessary for the looking. The looking is done by the person WITH EYES and the window is not a necessary component of the 'looking' that is being done. But that cannot be the case for the brain, as the brain itself does not have its own eyes. So looking can only be done by the brain-eye system as a whole, but then the eye is no longer comparable to a window for the eyes are no longer an unnecessary component like the window through which the looking is being done. Take the window away and the person can still look. Take the eyes away and the brain cannot still look. Therefore the brain cannot be looking through the eyes like a window.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. The brain of course cannot look, and it is true that the brain needs the eyes. But that doesn't explain how the brain actually functions on a deeper level. It is absolutely true that the brain cannot look without eyes, but that doesn't negate the fact that the brain is using the eyes to see what exists in the external world. I realize that's not good enough for you, but there is no way I can translate this to you in words that you will accept other than more empirical testing to prove that he knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately, this will take time. Lessans also was completely open to anyone who could come forward and do a better job at explaining these principles more clearly than even he could.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just confirmed that koan has no idea what she's talking about.

koan, don't feel bad. That list includes the entire population of the world except one.

[peacegirl]

I realize that this thread is getting nowhere fast. The more I defend Lessans, the meaner people get. I know the pattern by now. This thread is doing me no good physically or emotionally. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, and I feel sometimes that I am the horse. I'm shortly going to be marketing the book, which will give me no time to be here. In spite of all the resentment and anger directed toward me and my father, I really hope people have gotten something from this thread, even if it was unrelated to the book. Before I leave, I will offer the book for free to someone who can review it with as much neutrality as possible. They can then give their review. If there's any redeeming quality in this book, I hope it will be mentioned. Is there anyone who would like to get a free copy when I get my first few copies? If not, then I can at least say goodbye knowing I did the best I could, even to the point of giving the book away for free.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

Well, it was not a complicated point, and I explained about as clearly as it could possibly be explained.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain of course cannot look...

Then will you stop posting this nonsense about the brain looking through the eyes as a window?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't explain a deeper truth which is the how the brain functions.

How do you think the brain functions in relation to the eyes? What do you think the brain actually does that the afferent account leaves out?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is absolutely true that the brain cannot look without eyes, but that doesn't negate the fact that the brain is using the eyes to see what exists in the external world.

No-one has ever disagreed with the obvious truth that the brain uses the eyes so that we can see things. As I said, this is trivially true and completely accepted by everyone, including those (i.e. everyone but you and Lessans) who accept afferent vision. So the fact that you say is not negated, is not something that distinguishes efferent from afferent vision - so it doesn't need to be negated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that's not good enough for you, but there is no way I can translate this to you in words that you will accept other than empirical evidence, and that will take time because he just showed what he observed and tried to get it across to the reader. Lessans also invited anyone to come forward who could do a better job at explaining these principles more clearly.

If you can't express his ideas in a way that makes some kind of sane and coherent sense, then it doesn't matter whether or not you have evidence. You have been relying on the two claims - that the brain looks out through the eyes like a window, and that light can be at the retina without ever getting there - to differentiate efferent from afferent vision. But as should be abundantly clear by now to any half-way normal person, neither of these concepts is even remotely coherent. Therefore they cannot even possibly be supported by evidence, even if you had any, which you don't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that this thread is getting nowhere fast. The more I defend Lessans, the meaner people get. I know the pattern by now. This thread is doing me no good physically or emotionally. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, and I feel sometimes that I am the horse. I'm shortly going to be marketing the book, which will give me no time to be here. In spite of all the resentment and anger directed toward me and my father, I really hope people have gotten something from this thread, even if it was unrelated to the book. Before I leave, I will offer the book for free to someone who can review it with as much neutrality as possible. They can then give their review. If there's any redeeming quality in this book, I hope it will be mentioned. Is there anyone who would like to get a free copy when I get my first few copies? If not, then I can at least say goodbye knowing I did the best I could, even to the point of giving the book away for free.

I don't think you would be interested in my review, but I will repeat my offer of donating a copy of the book to my local university philosophy department library, should you be interested in sending me a copy. It would get you free exposure to the kind of people you say you want to have reading the book.

[LadyShea]

Compatibilists disagree with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, just like Spacemonkey, have completely missed the reasoning that proves this beyond a shadow of doubt.

I have explained why I think Lessans reasoning was fallacious, and all you've done is assert that it was spot on.

And, this concept is not at all proveable, it can merely be agreed with or not agreed with.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is simple peacegirl. According to compatibilism, our beliefs, desires and motives and values etc. are causally determined (because the brain is a material thing and subject to cause and effect), but we are free to choose how and whether to act on them and to contemplate on them, thereby possibly changing or refining them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is double talk. Don't you see this?

Double talk is your crap about mirror images and magically relocated photons. There is nothing nonsensical about what I said about compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot be causally determined and still be free

Sure you can, I just showed you how it is possible. Are you defining "free" in some odd way?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being free to choose how and whether to act on those choices or to contemplate them does not mean we have free will.

I define free will as being free to to choose how and whether to act.

So yes, it is free will, according to some concepts of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have such a superficial understanding of this issue it's extremely difficult.

LOL, you are the one with the strict binary thinking lacking in nuance.

This part even lines up Lessans.

Compatibilism isn't contradictory, it's simply different than how you've been taught to think about the issue. There are multiple concepts of both free will and determinism. You are stuck in thinking it's an either/or and it's simply not. Why not be more open minded and try to understand a different point of view?

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot have both free will and determinism at the same time.

Hume and other compatibilist disagree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a complete contradiction and someone who is supposed to be a philosophical thinker, you're just as brainwashed as everybody else.

Brainwashed into thinking what exactly?

What "latest theories" do you think I am agreeing with?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it has been a philosophical debate. This knowledge was borne out of philosophical thought, but now there is factual proof that man's will is not free.

You've not offered any proof. It can't even be proven, as I've stated many times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think that just because there was no proof up until now, that this debate will always remain a theory? It's called progress LadyShea.

"Man's will is not free" not a falsifiable proposition. It can't be proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I quoted Wiki to show you how compatibilism is not a contradictory philosophy given varying concepts of free will and varying concepts of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is completely contradictory. I can't talk to you if you keep insisting that this position is logically acceptable.

It is not logically contradictory, nor have you demonstrated any contradiction.

You've asserted it plenty, but can you show us any contradiction?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so obvious to an astute observer that it is completely illogical.

LOL, lots of things about Lessans book are obvious to an astute observer that you will vehemently disagree with, so this opinion of yours holds very little weight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care that in the world of compatibilism there are "varying" degrees of free will and "varying" concepts of determinism. In order to reconcile these two concepts, these definitions of "varying" degrees have been created, but it's total gibberish.

Some people, like Hume, disagree. And nobody cares what you think about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We either have free will or we don't

There is no rational reason to accept this statement as true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, and in an effort to make people blameworthy free will gets a free pass without any real proof that free will exists in the first place.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of free will

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW. These were my own words: According to compatibilism, our beliefs, desires and motives and values etc. are causally determined (because the brain is a material thing and subject to cause and effect), but we are free to choose how and whether to act on them and to contemplate on them, thereby possibly changing or refining them.

Please think carefully about this instead of givine me a knee-jerk reaction based on what you've been taught.

What I've been taught by whom? My only personal experience with free will vs. determinism has been online, starting with Christian apologists, and my looking into the subject has only been for these online discussions. I have no use for the term "free will" myself...I think it's an obsolete concept outside of theology.

So no, I haven't been taught anything about this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If our beliefs, desires, motives and values, etc. are causally determined (because the brain is a material thing and subject to cause and effect), then everything that follows must, out of necessity, be determined.

There you go with the must. Back that must up with any kind of logical argument.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that this thread is getting nowhere fast. The more I defend Lessans, the meaner people get. I know the pattern by now. This thread is doing me no good physically or emotionally. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, and I feel sometimes that I am the horse. I'm shortly going to be marketing the book, which will give me no time to be here. In spite of all the resentment and anger directed toward me and my father, I really hope people have gotten something from this thread, even if it was unrelated to the book. Before I leave, I will offer the book for free to someone who can review it with as much neutrality as possible. They can then give their review. If there's any redeeming quality in this book, I hope it will be mentioned. Is there anyone who would like to get a free copy when I get my first few copies? If not, then I can at least say goodbye knowing I did the best I could, even to the point of giving the book away for free.

See ya in a few hours!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that this thread is getting nowhere fast. The more I defend Lessans, the meaner people get. I know the pattern by now. This thread is doing me no good physically or emotionally. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, and I feel sometimes that I am the horse. I'm shortly going to be marketing the book, which will give me no time to be here. In spite of all the resentment and anger directed toward me and my father, I really hope people have gotten something from this thread, even if it was unrelated to the book. Before I leave, I will offer the book for free to someone who can review it with as much neutrality as possible. They can then give their review. If there's any redeeming quality in this book, I hope it will be mentioned. Is there anyone who would like to get a free copy when I get my first few copies? If not, then I can at least say goodbye knowing I did the best I could, even to the point of giving the book away for free.

peacegirl, if you find yourself compelled to return to this thread, even you must realize that it is time for you to seek professional help.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. You can't judge this man in such a harsh way. You have no idea how many years it took him to not only grasp the significance of what he discovered, but also to put it into words that others could comprehend. He never set out to make a discovery so he did not use the scientific method of hypothesis first, and empirical testing second.

I do know how many years he spent on it... that's the only part of the book that is interesting. You should absolutely write the story of a man who spent the last decades of his life trying to promote what he felt would save the world and being laughed at. It's a truly human story and I'm pretty sure people would want to read it.

Now for your bullcrap,
He did set out to write a scientific book, with mathematical proof. He makes that abundantly and repeatedly clear. I do know what it looks like when someone makes a mathematical proof for a theory of human behaviour. It looks like this:
Nash equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will never make it as a comedian.

It is a good thing then that that is not one of my career goals.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's obvious...

"Because it's obvious" does not a sound argument make.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why did he not anticipate the fact that people would disagree with his claims about conscience and reject them due to his lack of evidence?

Because it's obvious, duh. He was so obviously correct only a fool would fail to agree with him. He did not write his books for fools. He wrote them for people who were smart enough to agree with him.