A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will disregard anything that proves Lessans right in favor of your own mistaken reasoning as a consequence.

Try posting something that proves Lessans is right and see what happens. What have you got to lose? So far you have not provided anything that even resembles proof that Lessans was right about anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Try posting something that proves Lessans is right and see what happens. What have you got to lose? So far you have not provided anything that even resembles proof that Lessans was right about anything.

Angakuk, the proof is there, but no one is letting me continue because they are convinced he is wrong. This is an uphill battle. I cannot continue if people are not going to allow me to present the facts before there is a rush to judgment. I think this entire effort may have been a lost cause.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat, once again, that this discovery is not based on faith. Lessans' claims are accurate, not because he claims it, but because after reading thousands of accounts he saw a pattern in the way conscience works. It's very clear to me. I'm hoping it will one day be clear to you.

That's a faith claim.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that it is hard to envision such a world, but that does not mean it's not possible to create such a world. You are assuming that these principles could not work on an individual level, but that is far from the truth if these are invariable laws of nature which we're just beginning to understand.

You keep talking about unsupported assertions. These are very well supported because his observations came from accounts of human behavior down through history, not just in his generation.

As far as blame and punishment working pretty well, it is the only system we have, but it is far from optimal. Those who are caught and punished and continue to flaunt the law will be unable to disregard the new environmental conditions, because this law is much more powerful than the threat of punishment. Moreover, there will be no "rules" to break in the Golden Age. This has nothing to do with rules because rules imply consequences. The only consequence in the new world is knowing there will be no consequences if one should hurt another without justification, which becomes a worse punishment than any punishment society has to offer.

<snip>

That wasn't me you were replying to. That was TheDoc. Seriously, how hard is it to keep track of who you're talking to?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How are you wrong? You're wrong from beginning to end.

You are 100% mistaken Spacemonkey and if it is the last thing I do, it will be to refute your false conclusions about Lessans.

I will say for the umpteeth time, there were no presuppositions. There were accurate premises, that led to accurate conclusions. Nothing more, nothing less.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. His demonstration establishes his premise which means there is no circular reasoning whatsoever, and the fact that you keep saying this makes me feel that there is no hope for this thread.

I hope when you learn that this is not a faith claim or fallacy, that you will apologize to me big time, because this entire attack on Lessans is totally unfounded.

Really? Show me where?

There is no fallacy whether you see it or not at this point. I understand your skepticism, but why can't you be a good investigator instead of attacking him before the facts are truly considered.

Won't you be shocked when you realize that you were wrong all along, and that your reasoning is faulty? Once and for all, would you please calm down enough to give him a platform in which to speak? You have not done that, so why are you jumping to conclusions because this new world appears impossible coming from your vantage point?

You have NOT given him the benefit of the doubt in any way, shape or form. I hope this is not your best, because if it is, we're in big trouble. Your lack of careful investigation makes me wonder if you are the scholar you think you are. You would not do this if you were.

I will not place the cart before the horse, which is what you're asking me to do. You are deaf when it comes to hearing me. I don't think we will be able to continue when you're this antagonistic to me because this kind of world seems like a fantasy. You will disregard anything that proves Lessans right in favor of your own mistaken reasoning as a consequence.

Another weaselling content-free assertion-laden whining ad hominem post from Peacegirl, who still cannot support her Daddy's presuppositions. Tell me Peacegirl, without asking us to share your faith, why should anyone agree that the following points are 'accurate premises' rather than unsupported presuppositions? Where exactly did he establish these premises as accurate?

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That wasn't me you were replying to. That was TheDoc. Seriously, how hard is it to keep track of who you're talking to?

Just about as difficult as it is for her to keep a grasp of reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, the proof is there, but no one is letting me continue because they are convinced he is wrong. This is an uphill battle. I cannot continue if people are not going to allow me to present the facts before there is a rush to judgment. I think this entire effort may have been a lost cause.

So unless everyone just rolls over and agrees with her without question she can't go on. Somehow our lack of understanding is inhibiting her ability to present the material. Must be 'efferent presentation'?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a faith claim.

No it's not a faith claim if he accurately described how conscience works after years and years of astute observation. But the only way we will ever move forward is if you desire to hear what he has to say, without bucking me left and right, so I can explain why a "no blame" environment will produce the kind of results that a free will environment could never accomplish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another weaselling content-free assertion-laden whining ad hominem post from Peacegirl, who still cannot support her Daddy's presuppositions. Tell me Peacegirl, without asking us to share your faith, why should anyone agree that the following points are 'accurate premises' rather than unsupported presuppositions? Where exactly did he establish these premises as accurate?

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

I think our conversation is over. The entire chapter is a careful description of how conscience works on a universal scale. He describes why a person cannot move in a certain direction for greater satisfaction, and why conscience won't allow someone to hurt others without some type of justification or rationalization, even if that justification is not obvious to an observer. You seem to think that individual people will be able to beat this natural law; especially those people who try to get away with crimes in this world. That's where you're mistaken, but, unfortunately, the only way you will be convinced of this is to see the empirical proof, which won't come to pass if people can't get past this stumbling block. You won't even give him the benefit of the doubt, for one second, by hearing the rest of the chapter. You're making it too difficult for me to even want to continue.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You seem to think that individual people will be able to beat this natural law; especially those people who try to get away with crimes in this world. That's where you're mistaken, but, unfortunately, the only way you will be convinced of this is to see the empirical proof, which won't come to pass if people can't get past this stumbling block. .

So an undeniable law of human nature must first be accepted by human beings before it can go into effect? If I believe that I have free will, and reject the idea that I do not have free will, then 'I have free will' and Lessans whole argument falls apart. All we need to do is to reject 'No free will', 'Greater Satisfaction', and a 'Perfect Conscious' and Lessans is religated to the dust bin of History. Done and done.

PS "I see past events."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it's not a faith claim if he accurately described how conscience works after years and years of astute observation. But the only way we will ever move forward is if you desire to hear what he has to say, without bucking me left and right, so I can explain why a "no blame" environment will produce the kind of results that a free will environment could never accomplish.

YOUR faith claim, not his. You always do this. You make a faith claim, I tell you that you just made a faith claim, and then you reply that Lessans didn't make a faith claim. What part of your brain broke to make you keep repeating this mistake?

Your claim that Lessans' claims are accurate is a faith claim. You have no way of knowing whether or not the material he read adequately supported his claims - because you don't know what he read or how he inferred his claims from the material. You have no way of knowing if his observations were astute. You have only your faith.

Asking you to support the presuppositions upon which his entire argument depends is not 'bucking you left and right'. His 'no blame' environment will not produce the results he predicts unless those presuppositions are correct. And you still can't give anyone any rational reason to agree with them. 'My daddy read lotsa books, so you should just trust him!' is not going to be good enough.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think our conversation is over. The entire chapter is a careful description of how conscience works on a universal scale. He describes why a person cannot move in a certain direction for greater satisfaction, and why conscience won't allow someone to hurt others without some type of justification or rationalization, even if that justification is not obvious to an observer. You seem to think that individual people will be able to beat this natural law; especially those people who try to get away with crimes in this world. That's where you're mistaken, but, unfortunately, the only way you will be convinced of this is to see the empirical proof, which won't come to pass if people can't get past this stumbling block. You won't even give him the benefit of the doubt, for one second, by hearing the rest of the chapter. You're making it too difficult for me to even want to continue.

You can whine and moan about how unfair it all is all you like. It won't make any difference. The "careful description" of his entire chapter presupposes and depends upon the truth of he following presuppositions. If you can't support them then his first non-discovery goes down the toilet:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOUR faith claim, not his. You always do this. You make a faith claim, I tell you that you just made a faith claim, and then you reply that Lessans didn't make a faith claim. What part of your brain broke to make you keep repeating this mistake?

Your claim that Lessans' claims are accurate is a faith claim. You have no way of knowing whether or not the material he read adequately supported his claims - because you don't know what he read or how he inferred his claims from the material. You have no way of knowing if his observations were astute. You have only your faith.

I'm very sorry Spacemonkey, but you're wrong again. This is not my being faithful that Lessans supported his claims. I know he supported his claims. He read for years and years, and his description is correct. He also said that if someone is psychotic (using today's terminology), where his conscience has been severed, then this "no blame" environment would not be able to control his behavior, but this would be a rare occurrence.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World: p. 239

Anytime a citizen
would hurt somebody physically, or give a command to hurt others,
we would know immediately that he is sick and would commit him to
a hospital until he is able to resume his normal life. We would do the
same if a dog was to bite somebody — take him off the streets.
However, even though it is very unlikely that a citizen would become
mentally sick under the changed conditions, we would be prepared for
any eventuality. Should this be the case his family would have to
assume responsibility for him, but no one would blame or punish him
in any way even if it was necessary to confine him to an institution for
treatment. It is important to remember that when all the sources of
hurt in society are permanently removed, mental illness will be
virtually wiped from the face of the earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Asking you to support the presuppositions upon which his entire argument depends is not 'bucking you left and right'. His 'no blame' environment will not produce the results he predicts unless those presuppositions are correct. And you still can't give anyone any rational reason to agree with them. 'My daddy read lotsa books, so you should just trust him!' is not going to be good enough.

That is not what this is about at all. These principles are spelled out in the book, and they are absolutely undeniable. If I describe to someone who has never seen a car before, a person might not believe my description because it presupposes that this mechanism in engines works for all types of cars, not just one or two, and they want to see more proof or else they will reject my description. I know this is not a perfect analogy but that's what you are asking of Lessans. He had a broad enough sampling to pull out the common denominator, which is the only way he could have made this generalization.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can whine and moan about how unfair it all is all you like. It won't make any difference. The "careful description" of his entire chapter presupposes and depends upon the truth of he following presuppositions. If you can't support them then his first non-discovery goes down the toilet:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

Unless someone comes forward who actually is interested in hearing more of my presentation, without the stubborn resistance that is being displayed (before the book is even thoroughly investigated), this thread is over.

[LadyShea]

How many times are you going to say that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times are you going to say that?

I'm very serious LadyShea. I'm tired of Spacemonkey telling me that it's a faith position on my part. No, Lessans did not test a hypothesis, but after many years of intense reading, he was able to see the general mechanism as to how conscience works, which is an accurate description. If no one wants to hear anything more because he didn't use the scientific method by writing down his data, then it's a lost cause. The fact that you show no interest or curiosity, but rather question the sincerity of my warning, is further evidence that I'm wasting my time here.

[LadyShea]

You've said something along those lines at least a dozen times. Your sincerity is questionable based on your past actions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times are you going to say that?

How many times has she said it already?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said something along those lines at least a dozen times. Your sincerity is questionable based on your past actions.

LadyShea, I know you are an inquisitive person, and that is so wonderful. I just hope you don't cut off your nose to spite your face because it would be sad to me, not because I need you to understand these principles for me to go on, but for your sake (which has nothing to do with me). I hope you hear me because this knowledge is life changing for those of you who understand God's laws. If I never talk to you again, you have helped me in so many ways. You have helped me to clarify my own expression of these principles. Moreover, you have helped me find a way to promote this book. For that, I am forever grateful. I don't want you to think that your advice has been gone unnoticed; it has not. I have taken everything you have counseled me on very seriously, and I will change some ways I handle people's objections. All I can hope for in this type of situation is that you keep an mind mind until the facts are in, which they are not. I know you demand facts, and I get that. This is understandable. All I am asking is that you don't give up too soon. This song is representative of what Lessans must have felt when no would listen to him because he was not a recognized expert in the field. But this song is not an effort to try to let your guard down. That is not why I'm posting this song for. It is representative of my sadness as to how difficult this journey has been.

schindlers list theme jazz version - YouTube

[LadyShea]

Appealing to possible personal consequences isn't a valid argument, it's just another way to weasel, peacegirl.

I appreciate that you believe you have something important and life changing here, unfortunately it's just not convincing to me. You have had ample opportunity to present the evidence and "proof" that you see so clearly, but without your faith in Lessans astuteness, and your trust in him as a person you knew and loved, you wouldn't see it at all either. It has nothing to do with him not being a recognized expert, many laypeople make great discoveries (one of the pioneers in heart surgery, specifically IIRC bypass surgery, was a janitor when he caught the eye of a researcher who brought him on board), it's that he didn't "show his work", he only presented his conclusions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Appealing to possible personal consequences isn't a valid argument, it's just another way to weasel, peacegirl.

But this is a common justification for some proposed solution to all the ills of the world. Jonestown would be a good cautionary tale, starting with the promise of Utopia and ending in a tragedy. But then that is what can happen when you listen to and follow a Madman.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Appealing to possible personal consequences isn't a valid argument, it's just another way to weasel, peacegirl.

I appreciate that you believe you have something important and life changing here, unfortunately it's just not convincing to me. You have had ample opportunity to present the evidence and "proof" that you see so clearly, but without your faith in Lessans astuteness, and your trust in him as a person you knew and loved, you wouldn't see it at all either. It has nothing to do with him not being a recognized expert, many laypeople make great discoveries (one of the pioneers in heart surgery, specifically IIRC bypass surgery, was a janitor when he caught the eye of a researcher who brought him on board), it's that he didn't "show his work", he only presented his conclusions.

I also appreciate that you really don't find this discovery convincing. It's okay Ladyshea, you are not meant to. I have presented his findings. This is not about trust, nor is this a faith based position as you keep falsely calling it. I thank you for your honest feelings so that we don't have to waste anymore time. From the beginning you used the fact that he was my father against me, along with the fact that he didn't write the data down, even though this discovery is scientific, which only means it is based on an observance [from thousands and thousands of samples that you seem to conveniently ignore] that are based in reality). It's just unfortunate that your mind won't allow you to listen to the full discovery before rushing to judgment, as I've said all along.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm very serious LadyShea. I'm tired of Spacemonkey telling me that it's a faith position on my part. No, Lessans did not test a hypothesis, but after many years of intense reading, he was able to see the general mechanism as to how conscience works, which is an accurate description.

That's a faith claim right there. Do you know how faith claims are distinguished from rational claims? The latter but not the former are supported by evidence and/or argument. You have no evidence or arguments to show that his years of reading were adequate to establish the accuracy of his claims. Therefore it is a faith claim (on your part) that this was the case.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unless someone comes forward who actually is interested in hearing more of my presentation, without the stubborn resistance that is being displayed (before the book is even thoroughly investigated), this thread is over.

See? Lessans didn't support these presuppositions and neither can you. Requesting grounds for accepting these points is not "stubborn resistance" - it is precisely what a thorough investigation of his work requires. Such investigation is critical investigation, and requires us to establish what must be true for his arguments to work, and then enquire as to whether or not these things are in fact true. If you've never questioned these presuppositions or looked into the evidence for and against them, then you've never thoroughly investigated his work. Who ever heard of a legitimate scientific discovery where discussion had to cease whenever a premise or background assumption was questioned?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From the beginning you used the fact that he was my father against me

No I didn't use it against you. Your bias was very obvious, so I looked for the relationship I knew to be there, and there it was.

That you were not forthcoming about the connection was dishonest. Research papers all carry a disclosure of all connections and relationships, for this reason, to be upfront about possible biases.

along with the fact that he didn't write the data down, even though this discovery is scientific, which only means it is based on an observance [from thousands and thousands of samples that you seem to conveniently ignore]

How can I ignore "thousands of samples" I've never seen or read? Lessans didn't even offer a list of sources or citations of books researched! YOU don't even know what those samples are because Lessans didn't write them down.

How do you know there were thousands and thousands of samples? Because he told you so and you believed him. That is faith and trust in your father, that is faith and trust we readers have no reason, whatsoever, to offer the author of a book.