A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Is the argument that conscience is somehow not subject to causality? Is what we call "conscience" in humans not formed or influenced because of what happens to a person during his or her life?

That's been the big question all along. For Lessans idea to work, we must each be born with an identical, fully formed conscience that will trigger guilt feelings proactively to prevent acts which could cause harm. This is the kind of conscience-in-a-box that only a deity can bestow.

peacegirl has been asked to support that humans have an innate, God given conscience that does not differ between people, but just blows it off.

It has also been explained to her that conscience varies between individuals because it is developed as part of one's values system based on experiences and contemplation, but again she blows that off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's been the big question all along. For Lessans idea to work, we must each be born with an identical, fully formed conscience that will trigger guilt feelings proactively to prevent acts which could cause harm. This is the kind of conscience-in-a-box that only a deity can bestow.

You're right, the laws of our nature are the deity. That's why Lessans said God, not me, is bringing the solution, but this does not mean a personal or supernatural God. I hope you see this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl has been asked to support that humans have an innate, God given conscience that does not differ between people, but just blows it off.

I do not blow it off. If you fail to let me continue, there is no way you will understand how conscience works on each and every person when the conditions of the environment change.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has also been explained to her that conscience varies between individuals because it is developed as part of one's values system based on experiences and contemplation, but again she blows that off.

No, I have never blown it off. If the conditions change whereby conscience is able to develop fully, there is no way someone could hurt another with a first blow. What you are doing is applying what you see in a free will environment and then telling me that this new world is an impossibility. You have to step back LadyShea and be a little more contemplative and a lot less confrontative, or you will never be able to understand why these principles work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

This was, almost word for word, my response.

It's wonderful that you both find competence sexy, but this has nothing to do with his statement that love and marriage have to do with physical attraction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I find competence very sexy. Like watching someone do something they are very good at, and enjoy doing, is very attractive.

Watching my husband playing drums is a total aphrodisiac. It's so effortless for him, and he is totally lost in the music. Beautiful to see.

You are confirming my point LadyShea. It's true that sex starts in the mind, but the end result ends up in the groin.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't.

No, she didn't.

Yes she did, now it's your turn to apologize for a change.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wow, so all of us are totally abnormal in the degree to which personality influences our relationships?

It's not abnormal given the environment we have all been brought up in. It's no surprise that people find men or women who have certain talents as sexy. This goes back to Chapter Four, Words, Not Reality, that explains how words like intelligent, unintelligent, beautiful, ugly. etc., have stratified people into layers of value which, in turn, have created an imbalance in imaginary value. This influences what people find attractive because they want to be with a person who is admired by them, as well as by others.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She is. But unlike Dr. Phil she is ALSO an actual academic- a professor at NYU and fellow at both Yale and Princeton-, and she is licensed to practice psychology and still maintains a small private practice, and she did her post-doctorate work in the field of human sexuality, and she conducted field research while working at Planned Parenthood that was published in government health reports.

Why is Dr. Ruth in this forum? I would think she would be out in the world helping people with sexual problems. I am not taking anything away from her or anyone else who has reached this level of accomplishment, but don't tell me that Dr. Phil is not knowledgable in his field just because he doesn't have a Ph.d next to his name. He has helped countless people, so don't look foolish by criticizing him on this count. I would much rather get help from him than from someone who has 10 degrees but doesn't know how to communicate in a way that makes people want to listen. All the book knowledge in the world means nothing if it can't be applied, and there's no guarantee that a Ph.D. in a particular subject is the best person for the job.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes she did, now it's your turn to apologize for a change.

What they said was true when they said it. The votes came later and therefore do not invalidate the truth of their statements when they were made. And at least ont of those supporting votes was a false vote, the person didn't really support you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's wonderful that you both find competence sexy, but this has nothing to do with his statement that love and marriage have to do with physical attraction.

From these posts on this thread, it seems that both Peacegirl and Lessans placed a great deal of emphasis on sex as part of the relationship, and this quote by Peacegirl in post #22074,

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

In young love, sex is a major and central aspect of the relationship. Like Dr. Phil says, if sex is good it's 10% of the relationship. If it's bad, it becomes 90%.

would support that conclusion. It would also seem to indicate that for both Lessans and Peacegirl sex was either 'bad' or 'nonexistant' which would account for the relative importance to them. So the account as represented in the book and Peacegirls posts, must be seen as heavily biased from an abnormal sex life. It seems that neither of them was, or is, getting any, and so it becomes the most important factor in their lives. I wonder if this lack is dirving Peacegirl's fanaticism about the book and world peace, and just what kind of piece is she refering to?

[Vivisectus]

Why is Dr. Ruth in this forum? I would think she would be out in the world helping people with sexual problems. I am not taking anything away from her or anyone else who has reached this level of accomplishment, but don't tell me that Dr. Phil is not knowledgable in his field just because he doesn't have a Ph.d next to his name. He has helped countless people, so don't look foolish by criticizing him on this count. I would much rather get help from him than from someone who has 10 degrees but doesn't know how to communicate in a way that makes people want to listen. All the book knowledge in the world means nothing if it can't be applied, and there's no guarantee that a Ph.D. in a particular subject is the best person for the job.

This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Kudos to whoever got her to say it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Kudos to whoever got her to say it.

Why is this funny? Is it the fact that I asked about Dr. Ruth, or that I told LadyShea to be careful judging everybody in terms of formal credentials?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is this funny? Is it the fact that I asked about Dr. Ruth, or that I told LadyShea to be careful judging everybody in terms of formal credentials?

Is it the big pointy bald head that does it for you? Or is it the retarded reactionary bull disguised as homsepun straightforwardness?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans shows clearly that when push comes to shove, a person with a strong compulsion to do something could easily give up that compulsion if the alternative was worse. If he knew that by doing something that he felt compelled to do was going to kill his family, he would be able to control that compulsion.

Please tell that fairy tale to the surviving friends and relatives of someone who has killed himself and his family under the influence of an overwhelming compulsion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought I saw one vote. LadyShea mentioned that there was one.

Please link to the post where Lady Shea mentioned in any such thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a person is caused, he cannot be held morally responsible in a deeper sense.

I ask again, why not? What is there to prevent us from holding people accountable for their actions without regard to whether those actions were determined or undertaken freely?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But even though the impulse is strong, and it looks like they cannot choose anything other than what they are doing, if something comes along that is worse to them, they would stop because the preference not to do that thing becomes greater than to do it (whatever that thing is).

Your evidence for this is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please tell that fairy tale to the surviving friends and relatives of someone who has killed himself and his family under the influence of an overwhelming compulsion.

If a person is depressed, he may move in that direction, but to call that a compulsion where he has no control is another story. People kill themselves because living in emotional or physical pain is intolerable and they want to be relieved of that pain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to thank the person who said I made a good impression on them. It helped to boost my morale since it's been pretty low lately. Thanks again for your vote of support!

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are you hallucinating now? Where was this vote of support?

I thought I saw one vote. LadyShea mentioned that there was one.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please link to the post where Lady Shea mentioned in any such thing.

I don't know which post it was. Ask LadyShea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a person is caused, he cannot be held morally responsible in a deeper sense.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I ask again, why not? What is there to prevent us from holding people accountable for their actions without regard to whether those actions were determined or undertaken freely?

Because once it is scientifically accepted that man's will is not free and it is recognized that we can have a better world in a blame free environment (he's not advocating that we stop blaming until we become citizens, or it could make matters worse for ourselves), we will want to do what is necessary to achieve what was never before possible. We don't have to become citizens if we don't want to, but why wouldn't we want to when we realize that we now have the ability to create a world of peace and brotherhood. Think about this: In the new world, if no one strikes a first blow, do we need anyone to hold them accountable? If no one strikes a first blow, do we need to strike back or turn the other cheek? Do you see why you're putting the cart before the horse?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But even though the impulse is strong, and it looks like they cannot choose anything other than what they are doing, if something comes along that is worse to them, they would stop because the preference not to do that thing becomes greater than to do it (whatever that thing is).

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your evidence for this is?

I guess we're back to square one. You don't seem to understand his proof of determinism which is why you are asking that question. You may never accept his evidence, and I can't help that. If you accept the premise that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then we have no choice but to choose that which is the least undesirable or that which is the most desirable under our particular circumstances. This is a universal law. You cannot move in the direction that you believe is worse for yourself if something better comes along. For example, doing something that is sacrificial may benefit you in some way; maybe you are saving someone's life or doing something altruistic, which is also a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Even teenagers who self-mutilate are getting some kind of pay-off whether it's to distract them from their emotional pain, or as a form of self-punishment. They may get greater satisfaction in hurting themselves because they feel they deserve to be punished (which may warrant professional help), or maybe it's to get negative attention because that's the only way they will get noticed. Whatever their motive is, they see that choice as the better option than what any other option offers them at that moment in time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is this funny? Is it the fact that I asked about Dr. Ruth, or that I told LadyShea to be careful judging everybody in terms of formal credentials?

This is funny because you are so out of touch with reality that you have no idea who 'Dr Ruth' is. You really need to wake up from your self induced fantasy world and start paying attention to the world as it really is. Lessans book is a funny, humorous fantasy, but will never be anything that anyone takes seriously, because is just does not reflect reality. If Lessans was serious, he was one sick puppy, if it was a joke, it was OK but not really very good.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your evidence for this is?

Wishful thinking.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, the laws of our nature are the deity. That's why Lessans said God, not me, is bringing the solution, but this does not mean a personal or supernatural God. I hope you see this.

I do not blow it off. If you fail to let me continue, there is no way you will understand how conscience works on each and every person when the conditions of the environment change.

No, I have never blown it off. If the conditions change whereby conscience is able to develop fully, there is no way someone could hurt another with a first blow. What you are doing is applying what you see in a free will environment and then telling me that this new world is an impossibility. You have to step back LadyShea and be a little more contemplative and a lot less confrontative, or you will never be able to understand why these principles work.

So you admit that in order to believe this idea you need to believe that what we tend to call "conscience" is something universal and homogeneous. It is god-given, and not something that develops in people as they go through life.

How do you explain the existence of such a magical entity?

You have to step back LadyShea and be a little more contemplative and a lot less confrontative, or you will never be able to understand why these principles work.

Almost all kook ideas can only ever be understood by people who already agree with it before they investigate it. This one seems no different.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you admit that in order to believe this idea you need to believe that what we tend to call "conscience" is something universal and homogeneous. It is god-given, and not something that develops in people as they go through life.

It is god given but it has to be developed. If a child is abused in any way, his conscience may not develop in the same way as a child who wasn't abused. When you say homogeneous, you are forgetting about the influence of environment. But when there are no more first blows, conscience will be able to develop at its highest capacity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How do you explain the existence of such a magical entity?

It's not magical at all. There is scientific evidence for this aside from Lessans.

You have to step back LadyShea and be a little more contemplative and a lot less confrontative, or you will never be able to understand why these principles work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Almost all kook ideas can only ever be understood by people who already agree with it before they investigate it. This one seems no different.

I didn't tell her not to investigate, but being presumptious and confrontative before all the facts are in, is not what I call good investigation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes she did, now it's your turn to apologize for a change.

Bullshit. She did not. You are wrong. The only supportive vote mentioned by LadyShea came in AFTER all of these posts.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Lessans shows clearly that when push comes to shove, a person with a strong compulsion to do something could easily give up that compulsion if the alternative was worse. If he knew that by doing something that he felt compelled to do was going to kill his family, he would be able to control that compulsion.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please tell that fairy tale to the surviving friends and relatives of someone who has killed himself and his family under the influence of an overwhelming compulsion

Hah yes indeed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know which post it was. Ask LadyShea.

There was no such post.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was not wrong. You are wrong.

Was this your "much stronger argument"? It seems to be the only one you ever offer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can repeat yourself about his claims being astute observations all you like. It doesn't help you one bit. That isn't supporting his claims, but is rather only your excuse for not being able to do so. Again, why do you keep assuming that conscience has some kind of natural "full throttle" state that it is prevented from reaching due to present conditions and limitations? This is the fundamental assumption I keep asking you to support. Would you believe me if I said we had a natural ability to jump to the moon if only our present conditions and practices of [insert social practice here] were to be removed, allowing our jumping ability to run at full throttle?

Why should I stop telling you that you are not supporting his claims? YOU AREN'T. You are not providing any support for them at all. I'm not asking you to tell me what conditions you think have to be met to remove all justifications. I'm asking you why you think a justification would always be necessary under those changed conditions.

I most certainly can. It is perfectly fair and reasonable for me to ask why Lessans never anticipated that the complete absence of any support for his fundamental premises regarding conscience would lead to so many people failing to be convinced of or impressed by his argument. If he was as perceptive and insightful as you claim, then he should have anticipated such an obvious problem. Anyone who has voraciously read and studied history and human behavior should have known that rational people will have a problem with claims that lack any supporting evidence.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without the kind of experienced psychological compulsion which renders a choice highly resistant to variation in antecent causal conditions (i.e. no 'compulsion' beyond mere causal determination), and without coercion, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices, i.e. such that with exactly the same antecedent causal conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.

Compatibilism says that the former is sufficient, and the latter is unnecessary, for making us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you still have no argument or rational objection against it.

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

[quote-peacegirl]It is god given but it has to be developed. If a child is abused in any way, his conscience may not develop in the same way as a child who wasn't abused. When you say homogeneous, you are forgetting about the influence of environment. But when there are no more first blows, conscience will be able to develop at its highest capacity[/quote].

Even if there was a reason to believe that it makes no logical sense as it becomes a chicken and egg problem: you require people to adopt the system even though they exist in the "freewill environment"

It's not magical at all. There is scientific evidence for this aside from Lessans.

Is there? Where?

I didn't tell her not to investigate, but being presumptious and confrontative before all the facts are in, is not what I call good investigation.

[/QUOTE]

Like I said: by all means investigate. Just assume the idea is correct first, expecting some facts to come in later to corroborate what you have already decided is the truth.

Not doing this, is being presumptuous. FFS there are such things as spellcheckers PG.