A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If we saw in real time, then Hubble and Cassini should have seen Jupiter with exactly the same orientation. Don't you think someone would have noticed that the Red Spot is in the wrong position?

Real-time seeing makes unambiguous predictions, and it's an undeniable fact that we don't observe any of that. Not only does it make no sense at all, it's contradicted by all the available evidence.

So just admit that your Dad was wrong about the eyes, and we can move on

I'm not convinced. I'd like to see the time stamp and the discrepancy between what Cassini saw and what Hubble saw at that instant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Why would But need to leave the thread to feel certain that Lessans was wrong?

I didn't say that he had to leave the thread to feel certain that Lessans was wrong. He can stay in the thread and feel certain that Lessans was wrong, especially if he gets the last word. Discussions like this are all about who wins the debate, and if But gets the last word it may give the appearance that I conceded and Lessans was wrong. What a joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean how can you do that now? Read the first three chapters for starters. But you have to really make the effort to understand what he's saying, not just challenge me because you don't believe he could be right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I did. I know what the book claims is true. So now I ask myself the question: is it true? And I want to check.

I have not found anything in the book that I can check. Nothing that states "and we know this because..."

If you have the book, give me a specific example. So far you are making general statements that are so vague I have no way to help you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It would not even have to be particularly hard evidence, or a study, or anything like that. Just a compelling reason to believe it is correct.

The book promises to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that guilt works as it is described in there. What is this proof?

Again, you have to show me you understand why man's will is not free because it leads to the other side of the equation. He explained that we need to be able to justify when we do something that we know is a hurt to another. If we cannot justify it (consciously or subconsciously), our conscience will not allow us to perform the action. It would cause guilt, which none of us want to feel. This IS an astute observation (make fun of the word "astute" all you want) and will be shown to be correct.

[Vivisectus]

If you have the book, give me a specific example. So far you are making general statements that are so vague I have no way to help you.

I already did: how do we know that the removal of blame will remove our ability to justify doing unprovoked harm? I know you believe this to be true. I want to know how you know it is true.

Again, you have to show me you understand why man's will is not free because it leads to the other side of the equation. He explained that we need to be able to justify when we do something that we know is a hurt to another. If we cannot justify it (consciously or subconsciously), our conscience will not allow us to perform the action. It would cause guilt, which none of us want to feel. This IS an astute observation (make fun of the word "astute" all you want) and will be shown to be correct.

That is what you claim. I already know that. What I am asking is: why should I think this is correct?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Discussions like this are all about who wins the debate, and if But gets the last word it may give the appearance that I conceded and Lessans was wrong. What a joke.

You have given the appearance of conceding by repeatedly saying that you are conceding. Of course, you were just lying each time. You are the joke.

[peacegirl]

If you have the book, give me a specific example. So far you are making general statements that are so vague I have no way to help you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I already did: how do we know that the removal of blame will remove our ability to justify doing unprovoked harm? I know you believe this to be true. I want to know how you know it is true. It would not even have to be particularly hard evidence, or a study, or anything like that. Just a compelling reason to believe it is correct.

The book promises to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that guilt works as it is described in there. What is this proof?

Epistemology tells us that there are different ways to truth. The problem here is that you are looking for empirical results. This law cannot be tested this way unless they simulated the new world on a smaller scale. You refuse to look at his observations because you are skeptical. I get that, but it's gone too far and it has become counter-productive. I will say, once again, that empirical confirmation can only come when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment. It's like knowing the correct formula on a blackboard, but it cannot be seen until it is applied in real life.

Again, you have to show me you understand why man's will is not free because it leads to the other side of the equation. He explained that we need to be able to justify when we do something that we know is a hurt to another. If we cannot justify it (consciously or subconsciously), our conscience will not allow us to perform the action. It would cause guilt, which none of us want to feel. This IS an astute observation (make fun of the word "astute" all you want) and will be shown to be correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is what you claim. I already know that. What I am asking is: why should I think this is correct?

Stop thinking about the general application. It doesn't work that way. It only has to do with each individual and their conscience. When you read, you will be able to see whether, under the changed conditions, you could cheat anyone at all. Trust me, you could never, not even taking a dime away from someone if it does not belong to you.

[Vivisectus]

Epistemology tells us that there are different ways to truth. The problem here is that you are looking for empirical results. This law cannot be tested this way unless they simulated the new world on a smaller scale. You refuse to look at his observations because you are skeptical. I get that, but it's gone too far and it has become counter-productive. I will say, once again, that empirical confirmation can only come when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment. It's like knowing the correct formula on a blackboard, but it cannot be seen until it is applied in real life.

Not at all: the evidence could be logical as well. Or something else. But right now it is nothing.

Ah, but then in the end it becomes a simple appeal: please just take my word for it, it really works that way.

It takes more than that to be convincing.

Stop thinking about the general application. It doesn't work that way. It only has to do with each individual and their conscience. When you read, you will be able to see whether, under the changed conditions, you could cheat anyone at all. Trust me, you could never, not even taking a dime away from someone if it does not belong to you.

I did read it, and I did not have some sort of convincing revelation at all. I see no reason to assume it would have that effect. I would be just as likely or unlikely to cheat, in my estimation.

So you think I could not. I think I would be the same as I am now.

How do we check who is correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not at all: the evidence could be logical as well. Or something else. But right now it is nothing.

Ah, but then in the end it becomes a simple appeal: please just take my word for it, it really works that way.

It takes more than that to be convincing.

I did read it, and I did not have some sort of convincing revelation at all. I see no reason to assume it would have that effect. I would be just as likely or unlikely to cheat, in my estimation.

So you think I could not. I think I would be the same as I am now.

How do we check who is correct?

You have not understood the actual proof (assuming that what he says about conscience is correct) by testing it on yourself. You have not done that Vivisectus. You are just surmising, is all. Of course that won't convince you.

[Vivisectus]

But you said

When you read, you will be able to see whether, under the changed conditions, you could cheat anyone at all.

However, I did not experience that at all.

So now what?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not convinced. I'd like to see the time stamp and the discrepancy between what Cassini saw and what Hubble saw at that instant.

First you explain what the fuck I'm even talking about. I'm not sure you know what I mean, given that you think people are suffocating because of the hole in the ozone layer or something.

Give a short summary of the discussion about sunset on Mars in this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Epistemology tells us that there are different ways to truth.

It also tells us that blind faith in the batshit insane ramblings of a demented pool hustler and his lunatic daughter isn't one of them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not understood the actual proof...

There is no actual proof, Dingbat. So of course no-one has understood it. You are completely insane.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But you said

However, I did not experience that at all.

So now what?

Tell me what you read?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

If we saw in real time, then Hubble and Cassini should have seen Jupiter with exactly the same orientation. Don't you think someone would have noticed that the Red Spot is in the wrong position?

Real-time seeing makes unambiguous predictions, and it's an undeniable fact that we don't observe any of that. Not only does it make no sense at all, it's contradicted by all the available evidence.

We cannot possibly see in real time because time is not real. There is no past and no future, there is only NOW. We see everything NOW. We hear everything NOW. We do everything NOW.

Do you understand NOW.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Do you admit that you can't explain what's going on with the moons of Jupiter? Or why Jupiter's orientation is off by tens of degrees when you compare time-stamped pictures from Hubble and Cassini?

I don't have an answer. If you believe that the time stamping proves that we see in delayed time --- and that's the only conclusion that can be drawn --- then you can leave this thread feeling certain that Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by But

If we saw in real time, then Hubble and Cassini should have seen Jupiter with exactly the same orientation. Don't you think someone would have noticed that the Red Spot is in the wrong position?

Why would the Red Dot have to be in the wrong position? Maybe the telescopes were picking up the Red Dot at a slightly different angle. Sorry if I'm frustrating you, but please watch your mouth if you want to continue the conversation.

Originally Posted by But

Real-time seeing makes unambiguous predictions, and it's an undeniable fact that we don't observe any of that. Not only does it make no sense at all, it's contradicted by all the available evidence.

So just admit that your Dad was wrong about the eyes, and we can move on

I'm not convinced. I'd like to see the time stamp and the discrepancy between what Cassini saw and what Hubble saw at that instant.

Originally Posted by But

First you explain what the fuck I'm even talking about. I'm not sure you know what I mean, given that you think people are suffocating because of the hole in the ozone layer or something.

I should have said "exposure to high levels of ozone can reduce lung capacity."

Bad ozone-
Ozone near Earth’s surface in excess of natural amounts is considered bad ozone. It is formed by reactions involving human-made pollutant gases. Increasing surface ozone above natural levels is harmful to humans, plants, and other living systems because ozone reacts strongly to destroy or alter many biological molecules. High ozone exposure reduces crop yields and forest growth. In humans, exposure to high levels of ozone can reduce lung capacity; cause chest pains, throat irritation, and coughing; and worsen preexisting health conditions related to the heart and lungs.
[quote="But"]Give a short summary of the discussion about sunset on Mars in this thread.

http://www.theozonehole.com/twenty.htm

[davidm]

I can't believe people are still talking with this gibbering buffoon. The only proper posts, if any, are just casual ridicule of her.

But anyway, i'll just add this delicious little tidbit: I can't be arsed to look it up right now, but there's an article, I believe in Atlantic magazine, about free will. The author advocates something called "illusionism." The idea here is that we don't really have free will, but it's best for all of us to maintain the illusion of it. Why? Well, you see, they did some empirical tests -- that very thing that dum dum hates so much -- and it turns out that -- who'd have thunk it? -- people who come to believe we lack free will are more prone to cheat, lie, and behave unethically -- the very opposite of what Daddy Dum Dum claimed.

[davidm]

There's No Such Thing as Free Will

From the article:

If moral responsibility depends on faith in our own agency, then as belief in determinism spreads, will we become morally irresponsible? And if we increasingly see belief in free will as a delusion, what will happen to all those institutions that are based on it?

In 2002, two psychologists had a simple but brilliant idea: Instead of speculating about what might happen if people lost belief in their capacity to choose, they could run an experiment to find out. Kathleen Vohs, then at the University of Utah, and Jonathan Schooler, of the University of Pittsburgh, asked one group of participants to read a passage arguing that free will was an illusion, and another group to read a passage that was neutral on the topic. Then they subjected the members of each group to a variety of temptations and observed their behavior. Would differences in abstract philosophical beliefs influence people’s decisions?

Yes, indeed. When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers. When given an opportunity to steal—to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins—those whose belief in free will had been undermined pilfered more. On a range of measures, Vohs told me, she and Schooler found that “people who are induced to believe less in free will are more likely to behave immorally.”

It seems that when people stop believing they are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions. Consequently, they act less responsibly and give in to their baser instincts. Vohs emphasized that this result is not limited to the contrived conditions of a lab experiment. “You see the same effects with people who naturally believe more or less in free will,” she said.

Oh, well! So much for the mathematically undeniable two-sided equation!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We cannot possibly see in real time because time is not real. There is no past and no future, there is only NOW. We see everything NOW. We hear everything NOW. We do everything NOW.

Do you understand NOW.

I hope YOU understand NOW. There is nothing contradictory about the claim that everything we do is in the present.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would the Red Dot have to be in the wrong position? Maybe the telescopes were picking up the Red Dot at a slightly different angle. Sorry if I'm frustrating you, but please watch your mouth if you want to continue the conversation.

Excuse me, but are you really this fucking dumb?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

There's No Such Thing as Free Will

From the article:

Oh, well! So much for the mathematically undeniable two-sided equation!

I know about Schooler's experiment, and it just shows how misleading the results can turn out to be. This was a psychological experiment that had students being told there would be no consequences for their actions because their will is not free, which then became the perfect excuse for them to do whatever they wanted. They reasoned, "If our will is not free, then that means we can do whatever we want and not be blamed. So let's cheat to our heart's content." Under the changed conditions, this is the opposite of what would actually happen. This experiment was a superficial analysis. Schooler did not understand anything about conscience and how it functions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Excuse me, but are you really this fucking dumb?

I guess we're done for the day.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

Excuse me, but are you really this fucking dumb?

Also, @ "Red Dot." Is that like a red dot sale? Or a red dot scope?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know about Schooler's experiment, and it just shows how misleading the results can turn out to be. This was a psychological experiment that had students being told there would be no consequences for their actions because their will is not free, which then became the perfect excuse for them to do whatever they wanted. They reasoned, "If our will is not free, then that means we can do whatever we want and not be blamed. So let's cheat to our heart's content." Under the changed conditions, this is the opposite of what would actually happen. This experiment was a superficial analysis. Schooler did not understand anything about conscience and how it functions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Believe me, that smirk will be wiped from your face as soon as this knowledge is confirmed valid by science. There IS hope for a better world.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, that smirk will be wiped from your face as soon as this knowledge is confirmed valid by science. There IS hope for a better world.

I guess "I guess we're done for the day" meant "I guess we're done for less than five minutes."