A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, time means nothing if the discussion never gets beyond a certain point. There is an inherent problem discussing a book of such importance in a forum type venue. It actually degrades it, just like a book gets degraded when it's given away for free. These forums are meant for debate, and I came here to share a discovery, which was my first mistake. I thought people would be interested, but they're really not. They are more interested in showing me where I'm wrong. I do believe you read some of the book (I don't know about "all"; only you know that), and I believe you are trying to give serious thought to this work, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So I don't think you're making a snap judgment on purpose, although you need a lot more clarification. As far as this group goes, the understanding quotient is about nil despite the obvious opinions to the contrary.

LadyShea is right. You are pathologically dishonest.

I said I'd read almost all of the book and have spent over a year discussing it with you. You said I'd done no such thing. You also then claimed you had not accused me of not reading what I have read. You were then forced to admit that I have spent over a year discussing it with you. Stop being dishonest and own up to your mistake.

[Vivisectus]

Spacemonkey, you are facing a believer who has gotten hold of an Absolute Good.

Any lie, any obfuscation, and bending of the truth is justified when defending an Absolute Good because anything that could even make it LOOK slightly bad is automatically bad and wrong. Would you lie to someone to get them into heaven? Of course you would! You do them a small and temporary bad turn, but at the same time you do them a huge and eternal favour!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because that's not how free will is normally defined. There is moral responsibility attached to this term. I will let you use it for now so we can move forward, or we'll be stuck here forever.

Blatantly irrational. You can't admit that we meet the definition for having compatibilist free will while continuing to claim that we have no kind of free will at all. You are still completely failing to separate the definition of compatibilist free will from the thesis of compatiblism (which says that this kind of free will is sufficient for moral responsibility).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We must go in a step by step process or your questions will remain unanswered. I don't want that to happen.

I told you I'm not doing it that way. I am going to post the next two pages, and we'll discuss the meaning of his words, if you want to. If not, oh well.

Avoiding questions by asserting they'll all be explained at some indeterminate point in the future is not a step-by-step process. It is just cowardly avoidance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All blameworthy means is that you are hurting someone through your actions. In the new world, if you were contemplating an "immoral" or "evil" action, your conscience would never allow you to follow through, whereas in today's world if you were considering an evil or immoral action, all you would have to do to quiet your conscience is to come up with a rationalization, which you cannot do under the changed conditions. You will understand this much better if you let me move forward.

Why would my conscience require quieting for something I don't consider to be blameworthy? Why would conscience prevent me from doing something for which I would not be morally responsible?

The rest of your post was too long to be worth responding to. At no point do you manage to address the central problem. All you do is continue to make the same unsupported claims and assumptions about conscience which I've been asking you to identify and support. It's ridiculous.

You simply can't separate the functioning of conscience from our judgments of moral responsibility. Our conscience constitutes our intuitions of what is or is not morally right and wrong. So if I am convinced that some action is one that a person should not be blamed for, then I can't possibly feel guilty about doing it. And if I do have a guilty conscience about some action, then I will thereby consider it to be the kind of action which should warrant blame and punishment for anyone doing it.

If we cannot consider ourselves blameworthy for some actual or contemplated action, then cannot consider ourselves morally responsible for it. If we do not consider ourselves morally responsible for something then we cannot judge it to be morally wrong. And if we cannot judge it to be morally wrong, then it is impossible to have (or expect to have) a guilty conscience about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All in good time, my dear, all in good time.

Who do you think you're kidding? You have no intention whatsoever of ever answering this question.

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Spacemonkey, you are facing a believer who has gotten hold of an Absolute Good.

Any lie, any obfuscation, and bending of the truth is justified when defending an Absolute Good because anything that could even make it LOOK slightly bad is automatically bad and wrong. Would you lie to someone to get them into heaven? Of course you would! You do them a small and temporary bad turn, but at the same time you do them a huge and eternal favour!

peacegirl has got to lie to the entire human race and you know what they say, 'you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time'. peacegirl is screwed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Spacemonkey, you are facing a believer who has gotten hold of an Absolute Good.

Any lie, any obfuscation, and bending of the truth is justified when defending an Absolute Good because anything that could even make it LOOK slightly bad is automatically bad and wrong. Would you lie to someone to get them into heaven? Of course you would! You do them a small and temporary bad turn, but at the same time you do them a huge and eternal favour!

Being honest in addressing her mistakes with us would also require her to face up to the extent of her protection and avoidance mechanisms, which is something her mental illness and faith will not allow her to do.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I make plenty of mistakes, and so did Lessans, but that has nothing to do with the validity of these principles.

Actually Lessans mistakes have everything to do with the validity of the principles because his mistakes are all through the book and yours are all over the internet.

[naturalist.atheist]

I think though in peacegirl's mental state she genuinely thinks she is being honest. I still can't forget her reaction to the baby mimic videos. She said that her babies never mimicked and then promptly dismissed it and continued on with yet another Lessans claim/blunder that babies can't see. Her mental illness does not allow her to realize that this sort of behavior makes her look dishonest, mentally retarded, mentally ill or all three.

[thedoc]

Roger Miller "Old Toy Trains" 1967 ...

&feature=related

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, time means nothing if the discussion never gets beyond a certain point. There is an inherent problem discussing a book of such importance in a forum type venue. It actually degrades it, just like a book gets degraded when it's given away for free. These forums are meant for debate, and I came here to share a discovery, which was my first mistake. I thought people would be interested, but they're really not. They are more interested in showing me where I'm wrong. I do believe you read some of the book (I don't know about "all"; only you know that), and I believe you are trying to give serious thought to this work, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So I don't think you're making a snap judgment on purpose, although you need a lot more clarification. As far as this group goes, the understanding quotient is about nil despite the obvious opinions to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LadyShea is right. You are pathologically dishonest.

I said I'd read almost all of the book and have spent over a year discussing it with you.

Being in a forum venue does not allow a serious discussion with one person. You asked some questions within a large group. I don't call that a year discussing it with me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said I'd done no such thing.

I know you listened in during those months, and I remember you participated somewhat through the course of those 10 months, but within that time there was so much interference, as there is here, that the discussion had very little continuity. So you think I'm a pathological liar? That's so funny to me because I'm an honest person. So what are you trying to prove? Are you trying to tell me that from this 10 months + 2 months, you know all there is to know?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You also then claimed you had not accused me of not reading what I have read. You were then forced to admit that I have spent over a year discussing it with you. Stop being dishonest and own up to your mistake.

Where in this comment did I accuse you of not reading what you read?

I do believe you read some of the book (I don't know about "all"; only you know that), and I believe you are trying to give serious thought to this work, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because that's not how free will is normally defined. There is moral responsibility attached to this term. I will let you use it for now so we can move forward, or we'll be stuck here forever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Blatantly irrational. You can't admit that we meet the definition for having compatibilist free will while continuing to claim that we have no kind of free will at all. You are still completely failing to separate the definition of compatibilist free will from the thesis of compatiblism (which says that this kind of free will is sufficient for moral responsibility).

I will never say "I have free will" because we don't, even if it meets the compatibilist definition. I will say "I can choose", which also meets the definition. If you demand that I say I have free will, according to the compatibilist definition (as opposed to the thesis of compatibilism), then we're done because this has now become a semantic nightmare.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We must go in a step by step process or your questions will remain unanswered. I don't want that to happen.

I told you I'm not doing it that way. I am going to post the next two pages, and we'll discuss the meaning of his words, if you want to. If not, oh well.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Avoiding questions by asserting they'll all be explained at some indeterminate point in the future is not a step-by-step process. It is just cowardly avoidance.

I am answering many of your question along the way IN MY OWN WORDS. You have a gripe and I don't know if you can be objective at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All blameworthy means is that you are hurting someone through your actions. In the new world, if you were contemplating an "immoral" or "evil" action, your conscience would never allow you to follow through, whereas in today's world if you were considering an evil or immoral action, all you would have to do to quiet your conscience is to come up with a rationalization, which you cannot do under the changed conditions. You will understand this much better if you let me move forward.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would my conscience require quieting for something I don't consider to be blameworthy? Why would conscience prevent me from doing something for which I would not be morally responsible?

A hurt to another that would have justified blame in this world would not be blamed in the new world, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't know what a first blow is (which only means causing "unprovoked" harm). In other words, just because an action is no longer going to be blamed or punished does not mean that your conscience doesn't know it's wrong. Yes, those actions are worthy of blame in a free will society, but I'm trying to show you that when one knows in advance he is not going to be blamed (even though his behavior is hurtful), conscience will do whatever it can to prevent that situation from arising.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The rest of your post was too long to be worth responding to. At no point do you manage to address the central problem. All you do is continue to make the same unsupported claims and assumptions about conscience which I've been asking you to identify and support. It's ridiculous.

That's a cop-out if I ever heard one.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You simply can't separate the functioning of conscience from our judgments of moral responsibility. Our conscience constitutes our intuitions of what is or is not morally right and wrong. So if I am convinced that some action is one that a person should not be blamed for, then I can't possibly feel guilty about doing it. And if I do have a guilty conscience about some action, then I will thereby consider it to be the kind of action which should warrant blame and punishment for anyone doing it.

You're mixed up, and if you won't meet me halfway, we can't continue. If you have a guilty conscience about doing something that you know is wrong, you won't be able to do it BECAUSE YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY IT. In this world, you CAN JUSTIFY IT.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If we cannot consider ourselves blameworthy for some actual or contemplated action, then cannot consider ourselves morally responsible for it.

Not true. Our conscience does not need blame in order to know when something is hurtful. If I run a red light and paralyze someone --- and the family is crying bitterly --- (but they refuse to blame me for my careless action because they know I couldn't help myself since my will is not free), my feelings of moral responsibility get greater. Knowing that no one would blame me for whatever I do (this reaction of "no blame" would be known in advance) would cause me to never take any chances that could get me into this kind of situation because the consequences of hurting someone and not being blamed for it are difficult to even contemplate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If we do not consider ourselves morally responsible for something then we cannot judge it to be morally wrong. And if we cannot judge it to be morally wrong, then it is impossible to have (or expect to have) a guilty conscience about it.

I did not say "if we don't consider ourselves to be morally responsible"; we know we are morally responsible if we do something to hurt another". The only difference is that we can't shift that responsibility to something else when we're not being blamed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

All in good time, my dear, all in good time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who do you think you're kidding? You have no intention whatsoever of ever answering this question.

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

I'm doing the best I can in a very very hostile forum. It's difficult as it is; and you're only adding to it.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, that was a quote from Morrison, who maybe didn't calculate correctly, but please don't make the leap from this quotation to "therefore Lessans' claims are wrong".

1. Why do you say maybe? It's obviously not just 'not correct', it's obviously wrong. You say maybe, I think, because you still can't bear to have any of your points undermined for any reason, no matter how obvious.

2. Why have you answered none of my other points? Why do you laud the behaviour of the ancient Greeks, and then behave in a completely opposite fashion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

1. Why do you say maybe? It's obviously not just 'not correct', it's obviously wrong. You say maybe, I think, because you still can't bear to have any of your points undermined for any reason, no matter how obvious.

I say maybe because I don't know who's right, the dictionary, or Morrison. Regardless, this does not have bearing on Lessans' claims.

Originally Posted by Dragar

2. Why have you answered none of my other points? Why do you laud the behaviour of the ancient Greeks, and then behave in a completely opposite fashion?

What are you talking about Dragar? I cannot accomodate one person's complaints. I am not lauding the behavior of the ancient Greeks; Lessans only put that quote in there to show that it takes a long time for a new discovery to take hold. I'm sorry, but you'll have to put your refutations aside if you are ever going to understand why I'm here. If not, it's okay too, but just know that your list does not prove Lessans wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being in a forum venue does not allow a serious discussion with one person. You asked some questions within a large group. I don't call that a year discussing it with me.

I know you listened in during those months, and I remember you participated somewhat through the course of those 10 months, but within that time there was so much interference, as there is here, that the discussion had very little continuity. So you think I'm a pathological liar? That's so funny to me because I'm an honest person. So what are you trying to prove? Are you trying to tell me that from this 10 months + 2 months, you know all there is to know?

I have discussed this with you for over a year. That is a fact, and one you can't weasel out of by trying to redefine what counts as 'real' discussion. Why can't you just be honest and own up to being wrong in claiming I'd done no such thing? Your continued dishonesty in the face of incontrovertible facts does you no favors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have discussed this with you for over a year. That is a fact, and one you can't weasel out of by trying to redefine what counts as 'real' discussion. Why can't you just be honest and own up to being wrong in claiming I'd done no such thing? Your continued dishonesty in the face of incontrovertible facts does you no favors.

Your definition of "discussion" is the same as your definition of "freewill". BOGUS.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will never say "I have free will" because we don't, even if it meets the compatibilist definition. I will say "I can choose", which also meets the definition. If you demand that I say I have free will, according to the compatibilist definition (as opposed to the thesis of compatibilism), then we're done because this has now become a semantic nightmare.

It's a semantic nightmare for you because Lessans insisted we have no free will at all, so you feel compelled to say the same thing even after it has been established that we meet the compatibilist definition and therefore by definition do have compatibilist free will. Even when it is clearly explained and stipulated that this need not commit you to saying we are morally responsible as a result, you simply refuse to be rational on this point. Lessans said it, so you're going to repeat it, no matter how dogmatic it makes you look.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering many of your question along the way IN MY OWN WORDS.

No you're not. You just do exactly what I just quoted you doing. You repeat the claims I'm asking you to justify, and assert that it will all be made clear at some point in the future if we just keep moving forward.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A hurt to another that would have justified blame in this world would not be blamed in the new world, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't know what a first blow is (which only means causing "unprovoked" harm). In other words, just because an action is no longer going to be blamed or punished does not mean that your conscience doesn't know it's wrong. Yes, those actions are worthy of blame in a free will society, but I'm trying to show you that when one knows in advance he is not going to be blamed (even though his behavior is hurtful), conscience will do whatever it can to prevent that situation from arising.

I didn't say that we can't know what is a hurt or 'first blow' (though that is a legitmate separate objection). The point is that conscience cannot judge it to be wrong, but can only judge that we did it, because according to you we will know we are only 'responsible' and not morally responsible for it. It's not just that we know we won't be blamed, but that we also know for ourselves that it is an action for which any kind of blame is not appropriate, hence it is impossible for our conscience to be concerned about it at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a cop-out if I ever heard one.

I've told you before I won't give you point-by-point responses unless you can keep your posts to a managable size.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're mixed up, and if you won't meet me halfway, we can't continue. If you have a guilty conscience about doing something that you know is wrong, you won't be able to do it BECAUSE YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY IT. In this world, you CAN JUSTIFY IT.

There's nothing to justify, whether it's a hurt or not. We can't judge something to be wrong if we know we are not morally resonsible for it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Our conscience does not need blame in order to know when something is hurtful. If I run a red light and paralyze someone --- and the family is crying bitterly --- (but they refuse to blame me for my careless action because they know I couldn't help myself since my will is not free), my feelings of moral responsibility get greater. Knowing that no one would blame me for whatever I do (this reaction of "no blame" would be known in advance) would cause me to never take any chances that could get me into this kind of situation because the consequences of hurting someone and not being blamed for it are difficult to even contemplate.

It's not about needing actual blame, but about needing to know that blame is appropriate. There's no difficulty at all in contemplating something I know I am not morally responsible for. If others can understand this well enough to not blame me, then I will understand it well enough not to blame myself via conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say "if we don't consider ourselves to be morally responsible"; we know we are morally responsible if we do something to hurt another". The only difference is that we can't shift that responsibility to something else when we're not being blamed.

Busted. You are now openly contradicting yourself. You explicitly told me Lessans' account entails that we are only 'responsible' but never morally responsible for our actions. Yet here you are directly contradicting that, and openly equivocating between what you said needed to be distinguished. If we are morally responsible for our actions, then this not only satisfies the compatibilist definition of free will but also satisfies the thesis of compatibilism by giving us moral responsibility under determinism. And by giving us moral responsibility, it also justifies blame and punishment.

You've just undermined your whole argument by showing that even you can't distinguish between the moral responsibility that we both have (in virtue of conscience) and lack (with respect to blameworthiness). You are contradicting yourself here just as badly as you did with efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can in a very very hostile forum. It's difficult as it is; and you're only adding to it.

Apparently doing the best you can involves ignoring and avoiding this question every single time it is asked. I must have asked this upwards of twenty times by now. Do you know how many times you've tried to answer it? Not once. Despite its being a fundamental premise in Lessans' non-discovery.

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

You don't know do you? You have absolutely no idea.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your definition of "discussion" is the same as your definition of "freewill". BOGUS.

Your capacity for honest rational discussion is the same as your ability to use words correctly. NON-EXISTENT.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... but just know that your list does not prove Lessans wrong.

Dishonest little weasel. Saying that the list does not prove Lessans wrong is meaningless; you have to show WHY the list does not make Lessans wrong.

Lessans claimed we see in real-time. Anyone with an ordinary inexpensive telescope who points it at the moons of Jupiter can DISPROVE real-time seeing. We walked you through this step-by-step repeatedly, and in the end you were forced to agree that the moons of Jupiter example refuted real-time seeing.

If the moons of Jupiter example refutes real-time seeing, how, then, can you continue to maintain that Lessans was right about real-time seeing?

All the other examples on Dragar's list also refute real-time seeing; unless you can explain, in detail, why this is wrong -- why those items on the list don't refute real-time seeing -- then everyone on this forum, and indeed anyone you encounter on any forum, or in real life, will regard you either as a pathological liar, mentally ill, or both.

In sum, it's not enough to simply say that Dragar's list fails to refute real-time seeing, since clearly each item on the list DOES refute real-time seeing. You have to show, with a detailed step-by-step explanation, WHY those items on the list fail to refute real-time seeing.

And, of course, you CAN'T DO THAT, because those items on his list do indeed refute real-time seeing; refute it incontrovertibly. Therefore you are reduced to the pathetic, pathological liar that you are: sticking your fingers in your ears and whining "Iz not!" at reality itself.

[Vivisectus]

As far as I can tell, we have Lessans the Infallible Scholar of Human Nature who managed to write a book that does not convince anyone, makes predictions that do not come true, appears to fail to notice that a central part of the book is based on his claim alone, and then makes some more claims that require a re-write of modern physics... without noticing! At no point does he even indicate that he is aware that anything but our attitude towards the eyes as a sense organ needs to change! Nor does he seem to be aware that the only reasons given for this radical departure are common misconceptions about dog-sight and infant sight: the entire description of how we see beauty because we are conditioned to see what is not really there is an extension of the previous and extremely thinly supported claim.

And yet this is the same man whose say-so we have to trust enough to venture into an enormous social experiment. This man who seems to have been oblivious to the complete lack of evidence, who did not seem to realize that people would want some kind of explanation, a compelling reason to believe that what he said was not just some stuff he made up and liked to believe!

So while he was capable of divining the hitherto unplumbed depths of the human psyche by means of the much-vaunted "astute observation", he was unable to spot that he was asking radical social change without providing any evidence, any compelling reason for us to believe that it would work?

Why is the work of this supposed unprecedented genius so utterly unconvincing? Why does it not do what he said it would - IE start the revolution? It has been more than half a century, and already you have been forced to copy the early Christians and move your version of the Second Coming into some hazy afterlife.

How could he be so foolish about what it takes to convince people? If he could see what makes people tick, would he not have written a book that would convince them?

And if he simply did that as best he could, is it not also reasonable that he did the rest of his thinking as best he could as well, but that that best was perhaps not quite on the earth-shattering level he imagined it was?

Can you not at least see how this would be how it can strike someone who is not already convinced that he is a genius?

[thedoc]

Vivisectus is right, If Lessans was such an astute observer and understood human nature, and how people thought, why could he not write a book that would really be undeniable and convince people outright. If he knew people so well why is he getting so much resistance from readers who are, more than most, able to understsand the material. Could it be that he was actually WRONG about something, or did something very poorly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will never say "I have free will" because we don't, even if it meets the compatibilist definition. I will say "I can choose", which also meets the definition. If you demand that I say I have free will, according to the compatibilist definition (as opposed to the thesis of compatibilism), then we're done because this has now become a semantic nightmare.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's a semantic nightmare for you because Lessans insisted we have no free will at all, so you feel compelled to say the same thing even after it has been established that we meet the compatibilist definition and therefore by definition do have compatibilist free will. Even when it is clearly explained and stipulated that this need not commit you to saying we are morally responsible as a result, you simply refuse to be rational on this point. Lessans said it, so you're going to repeat it, no matter how dogmatic it makes you look.

I told you that the compatibilist definition is fine in the sense that we have the ability to choose. Lessans made that very clear. He said he often used the expression "I did it of my own free will" which only means "I did it because I wanted to". But that doesn't mean we actually have free will. I'm being very rational.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering many of your question along the way IN MY OWN WORDS.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You just do exactly what I just quoted you doing. You repeat the claims I'm asking you to justify, and assert that it will all be made clear at some point in the future if we just keep moving forward.

I'm not repeating the claims you're asking me to justify. I'm explaining why conscience won't allow us to hurt others as we extend the corollary "Thou Shall Not Blame". I can only describe to you how conscience works under the changed conditions. I can't tell you why it works that way; that you'll have to take up with God.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A hurt to another that would have justified blame in this world would not be blamed in the new world, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't know what a first blow is (which only means causing "unprovoked" harm). In other words, just because an action is no longer going to be blamed or punished does not mean that your conscience doesn't know it's wrong. Yes, those actions are worthy of blame in a free will society, but I'm trying to show you that when one knows in advance he is not going to be blamed (even though his behavior is hurtful), conscience will do whatever it can to prevent that situation from arising.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say that we can't know what is a hurt or 'first blow' (though that is a legitmate separate objection). The point is that conscience cannot judge it to be wrong, but can only judge that we did it, because according to you we will know we are only 'responsible' and not morally responsible for it.

We cannot begin to feel morally responsible if we are able to shift the blame to others as the cause for what we know we did. That's what happens when we are questioned by others. We think of a million and one excuses as to why we had to do what we did, or why someone made us do what we did, so we won't be held culpable. In the new world, the very thought that should we hurt someone, and also know that no one is going blame us even if they caught us in the act, compels us to do everything we can to prevent a situation like this from occurring. I'm going to make one more effort to cut and paste (because this is not working), but I doubt if you'll grasp it because you think your reasoning is more accurate than Lessans.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not just that we know we won't be blamed, but that we also know for ourselves that it is an action for which any kind of blame is not appropriate, hence it is impossible for our conscience to be concerned about it at all.

You can't fool your conscience into believing that your actions are acceptable, which is why these principles work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a cop-out if I ever heard one.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've told you before I won't give you point-by-point responses unless you can keep your posts to a managable size.

I'm only answering your questions Spacemonkey, so you'll have to make your posts manageable for me to keep my posts manageable. Talk about shifting one's responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're mixed up, and if you won't meet me halfway, we can't continue. If you have a guilty conscience about doing something that you know is wrong, you won't be able to do it BECAUSE YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY IT. In this world, you CAN JUSTIFY IT.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There's nothing to justify, whether it's a hurt or not. We can't judge something to be wrong if we know we are not morally resonsible for it.

But we know intuitively when we are hurting someone. Yes, if I didn't realize I took your dinner from the fridge and ate it, then of course I wouldn't feel sorry until it was pointed out to me, and then I'd make restitution, but our conscience knows what a serious hurt is. Actually, our conscience will be so strong in the new world that we would not want to take advantage of anyone's mistakes, even if we could. For example, if we were given the wrong change by mistake, we would be compelled to return it. In this world most of us would find reasons to keep it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Our conscience does not need blame in order to know when something is hurtful. If I run a red light and paralyze someone --- and the family is crying bitterly --- (but they refuse to blame me for my careless action because they know I couldn't help myself since my will is not free), my feelings of moral responsibility get greater. Knowing that no one would blame me for whatever I do (this reaction of "no blame" would be known in advance) would cause me to never take any chances that could get me into this kind of situation because the consequences of hurting someone and not being blamed for it are difficult to even contemplate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not about needing actual blame, but about needing to know that blame is appropriate. There's no difficulty at all in contemplating something I know I am not morally responsible for. If others can understand this well enough to not blame me, then I will understand it well enough not to blame myself via conscience.

But that's not how it works. Just because people are not blaming you because they know you are under a compulsion to do everything you do (which is why your will is not free) does not make you less responsible; it makes you more responsible for your actions due to the fact that your conscience will not let you hurt others when there's no way you can justify to yourself what you are about to do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say "if we don't consider ourselves to be morally responsible"; we know we are morally responsible if we do something to hurt another". The only difference is that we can't shift that responsibility to something else when we're not being blamed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Busted. You are now openly contradicting yourself. You explicitly told me Lessans' account entails that we are only 'responsible' but never morally responsible for our actions. Yet here you are directly contradicting that, and openly equivocating between what you said needed to be distinguished. If we are morally responsible for our actions, then this not only satisfies the compatibilist definition of free will but also satisfies the thesis of compatibilism by giving us moral responsibility under determinism. And by giving us moral responsibility, it also justifies blame and punishment.

Oh my gosh, this is much harder than I thought. This entire equation is for the purpose of making us feel morally responsible, but there's a difference between the term "moral responsibility" and "responsibility". I can be responsible for doing something to someone, and not feel morally responsible. This law increases our moral responsibility tenfold in a "no blame" world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've just undermined your whole argument by showing that even you can't distinguish between the moral responsibility that we both have (in virtue of conscience) and lack (with respect to blameworthiness). You are contradicting yourself here just as badly as you did with efferent vision.

That's the two-sided equation, which you can't seem to grasp. My next post I'm going to cut and paste the rest of this chapter. If at the end of all my efforts to explain these principles to you, and you continue to tell me I'm wrong, I'm going to have to end the conversation.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

I'm doing the best I can in a very very hostile forum. It's difficult as it is; and you're only adding to it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently doing the best you can involves ignoring and avoiding this question every single time it is asked. I must have asked this upwards of twenty times by now. Do you know how many times you've tried to answer it? Not once. Despite its being a fundamental premise in Lessans' non-discovery.

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

You don't know do you? You have absolutely no idea.

I told you loud and clear what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, but if you can't see it, that's your problem.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can in a very very hostile forum. It's difficult as it is; and you're only adding to it.

I have no doubt that given your mental illness you are doing the best you can. But you have not by any means received what would be considered a hostile reception at FF. They have treated you with kid gloves.

Your problem is that you are just not able to convince anyone in your condition and with your approach and the material you have to work with. If you did manage to convince someone it would have to be a person that is in general easy to convince.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you loud and clear what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, but if you didn't see it, that's your tough luck.

If it is real then it is not a matter of luck. If it is just made up bull shit then luck doesn't enter into it. That is if you genuinely think there is no such thing as "free will".

[naturalist.atheist]

Here is a suggestion for you peacegirl, why don't you get professional help, and when you are well again give your campaign to save the world another try. You might become more convincing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My next post I'm going to cut and paste the rest of this chapter.

More copypasta from the writings of the buffoon! Can't wait! Hell, peacegirl, why haven't you been copying and pasting his crap from the beginning? It would have been much more convincing ... oh, wait! Never mind!

If at the end of all my efforts to explain these principles to you, and you continue to tell me I'm wrong, I'm going to have to end the conversation.

You'll be here until you die or FF closes, which ever comes first. Hopefully FF won't close, so...

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans claimed we see in real-time. Anyone with an ordinary inexpensive telescope who points it at the moons of Jupiter can DISPROVE real-time seeing. We walked you through this step-by-step repeatedly, and in the end you were forced to agree that the moons of Jupiter example refuted real-time seeing.

David, I think you ought to go back and review that particular exchange. I don't think that peacegirl actually agreed that the moons of Jupiter example truly refuted real-time seeing. I think, if I recall the exchange correctly, that what she did was misuse the term 'refutation' in much the same manner as she has misused other terms. On any number of occasions she has responded to arguments that purport to refute some point or other by referring to those arguments as refutations while it was quite clear from the context that she did not think that those arguments were actually presuasive. In other words, for her the term 'refutation' is just a word that is used to represent an opposing argument and her use of the term should not be taken to imply that she thinks the argument constitutes an effective refutation (in the sense that most of us understand that term) of the point at issue. I think that if one were willing to read her posts charitably one should insert the word 'alleged' every time that peacegirl refers to one of her interlocutor's arguments as a refutation.