A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think I'll start affectionately calling you Kukky

[Vivisectus]

I do hope you are not putting Kukky in a category of minus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You decided the germinal substance was sperm and ova after floundering around for pages, and offering protoplasm first.

If germinal substance referred to gametes, why didn't he just say gametes?

Because he was using "germinal substance" in a more general way.

germinal
Definition
ger·mi·nal[ júrmən'l ]
ADJECTIVE
1.
of reproductive cells: relating to reproductive cells
2.
of early stages: relating or belonging to the earliest stage in the development of something ( formal )

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, you only want to discuss those things that can't be proven or disproven empirically, yet expect to be taken seriously as having a scientifically valid proposal.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His first discovery can be proven empirically

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it can't.

You'll see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you not think that if this knowledge lives up to the claims, and can bring world peace, it is more significant than the discussion on the eyes? I'm sorry but I have to prioritize.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. You think you can offer world peace as a distraction from molecules of light and "voila we see!"?

His stuff about sight and time speaks directly to his credibility...and proves he has none.

Oh well.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because he was using "germinal substance" in a more general way.

germinal
Definition
ger·mi·nal[ júrmən'l ]
ADJECTIVE
1.
of reproductive cells: relating to reproductive cells
2.
of early stages: relating or belonging to the earliest stage in the development of something ( formal )

In the case of definition 1, "gametes" would be a lot more sensible and accurate term than "germinal substance."

In the case of definition 2, "gametes" doesn't apply at all, because you're not talking about sperm and ova.


So, which is it? Is "germinal substance" an awkward and inaccurate way of saying "gametes," or is it a vague and biologically-meaningless term?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it doesn't only come from the judgment of others; that's what this whole discovery is about. But it's the judgment of others that prevents our conscience from working at full throttle.

It is not inconsistent to think that people will judge themselves without ever judging others when they know man's will is not free, though it is true that in both cases these very considerations are used in determining moral responsibility. Paradoxically, by not judging others by those same considerations causes those people to take those considerations much more seriously.

You're not addressing the objection. You've just reasserted his conclusions without showing any understanding at all of what you were replying to.

The same judgment (required for a guilty conscience to be possible) will warrant blaming others for performing the same action. It is completely inconsistent to think that people will continue to judge themselves without ever judging others, when the same considerations which (allegedly) prevent other people from being morally responsible will equally apply to oneself.

The point is that our feelings of conscience and of blameworthiness proceed from the same judgments of moral responsibility. You can't feel guilty without thinking that your action was morally wrong. And if you are capable of considering that kind of action morally wrong, then you will be prepared to blame others for performing acts of that type. If you are not capable of blaming others for acts of that type, then you are judging such acts to not be morally wrong. In which case you will not be capable of having a guilty conscience if you perform such an act.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For starters, the environment has to change drastically besides the removal of all blame. There are economic considerations that if not removed would prevent these principles from working because the first blow to you hasn't been removed.

Again, you show no cognizance at all of what you are replying to. I wasn't asking you anything about what must change for his principles to come into effect. I was asking about his presuppositions concerning conscience. You said my answer on that was only partial, but adding things about what has to change for his principles to start working is to answer a completely different question. I asked you: "What further presupposition about conscience does your comment here introduce?" Your response is a complete non sequitur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there is a God-given standard of rightness and wrongness possessed by everyone, but only when all hurt is removed from the environment. It's true that conscience proceeds from our own judgments of moral responsibility, but does not vary between individuals independently of our cultural practices. It is true that culture can teach false beliefs and values that justify the atrocities we have seen in years past. These beliefs that justify killing are borne out of anger and the need to find a scapegoat. But when all hurt is removed from the environment, these false beliefs will no longer be passed down from generation to generation.

Is this another example of you allegedly thinking for yourself? Because all you've done is regurgitate the very same presuppositions I was asking you to support. Once again...

You and he are assuming that conscience proceeds from an infallible and perfect God-given standard of rightness and wrongness possessed by everyone, and which is defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting. What it rules out is the much more plausible possibility that conscience proceeds only from our own fallible judgments of moral responsibility, and is an imperfect and evolved aspect of our cognitive psychology capable of varying between individuals quite independently of our cultural practices of blame and punishment (which themselves are an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience).

Given the above, why should anyone accept Lessans' evidentially unsupported account of conscience, or the non-discovery he bases upon it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As was already shown, the "objective standard" does not even work in extreme cases and on a one-to one basis as a universal. You need to include the rider "if the people involved are normal as I understand the term", as you just did. Honestly PG you are becoming very tiresome. There must be some honesty left in you somewhere, under all the "look at me being daddies bestest discliple" nonsense.

Self-preservation can safely be called the "norm" which constitutes the desire to stay alive. This need to preserve self constitutes a desire to avoid "evil" or "hurtful" actions. Those actions are things that you don't want done to yourself because it jeopardizes your state of well-being. No riders needed.

But there is no warping of reality Vivisectus. It's you that's warping the meaning of "evil".

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet it is not me rejecting every bit of empirical evidence that came up in these discussions. It is you. Does that not make you think?

I'm not rejecting empirical evidence if it's reliable.

Sure, because as long as he has faith and nothing more, he isn't a threat. I am a threat because I know that these principles are accurate, I don't just have faith in them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually his beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine, as far as I can tell, and the both of them cannot be true at the same time. How much more threatening can you get?

You don't like Lessans because you think he was self-important, which is a lie.
You even said that his writing makes you not want his claims to be true, which is really sad.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But he has played an honest game for about a year now, so that is not much of a problem. I am pretty damn sure that if I ever told him about something that would seem to contradict his faith, his response would be "I don't know. It seems that way if what you say is true. I will think about it."

I know that's what you want me to say, but I won't because I do know.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You always respond with a knee-jerk "it is an astute observation!!! it is just trueeee!" response. That is not honest.

It's very honest.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I always re-examine my beliefs every time new information comes along. I have done so in this case too: I have read what you wanted me to read... twice! But I find it the work of a well-meaning but hopelessly ignorant enthusiast.

Good for you, but you're wrong. It's okay though, take what you like (if there's anything you like) and leave the rest.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You never do so. You just do not even allow yourself to entertain the notion. I guess it is because it would cost you too much. That is fair enough, but at least you can have the honesty to admit that it is an item of blind faith for you, something you require. You do not have that bravery, or that honesty.

Ridiculous comment Vivisectus. I've given years of time to this discovery, and I know its value. You can't believe it is a genuine discovery, so therefore it must be blind faith on my part.

I told you that all of my childhood I questioned him; I didn't just accept what he said because he was my father. I am very courageous, in my opinion, because I am thinking for myself no matter what you think of me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I can hear exactly what your questioning was, in the voice of that unbearably sycophantic interlocutor from the book which you admitted to adding yourself. That is not critical enquiry. That is unabashed hero-worship. That, my dear, is just your daddy-issues coming out.

I don't know which passage that was. But I do know one thing: You can't stand that he could be right, because that would make you wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why not leave it? Are you so insignificant that you by yourself is not good enough? Do you really have nothing else to talk about, nothing else to contribute? You would be so much easier to respect if you could stop this neurotic hiding behind this stupid book. It is like you have stopped being a person and have become a role - the role of Disciple - and have forgotten about yourself.

That's not true at all. I am not just a role of Disciple, but this knowledge is important and I will continue to spread the Word, as LadyShea put it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, which is it? Is "germinal substance" an awkward and inaccurate way of saying "gametes," or is it a vague and biologically-meaningless term?

I think it is probably a vague and biologically meaningless term masquerading as an awkward and inaccurate way of saying something which is not true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you a hurt is anything done to you that you don't want done to yourself. Most of the things that people don't want done to themselves are what the majority of mankind doesn't want done. That's why I can confidently say that what we consider "evil" can be objectively standardized.

That's obviously not an objective standard. What people don't want done to themselves is plainly subjective and will vary between people. I asked you for the allegedly objective universal standard you claimed to exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I know that this is more than just faith.

Then why don't you move on? You're wasting your time here. There's another thread on free will and determinism that probably supports your worldview, so go there.

If you had more than mere faith (and knew it to be true that you have more than faith) then you wouldn't have to tell me to shut up and go away when I remind you of the transparently obvious fact that you can't explain how you know his observations to be accurate without resorting to faith.

Lying to us is one thing, but lying to yourself like this is just sad.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not rejecting empirical evidence if it's reliable.

Yet you reject as 'unreliable' any evidence opposing Lessans before you've even looked at it. You must know you do this. You've been caught in the act several times doing exactly this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you at least capable of seeing that Lessans' unsupported-claims/accurate-observations about conscience are based upon presuppositions (as described above) which are at best empirical hypotheses capable of being either true or false, and for which he offered no evidence or argument?

Do you even understand what a presupposition is? Can you see that he had them?

Can you see that he was making certain assumptions here, without realizing that they might need arguing for? That not everyone would agree that conscience consists of a God-given and universally infallible standard of right and wrong for judging 'hurts'? Can you accept that he gave no evidence or argument for this implicit premise, but rather presupposed it? Can you see that there is at least an alternative approach to conscience here which his claims effectively rule out without actually giving reasons for doing so?

.pmuB

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In the case of definition 1, "gametes" would be a lot more sensible and accurate term than "germinal substance."

In the case of definition 2, "gametes" doesn't apply at all, because you're not talking about sperm and ova.


So, which is it? Is "germinal substance" an awkward and inaccurate way of saying "gametes," or is it a vague and biologically-meaningless term?

It's a vague and biologically meaningless term.

It's the same kind of term that Tom Clark uses at naturalism.org, only he calls it "generic subjective continuity." Wayne Stewart calls it "existential passage." Peacegirl has already demonstrated she does not understand this part of her father's writing (I wonder how much of it she does understand). Lessans' claims are identical to Clark's and Stewart's. Clark's essay is here: Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not rejecting empirical evidence if it's reliable.

Moons of Jupiter, anyone?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all know light travels at a finite rate of speed. This doesn't change anything because, if sight is efferent, the eyes are seeing the object due to the light that is present at the object, not the light that is present at the eyes. The range between the eye and object is not actual. In other words, the eye doesn't know that the moon is almost 250,000 miles away. The brain interprets the distance but the eyes see the moon the same way we a candle in the dark that is only a feet away. Let's drop it.

In efferent sight the brain is looking out thru the eyes like windows, and it would seem that the light arriving at the eye passing through the lens and impinging on the retina has nothing to do with our ability to see. So the brain looking out thru the eyes preceves the object or person directly, and it occures to me that everyones vision should be clear. The ability of the lens to focus the light on the retina is only a condition that allows sight, but does not cause it, and the light is not carrying the image. Why then does it matter whether the light is accurately focused onto the retina or not, if it only needs to be present, and does not conduct or affect the image at all. The question now is why do problems with the eye that cause the lens to not focus the light onto the retina affect a persons vision. Optometry is well developed, as knowledge of vision, and how the eye works, so why would the lens, not properly focusing light on the retnia, have any effect on vision. If it is necessary for the lens to properly focus the light onto the retnia, then the only conclusion is that the lens is focusing an image onto the retina, and if that image not being clear, causes vision to not be clear, Then the eye is receiving an image through the arrival of light at the eye. Otherwise corrective lenses would have no effect on vision, if light does not carry that information. But we know that corrective lenses do improve the ability of some people to see clearly. Therefore light is the source of the image that is recieved and intrepreted by the brain. Efferent vision is utter fiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In the case of definition 1, "gametes" would be a lot more sensible and accurate term than "germinal substance."

In the case of definition 2, "gametes" doesn't apply at all, because you're not talking about sperm and ova.


So, which is it? Is "germinal substance" an awkward and inaccurate way of saying "gametes," or is it a vague and biologically-meaningless term?

It is a general term that expressed what he wanted to say. Take it or leave it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think it is probably a vague and biologically meaningless term masquerading as an awkward and inaccurate way of saying something which is not true.

Wow! Thats really good, who writes your posts for you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

.pmuB

I am using the term "hurt" as any behavior that in today's society warrants punishment from the law, which means that the majority of people consider these actions hurtful. He made no assumptions about the nature of conscience and how it works. The reaction of our conscience is also dependent on our beliefs. If those beliefs are culturally determined, then they are subject to change. For example, the belief that blacks are inferior to whites justified the inhumane treatment they were given. People felt justified to treat them this way because of their belief that they were animals. In the new world, these false beliefs cannot survive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am using the term "hurt" as any behavior that in today's society warrants punishment from the law, which means that the majority of people consider these actions hurtful.

You should go watch 'Les Miserables'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...He made no assumptions about the nature of conscience and how it works...

Of course he did. You've already had them pointed out to you (after you failed miserably to identify them for yourself):

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You and he are assuming that conscience proceeds from an infallible and perfect God-given standard of rightness and wrongness possessed by everyone, and which is defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting. What it rules out is the much more plausible possibility that conscience proceeds only from our own fallible judgments of moral responsibility, and is an imperfect and evolved aspect of our cognitive psychology capable of varying between individuals quite independently of our cultural practices of blame and punishment (which themselves are an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience).

Do you even understand what a presupposition is? Can you even tell me what his presuppositions about conscience were now that I've given them to you? (Hint: there are at least four listed above.) Do you have any degree of comprehension here at all?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reaction of our conscience is also dependent on our beliefs.

That's exactly the point I've been trying to explain to you for several pages now. Conscience can't react to an action you have performed unless you believe that it is the kind of action for which a person can and should be held morally responsible. You can't consistently feel guilty for an action that you would not judge to be blameworthy if performed by anyone else.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a general term that expressed what he wanted to say. Take it or leave it.

Ah. So it's a vague and meaningless term that sounds impressive to the biologically illiterate. So glad we cleared that up.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the new world, these false beliefs cannot survive.

Why?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't consistently feel guilty for an action that you would not judge to be blameworthy if performed by anyone else.

While you might argue that it's inconsistent, I certainly know people who, reliably and every time, feel guilty for actions they consider normal or even praiseworthy in others.

Usually abuse victims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by seebs

While you might argue that it's inconsistent, I certainly know people who, reliably and every time, feel guilty for actions they consider normal or even praiseworthy in others.
Usually abuse victims.

Yes, good point. Yet in Peacegirl's 'new world' this inconsistency represents normal functioning for everyone. The exception becomes the rule.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you a hurt is anything done to you that you don't want done to yourself. Most of the things that people don't want done to themselves are what the majority of mankind doesn't want done. That's why I can confidently say that what we consider "evil" can be objectively standardized.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's obviously not an objective standard. What people don't want done to themselves is plainly subjective and will vary between people. I asked you for the allegedly objective universal standard you claimed to exist.

I disagree that there is not an objective standard that exists because of the desire to survive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I know that this is more than just faith.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At no point do you ever present more than just faith. Just ask yourself how you know his principles are accurate and see how your response will immediately resort to faith.

Then why don't you move on? You're wasting your time here. There's another thread on free will and determinism that probably supports your worldview, so go there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you had more than mere faith (and knew it to be true that you have more than faith) then you wouldn't have to tell me to shut up and go away when I remind you of the transparently obvious fact that you can't explain how you know his observations to be accurate without resorting to faith.

Where did I tell you to shut up? I just don't see the point of you being here if you believe that he's absolutely wrong. Just like I said to specious_reasons, it's not healthy to stay in a thread that you have no use for.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lying to us is one thing, but lying to yourself like this is just sad.

I'm not lying to myself.

[thedoc]

So in the new world I'm going to have to give up all my guilty pleasures?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Why?

It just shows me how little you understand, for obvious reasons. The book has not been carefully analyzed. When we know the truth of everyone's intrinsic equality, prejudice will go out the window. In addition, when all hurt from the environment is removed, along with all judgment; and the economic condition is stabilized in all countries, there will be no justification to hold onto beliefs that are borne out of ignorance or hatred.