A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am tired of you cursing at me because of your failures. It is not inconsistent. I may not have explained it consistently because I never thought about light in reference to efferent vision. I thought about the brain in terms of efferent vision. Then I realized there are inconsistencies because we cannot come from opposite positions and get a consistent result. Why can't you be honest with yourself for a change? You act like your god's gift to philosophy. You're now grasping at straws so you don't lose the debate.

I'm tired of your blatant dishonesty. The inconsistency is not the result of coming from opposite directions. It comes only from your account of efferent vision. If it's not really inconsistent then why can't you answer my questions without contradicting yourself? Why do you run away from them instead?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the conditions are not observational but the principles that lead to those conditions are. You must have used a different definition than the one I used.

coun·ter·fac·tu·al (kountr-fkch-l)
adj.
Running contrary to the facts: "Cold war historiography vividly illustrates how the selection of the counterfactual question to be asked generally anticipates the desired answer" (Timothy Garton Ash).
counter·factu·al n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
counterfactual [ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl] Logic
adj
(Philosophy / Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
n
(Philosophy / Logic) a conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in if she had hurried she would have caught the bus

Nope, that dictionary definition matches my usage perfectly. Maybe you should look words up before using them, instead of afterwards. And that conscience is such that it will function differently under different unobserved circumstances involves counterfactual claims, and is therefore not an observational claim like an observed color change.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not Spacemonkey. I will repeat: Just because the observations that Lessans clearly demonstrated are difficult for you to validate because your faulty logic is getting in the way, does not mean that his observations were incorrect.

That man's will is not free is universal and not directly observable, so it is not an observational claim. You are simply using "observation" as a catch-all phrase for any claim that you want to be true but don't know how to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a inductive generalization that came from observing many cultures and civilizations throughout history.

Inductive generalizations are only probable and can never be mathematically certain, so it therefore cannot be mathematically certain that man's will is not free.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see that as a problem.

Despite constantly appealing to astute/accurate "observations" whenever challenged, you don't think it might be a problem that you can't distinguish observations from things that are not observations?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason we can't see something is if it's not large enough or close enough or bright enough to be seen since it would not be within our visual range. Therefore the screen (real substance) you're talking about would be empty. But a telescope's ability to magnify the objects and bring them into range would be able to detect these bits of substance because they can now be resolved.

So, why could the image you see posted there be made by the Hubble when the same image couldn't be viewed directly through the same telescope?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had no presuppositions, so how can they be bad ones?

The arguments of his book have presuppositions, whether he did or not. And they are controversial ones in need of support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The infallible standard you are referring to was not presupposed.

It wasn't argued for in his book, yet his book's arguments require it. Therefore it is a presupposition within his book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was an outgrowth of his observations.

Then these 'observations' remain unknown and cannot be in his book, for what is actually presented in his book presupposes rather than argues for conscience consisting of such a standard.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what this discovery proves; that there is an infallible ethical standard...

His discovery cannot prove it's own premises. That's circular.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are confused. I can feel very guilty about something without considering that same action to be blameworthy in others. Both judgments may proceed from the same assessment of moral responsibility...

Nope. If they both proceed from the same assessment of moral responsibility then you can't do that at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep associating blameworthiness with hurt because you believe that blame is necessary for the development of conscience. That's completely inaccurate. Just because someone doesn't blame me for hurting them does not mean that I will feel guilt free if I do hurt them.

Strawman. That has never been my argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that.

Didn't say what? You certainly did say there is no right or wrong in reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the judgment by others as to what is right or wrong is going to cease. That in no way frees one of moral responsibility. It increases it. Conscience will be alive and well when all judgment ceases.

No, it won't. Because conscience is a form of moral judgment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We aren't removing discernment over our own behavior, and we aren't removing the ethical standard as to what is and is not a valid hurt

That would be the same presupposed innate and universal standard you keep failing to establish or support.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His discovery cannot prove it's own premises. That's circular.

Neither peacegirl nor Lessans understands the kind of "prove" you are talking about. They are ignorant bumpkins. To continue to demand that they provide such proof is like asking a blind man to describe the visual scene in the valley below. They just can't see it.

Lessans is dead and peacegirl probably has trouble learning her own phone number let alone anything like the concept of "proof" you are referring to.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had no presuppositions, no assumptions, and no hunches. He was an astute observer of reality which required no hypotheses beforehand. It only required careful investigation and extension of the facts that became increasing clear...

That Lessans was an astute observer and that he made astute observations are just two of his, and your, presuppostions. No evidence for the astuteness of his observation has ever been presented.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His premises were correct (because his proof was correct), therefore the rest of his extension follows perfectly.

It does not work that way. The correctness (i.e. soundness) of a proof depends upon the correctness of its premises, not the other way around.

Just for the record, do you suppose you could define how you are using the word "observation"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am tired of you cursing at me because of your failures. It is not inconsistent. I may not have explained it consistently because I never thought about light in reference to efferent vision. I thought about the brain in terms of efferent vision. Then I realized there are inconsistencies because we cannot come from opposite positions and get a consistent result. Why can't you be honest with yourself for a change? You act like your god's gift to philosophy. You're now grasping at straws so you don't lose the debate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm tired of your blatant dishonesty. The inconsistency is not the result of coming from opposite directions. It comes only from your account of efferent vision. If it's not really inconsistent then why can't you answer my questions without contradicting yourself? Why do you run away from them instead?

I gave you my answer. I did not run away. You might not like my answer, but there's nothing I can do about that. You want there to be an inconsistency so you can show how right you are. The only interest you seem to have is trying to prove that Lessans was wrong by means of your faulty logic, and I'm not going to be sucked into it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have continually pointed out to you where your logic is incorrect, and I'll keep doing so.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

An error of logic is an invalid inference. You've never shown any such thing. All you do is find things I've said that you personally disagree with, but you never manage to show that those things are wrong.

Your requirement for Lessans to be right is outrageous. You are accusing him of making false presuppositions which never occurred, and then you tell me that until he can support those presuppositions his discovery remains an assertion. What crap!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he did even if you don't see it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, he didn't. The things you try to pass off as 'mathematical observations' are neither mathematical nor observations. You are still abusing these terms.

There is no abuse of these terms. He clarified exactly what he meant by scientific and mathematical. Another false accusation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic may be valid but it's not sound Spacemonkey. I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should anyone think that is true? Can you show me an argument I've made, identify a faulty premise, and demonstrate that this premise is in fact false?

The entire connection with feeling guilt and being blameworthy is wrong because you don't have to be blamed to feel remorse. Your entire thought process is incorrect regarding blame and punishment and the development of conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but in a serious book like this, quick summaries don't cut it because they are incomplete.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have yet to show anything of significant importance that my summary left out.

And you have yet to be interested in this book because if you were you would be hungry for more knowledge. You would devour his words (even if you're not quite sure how these principles all come together). At the very least you would give him the floor, but you won't. Your insincerity will ruin any chance of understanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are completely confused. In fact, eliminating all moral judgment creates (not eliminates) a morally responsible environment. Moral judgment by others does not a conscientious person make to the degree that is necessary for us to rid the world of evil. Hurting others cannot motivate a guilty conscience unless one recognizes that certain actions are a hurt to others; obviously, if I don't know something is a hurt my conscience will permit me to act on what I'm contemplating [do you remember the example I gave of eating your dinner by accident because I was unaware that it was yours?] Remember, in the new world there is no such thing as right or wrong; only what is a hurt to others, but this has nothing to do with what is blameworthy in others. And you actually think you understand the two-sided equation?

Yes, a moral judgment in the new world comes from knowing that what one is contemplating could seriously hurt another.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another self-contradiction. You agree that anticipation of a guilty conscience is moral judgment of oneself, and yet still claim to be eliminating all moral judgment. Obviously that will therefore remove all conscience as well.

It's not a self-contradiction at all. Of course we anticipate our behavior and the consequences thereof. The only difference is the anticipation of a consequence of no blame is worse than the anticipation of punishment, which prevents the act. You don't understand the two-sided equation and I'm not going to get into this because you're not letting me cut and paste. I will not explain this in my own words which would only confuse you more. And you're already so confused I think we're at a point of no return.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh paaaaleeeeeaasseee. This is the most difficult forum I've been to for various reasons.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, it's just the one you're presently at (and therefore the only one you can properly remember).

Oh, so now you know what I remember and what I don't. What a crock.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep using the fact that I've been online for 10 years and keep getting the same response as a premise in which to conclude that therefore Lessans had nothing of significance. Can't you see how unsound your logic is?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If I had ever argued that it would indeed be unsound. But I never have. Go ahead and search my posts for an example of me using your failures at forums as evidence that Lessans was wrong.

You mentioned that there's something wrong if I have had no agreement after 10 years, and that's unsound.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I'm trying to help you with. This is what this discovery proves, but I can't get there when you keep telling me Lessans' observations are wrong even before we've gone over Chapter Two.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nothing in his chapter supports this assumption. It is what his chapter presupposes about conscience. His non-discovery cannot prove this assumption to be true, for it relies upon it as a premise.

Stop it right now! I'm not going to put up with this anymore. He makes no assumptions. He demonstrates how conscience works in a very clear way, and you don't even want to hear what he has to say. This is not fair and I don't want to talk to you anymore if all you do is tell me that this chapter is unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will keep on telling you he made no presuppositions. He was an astute observer of reality, from which he drew his conclusions. He made no assumptions beforehand.

This is not a presupposition. This comes after the fact, not before. THERE WERE NO PRESUPPOSITIONS, WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it is false by definition. Every person and every argument has presuppositions. And whether or not (what I have identified as) his presuppositions really were things he asusmed without reason is irrelevant to the critical fact that they remain presuppositions with respect to the arguments of his book, because no observations or reasons were actually provided to support them. That is why they are presuppositions.

Nooooo, he made no presuppositions when it came to this discovery. He had suspicions that he was on the right track, but he took nothing for granted. Your reasoning is so off, and what makes me sad is that you are acting so holy in your defense, when your logic is wrong. If this is what you were taught in school, I'm glad I was a child when I learned this knowledge because you have such a block that I don't think anything will penetrate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way you will know that this is an infallible standard created by God (or this law of our nature) is to see what happens when we remove blame and punishment from the environment, but you're not letting me move forward.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The only thing stopping you from moving forward is the fact that you don't have anything to offer in support of the things his arguments presuppose about conscience. You can't move forward because you have nothing to offer. His arguments presuppose this infallible ethical standard, and you've just agreed that we won't have any reason to think that this is true until it is first implemented, yet it cannot be implemented unless those involved first have some reason to think that it is true.

Oh my godddd. You can think you won, but you actually lost and I can't save you from your misguided reasoning. If you believe that you are correct in telling me he didn't support his presuppositions, which he did not have, then our discussion is over. Find another thread.

[Vivisectus]

If he demonstrates how conscience works in stead of simply claiming that it works in a certain way then I am sure you can supply the appropriate part of the book. I can see the claims, but I can find no demonstration. He just claims that it is so without providing us a reason to believe he is right.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, I am going to ask this as simply as possible.

How could he have observed conscience in an environment that doesn't exist and has never existed?

Which definition of observe are you using when you make that claim? We know it can't have been an empirical observation, since one can't directly see conscience nor could he directly see conscience behaving in a world that didn't exist (yet). So, how can that not be a presupposition?

[LadyShea]

You mentioned that there's something wrong if I have had no agreement after 10 years, and that's unsound.

All anyone has said about that is that neither you nor the book are convincing to people. Nobody being convinced by his writing or your presentation of it in 10 years is evidence for that conclusion.

[Vivisectus]

I think I can astutely observe and astute observation coming over the horizon

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, why could the image you see posted there be made by the Hubble when the same image couldn't be viewed directly through the same telescope?

Because the magnification from Earth is too weak. I am done LadyShea. This is unimportant in the scheme of things, so I'm letting it go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All anyone has said about that is that neither you nor the book are convincing to people. Nobody being convinced by his writing or your presentation of it in 10 years is evidence for that conclusion.

That statement is as unsound as you can get, and yet you think you're capable of purviewing this knowledge objectively? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall, and I can't do it anymore. I'm really sorry, but you need to move on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, I am going to ask this as simply as possible.

How could he have observed conscience in an environment that doesn't exist and has never existed?

Which definition of observe are you using when you make that claim? We know it can't have been an empirical observation, since one can't directly see conscience nor could he directly see conscience behaving in a world that didn't exist (yet). So, how can that not be a presupposition?

And I will ask you this question...

How can we know that if we drive at a certain speed and know the distance from our starting point to our end point, we will know the time of arrival before we've gotten there. Don't answer. That was a rhetorical question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, that dictionary definition matches my usage perfectly. Maybe you should look words up before using them, instead of afterwards. And that conscience is such that it will function differently under different unobserved circumstances involves counterfactual claims, and is therefore not an observational claim like an observed color change.

You missed my point. There is more than one definition of this term. You cannot win because your argument fails every time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not Spacemonkey. I will repeat: Just because the observations that Lessans clearly demonstrated are difficult for you to validate because your faulty logic is getting in the way, does not mean that his observations were incorrect.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That man's will is not free is universal and not directly observable, so it is not an observational claim.

It is as directly observable by someone who can see beyond the superficial, as apples falling down from trees. It is a general claim in as much as you cannot observe every single person, or apple.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are simply using "observation" as a catch-all phrase for any claim that you want to be true but don't know how to support.

There is nothing catch all about using the phrase "observation" anymore than using the catch all phrase "observation" when supporting the claim that apples never fall up, only down, from trees. There's no difference.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a inductive generalization that came from observing many cultures and civilizations throughout history.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Inductive generalizations are only probable and can never be mathematically certain, so it therefore cannot be mathematically certain that man's will is not free.

In as much as we know about gravity and we can safely move from the specific to the general that apples fall down from trees as a probable statment, I can accept Lessans' inductive generalizations as probable as well.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Naturalist.atheist was right. You really can't distinguish observation from explanation.

I don't see that as a problem.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't see the humor.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Despite constantly appealing to astute/accurate "observations" whenever challenged, you don't think it might be a problem that you can't distinguish observations from things that are not observations?

No, I know what an astute observation is, which does not require defense. If I observe something, it is real if I am not hallucinating. If I see the moon, and somebody says prove it, or explain it, what else can I do to prove to them that it exists if they don't see it with their own eyes? Does that mean that the moon doesn't exist? Just because you don't see what he was able to see, doesn't mean they are inaccurate observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The arguments of his book have presuppositions, whether he did or not. And they are controversial ones in need of support.

It wasn't argued for in his book, yet his book's arguments require it. Therefore it is a presupposition within his book.

Then these 'observations' remain unknown and cannot be in his book, for what is actually presented in his book presupposes rather than argues for conscience consisting of such a standard.

His discovery cannot prove it's own premises. That's circular.

Nope. If they both proceed from the same assessment of moral responsibility then you can't do that at all.

Strawman. That has never been my argument.

Didn't say what? You certainly did say there is no right or wrong in reality.

No, it won't. Because conscience is a form of moral judgment.

That would be the same presupposed innate and universal standard you keep failing to establish or support.

Conscience is not a moral judgment in terms of blame. It allows for discernment, but it does not condemn; it convicts or makes us aware the consequences of our potential actions, but it does not punish. If we don't like the consequences that our behavior may cause, conscience helps us to prevent what we don't want because the guilt would be overwhelming knowing that we would not be blamed for what we know would be our responsibility. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BLAMEWORTHINESS. You have falsely concluded that we need to be blameworthy in order to feel remorse. Your logic is faulty, yet you accuse Lessans for not supporting his premises by calling them circular because you don't have the ability to distinguish between logic (which can be valid but unsound) and mathematics (which is valid and sound).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That Lessans was an astute observer and that he made astute observations are just two of his, and your, presuppostions. No evidence for the astuteness of his observation has ever been presented.

If I observe the moon with my eyes, how is that a presupposition? I realize that Lessans' observations are not easy to see, but he saw them, and he was trying to describe what he saw. If you can't see the moon, I can't prove to you that I see it. All I can do is share with you what I see by describing its characteristics. That's what Lessans did. He described what was clearly visible to him but was not obvious to the average person.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His premises were correct (because his proof was correct), therefore the rest of his extension follows perfectly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It does not work that way. The correctness (i.e. soundness) of a proof depends upon the correctness of its premises, not the other way around.

Obviously, the premises have to be correct. But being that they are correct (which you can't see yet), the extension of these principles follow like a well oiled machine.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just for the record, do you suppose you could define how you are using the word "observation"?

Here are some applicable definitions:

An observation can be anything you observe through your five senses: sight, smell, touch, hear and taste. Anything that you can describe would be considered an observation.

"Observations" usually imply that you are watching some process.

Observing is a disciplined form of attention; I think of it as a dialogue between the mind and the eyes (or ears, fingers and so on). Observing is treating something as a clue, not just a perception.

The observer has learned to ask, and answer, a systematic list of questions about what he/she perceives.

[Vivisectus]

But the person hearing a bird would be able to identify the elements that they observed and that led them to a conclusion. Such as the time of day, the pitch, timbre of the song, their knowledge of the kinds of birds that live around the place...

They would not merely say "I just know it is this bird". They would be able to show you how they know.

Unlike your "astute observations", which merely say "It is observed that it is so" without explaining how the conclusion was reached, making it a matter of trusting the observers authority or not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will ask you this question...

How can we know that if we drive at a certain speed and know the distance from our starting point to our end point, we will know the time of arrival before we've gotten there. Don't answer. That was a rhetorical question.

Distance and speed are hard data...they are measurable. The workings of conscience do not produce hard data to be measured.

Bad analogy

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the magnification from Earth is too weak. I am done LadyShea. This is unimportant in the scheme of things, so I'm letting it go.

It is not unimportant, it speaks to Lessans and your credibility. You are letting it go because you can't address it.

So you think the magnification from the Earth is too weak to see it directly, so, can you explain how we can get a digital image, like the one posted, using the same telescope?

Your field of view thing, and efferent vision as it somehow applies to cameras, cannot account for or explain that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That statement is as unsound as you can get, and yet you think you're capable of purviewing this knowledge objectively? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall, and I can't do it anymore. I'm really sorry, but you need to move on.

How is my statement unsound in any way?

In multiple presentations to dozens of people over a decade, nobody has been convinced of the correctness of Lessans ideas. That is evidence that the ideas and presentation are not convincing to people.

And I will move on or not when and if I feel like it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave you my answer. I did not run away. You might not like my answer, but there's nothing I can do about that.

What answer? Your only answer was that you refuse to answer my questions! I posted the full list, and you refused to answer. I posted the one specific question on that list which you cannot remain consistent on, and you just ignored it.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You want there to be an inconsistency so you can show how right you are.

I already showed you the inconsistency, just like I showed you his presuppositions on conscience. Yet you'd rather pretend both do not exist, even when they're right out in the open for all to see:

"You say the properties of the light at the camera determine the nature of the photograph. When I ask you how the light can do that if it never came from the object first, you say that it did travel to the camera from the object (before the picture is taken). But when I ask you how light could change its properties while in transit to match changes in the distant object, you then deny that the light ever travelled from the camera to the object (before the picture was taken)."

[LadyShea]

You're just a wrongheaded, cursing, illogical, meanie, Spacemonkey. I'm really sorry, but you need to move on

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If he demonstrates how conscience works in stead of simply claiming that it works in a certain way then I am sure you can supply the appropriate part of the book. I can see the claims, but I can find no demonstration. He just claims that it is so without providing us a reason to believe he is right.

That will require more cutting and pasting. You have to remember that this is a demonstration of how conscience works, and is an accurate description. The empirical proof that everyone wants will come when these principles are put into practice and the new world is here.