A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you going back to that again? You don't have to know what he studied if you are capable of grasping these principles. They speak for themselves. Is that all you have left in your little arsenal to attack him with? Give it up LadyShea. It's not working. He had the capability and knowledge to make this discovery. If you want to compare apples to apples, he knew more about human psychology than many professionals who have the formal credentials. So don't go spouting off this garbage as some last ditch effort to discredit him, which does no such thing.

I must confess to one of my 'guilty pleasures' and that is to come to this thread and watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to hawk her fathers book.

She claims that her father knew more about many subjects than those with extensive and documented formal education, but now claims that we don't need to know what the source of his knowledge was, just that he knew a lot? Peacegirl rails at people for not reading the book and then criticizing it, even when they have stated that they have read it, she accuses everyone of lying. Now she has the audacity to say that his reading list is none of our business, after she begs us to accept the accuracy of his claims, based on what he has read. I am more inclined to believe that she has no idea what he read, if anything. Did he have a comic book on the edge of the pool table? Probably one of the super-hero ones, where the good guy saves the Earth, but who does he kiss first? his horse or the girl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have read chapter 1 several times. There is no evidence, there are no citations to studies or any reference to any type of scientific findings whatsoever. What is there is Lessans reasoning and conclusions (ie. opinions), and his fake discussions with imaginary people.

We have pointed this out to you since day 1, peacegirl, so why your mind is boggled by this is mind boggling.

Because you don't have a clue LadyShea and you using a false standard to judge who is capable of making such a discovery based on one's formal credentials. You are part and parcel of a system that didn't even allow Lessans to present his case. You keep bringing up ridiculous things such as his talking to imaginary people because you have nothing else to go on. I used dialogue because it anticipated the questions the reader would have. So what if I chose to use a pretend dialogue? What does this have to do with the concepts he is presenting? I'm not blaming you for questioning, but you are not only questioning, you are telling me in so many words that your conclusions are more accurate than his, which is a joke.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you are telling me in so many words that your conclusions are more accurate than his, which is a joke.

It is a bit funny that Lessans conclusions have been demonstrated to be wrong in many cases, and the conclusions of other users on this thread, have been demonstrated to be accurate, because they are based on what has been presented in this thread, not some imaginary reading list.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Blame and punishment have been necessary steps in our evolution, but once this discovery is confirmed valid, and it can be seen that not blaming is better than blaming, people will choose not to blame in the direction of what gives them greater satisfaction. Of course this has to take place on a global scale and the leaders of each nation have to become the very first citizens. New discoveries have allowed man to make huge leaps in his development, and that is what is happening here.

But it is not actually happening here, or anywhere, yet. You are just projecting what you think will happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If something occurs that was beyond your control, you would have no reason to feel remorse and your conscience would be clear.

That certainly does not match my experience. If, through some action on my part, I unintentionally harm another person I feel remorse for the harm I have caused. Don't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is why I need to talk to like minded people who will want to see what happens when we don't blame, and when we follow determinism to its conclusion, which is absolutely incredible.

incredible:impossible to believe.
"an almost incredible tale of triumph and tragedy"
synonyms: unbelievable, beyond belief, hard to believe, unconvincing, far-fetched, implausible, improbable, highly unlikely, dubious, doubtful

Your observation is spot on. It is incredible

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone has the same conscience at birth...

Fact not in evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you dare tell me there is no evidence, no study, nothing?

Because Lessans couldn't be bothered by anything as boring and mundane as providing evidence for any of his claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge did not come out of his hat...

Quite true. Lessans did not pull this knowledge out of his hat. What he did pull it out of is pretty obvious.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know you claim there is no free will of any variety. But you are still also assuming in advance that the only kind of freedom that would count as free will if we had it is the libertarian variety. So the only kind you are actually denying us to have is the libertarian kind, because that is the only kind you will recognize or even consider. It's like 'proving' that all cheese is made in the USA by denying that any non-US cheese counts as cheese.

This, beside being an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, is also just plain wrong. Real cheese is not even made in the USA. My evidence for this claim is something called "American Cheese".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But it is not actually happening here, or anywhere, yet. You are just projecting what you think will happen.

No Angakuk, this is for real. These are real true observations that will change the world for the better, but just as we can have a formula or equation to get us to the moon, it has to be applied for it to do any good. There is no need to simulate an environment (which is hard to do because it's difficult to create a society that is completely separate from a free will environment) to prove that his observations were spot on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If something occurs that was beyond your control, you would have no reason to feel remorse and your conscience would be clear.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That certainly does not match my experience. If, through some action on my part, I unintentionally harm another person I feel remorse for the harm I have caused. Don't you?

That's not what I meant. I meant that if you hurt someone that was not your fault, you would have no reason to feel remorse. An example given in the book is that if a mechanic did not tighten a bolt in your tire which caused it to fall off forcing you into another lane which ended up injuring someone, you would have no reason to feel any guilt because this was not your responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is why I need to talk to like minded people who will want to see what happens when we don't blame, and when we follow determinism to its conclusion, which is absolutely incredible.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

incredible:impossible to believe.
"an almost incredible tale of triumph and tragedy"
synonyms: unbelievable, beyond belief, hard to believe, unconvincing, far-fetched, implausible, improbable, highly unlikely, dubious, doubtful

Your observation is spot on. It is incredible

in·cred·i·ble adjective \(ˌ)in-ˈkre-də-bəl\
: difficult or impossible to believe

: extremely good, great, or large
Full Definition of INCREDIBLE

1
: too extraordinary and improbable to be believed <making incredible claims>
2
: amazing, extraordinary <incredible skill> <an incredible appetite> <met an incredible woman>

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone has the same conscience at birth...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Fact not in evidence.

No, it is not in evidence now but think about this: you cannot find an area in the brain that is identified as the area that provides a conscience that can be removed. Isn't that interesting? It seems to be in the entire brain. There is not one locale.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you dare tell me there is no evidence, no study, nothing?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Because Lessans couldn't be bothered by anything as boring and mundane as providing evidence for any of his claims.

That is an unfair charge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge did not come out of his hat...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quite true. Lessans did not pull this knowledge out of his hat. What he did pull it out of is pretty obvious.

What an awful thing to say, especially coming from a pastor.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is not in evidence now but think about this: you cannot find an area in the brain that is identified as the area that provides a conscience that can be removed. Isn't that interesting? It seems to be in the entire brain. There is not one locale.

How on Earth do you imagine that helps you??

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I meant. I meant that if you hurt someone that was not your fault, you would have no reason to feel remorse. An example given in the book is that if a mechanic did not tighten a bolt in your tire which caused it to fall off forcing you into another lane which ended up injuring someone, you would have no reason to feel any guilt because this was not your responsibility.

Wrong, if you drive (operate a motor vehicle) the operation and condition of that vehicle are your responsibility, If there is something wrong, you get the ticket.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is an unfair charge.

What an awful thing to say, especially coming from a pastor.

Now you're using Angakuk's profession against him, that is really low, especially when you complain that others have done it to your father.
Angakuk is a person just like?, - or sort of, like the rest of us.

"
If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"

William Shakespeare

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is not in evidence now but think about this: you cannot find an area in the brain that is identified as the area that provides a conscience that can be removed. Isn't that interesting? It seems to be in the entire brain. There is not one locale.

You don't know that, you're just making it up. In fact there have been cases of persons who have suffered a brain injury that has resulted in a changed personality, including a change in their conscience. It seems that if certain parts of the brain are injured or damaged, the conscience suffers or is altered.

Phineas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you cannot find an area in the brain that is identified as the area that provides a conscience that can be removed. Isn't that interesting? It seems to be in the entire brain. There is not one locale.

Where did you read or hear this? How do you know it's true? How does this compare with other mental functions?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you don't have a clue LadyShea and you using a false standard to judge who is capable of making such a discovery based on one's formal credentials.

You said you were mind boggled about Dragar's questioning the lack of evidence and studies related to your sweeping statements about psychology and neuroscience, and defended Lessans by saying he did study.

However, he didn't study neuroscience or psychology, apparently, because when I asked if he had you threw a shitfit (see below).

The facts are what they are, peacegirl. You and he made assertions related to specific fields. The question isn't about credentials, it's about what he actually "studied". Did he study psychology or neuroscience in any way? If the answer is yes, then please tell us what he studied...some books, or names of researchers would be sufficient. If he didn't study those two fields in any way, what makes his statements about them credible?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are part and parcel of a system that didn't even allow Lessans to present his case.

Who or what constitutes this system? What entitled Lessans to an audience by this "system"? Should just everyone be "allowed to present their case"? If so, present it to whom?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep bringing up ridiculous things such as his talking to imaginary people because you have nothing else to go on. I used dialogue because it anticipated the questions the reader would have. So what if I chose to use a pretend dialogue?

The book reads as if Lessans wrote the dialogs, they read as if they were actual conversations, yet you have admitted that you fabricated and inserted them all. Did you change the introduction or forward to explain that YOU, as the editor and compiler, wrote the imaginary dialogs? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does this have to do with the concepts he is presenting? I'm not blaming you for questioning, but you are not only questioning, you are telling me in so many words that your conclusions are more accurate than his, which is a joke.

My conclusions about what? My opinions about conscience and the meaning of the term free will are just as provable and evidenced as his, we are equal in that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you going back to that again? You don't have to know what he studied if you are capable of grasping these principles. They speak for themselves. Is that all you have left in your little arsenal to attack him with? Give it up LadyShea. It's not working. He had the capability and knowledge to make this discovery. If you want to compare apples to apples, he knew more about human psychology than many professionals who have the formal credentials. So don't go spouting off this garbage as some last ditch effort to discredit him, which does no such thing.

The reader does need to know what he studied in order to evaluate whether his statements about specific fields such as neuroscience and psychology are remotely credible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did you read or hear this? How do you know it's true? How does this compare with other mental functions?

I really don't know of any. You can call this an assertion or a hypothesis if you prefer. It appears that in spite of people losing brain matter, they may lose certain mental functions and even assume different personalities. As a result they be more prone to angry outbursts, but as long as they understand the difference between right and wrong (which does take a certain amount of mental function), they do not lose their conscience and suddenly become murderers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the whole point LadyShea, and I tried to find an article based on a study that babies have a conscience even before their parents train them to be good people.

At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head. The Moral Life of Babies - NYTimes.com

So this 1 year old's "innate" conscience told him to punish the naughty puppet with violence. How does that fit in to your argument?

These sections mirrors what my point was, that some adaptive instincts are present at birth that will lead to a conscience and values system. This is not a fully formed set of moral values, nor is it a "conscience" as I understand the term.

Originally Posted by NYTimes article

In the journal Science a couple of months ago, the psychologist Joseph Henrich and several of his colleagues reported a cross-cultural study of 15 diverse populations and found that people’s propensities to behave kindly to strangers and to punish unfairness are strongest in large-scale communities with market economies, where such norms are essential to the smooth functioning of trade. Henrich and his colleagues concluded that much of the morality that humans possess is a consequence of the culture in which they are raised, not their innate capacities.

Originally Posted by NYTimes article

Since natural selection works, at least in part, at a genetic level, there is a logic to being instinctively kind to our kin, whose survival and well-being promote the spread of our genes. More than that, it is often beneficial for humans to work together with other humans, which means that it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals.

Originally Posted by NYTimes article

Babies and toddlers might not know or exhibit any of these moral subtleties. Their sympathetic reactions and motivations — including their desire to alleviate the pain of others — may not be much different in kind from purely nonmoral reactions and motivations like growing hungry or wanting to void a full bladder.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have read chapter 1 several times. There is no evidence, there are no citations to studies or any reference to any type of scientific findings whatsoever. What is there is Lessans reasoning and conclusions (ie. opinions), and his fake discussions with imaginary people.

We have pointed this out to you since day 1, peacegirl, so why your mind is boggled by this is mind boggling.

A pretend dialogue is just the form of discussion; it has absolutely nothing to do with the content. It's so clear that you are grasping at anything you can to discredit him without one bit of evidence in your favor.

Because you don't have a clue LadyShea and you using a false standard to judge who is capable of making such a discovery based on one's formal credentials.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said you were mind boggled about Dragar's questioning the lack of evidence and studies related to your sweeping statements about psychology and neuroscience, and defended Lessans by saying he did study.

However, he didn't study neuroscience or psychology, apparently, because when I asked if he had you threw a shitfit (see below).

The facts are what they are, peacegirl. You and he made assertions related to specific fields. The question isn't about credentials, it's about what he actually "studied". Did he study psychology or neuroscience in any way? If the answer is yes, then please tell us what he studied...some books, or names of researchers would be sufficient. If he didn't study those two fields in any way, what makes his statements about them credible?

He studied history, philosophy, and literature. From reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times, he learned much about human nature. Even though it is a history book, it is also a book on psychology. He made no assertions in regard to his discovery, none whatsoever. His foundational principles are correct which is why the two-sided equation is correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are part and parcel of a system that didn't even allow Lessans to present his case.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who or what constitutes this system? What entitled Lessans to an audience by this "system"? Should just everyone be "allowed to present their case"? If so, present it to whom?

Nothing entitled him to an audience, but it is ashame that he was not given an opportunity to share his findings. Universities have a monopoly on which knowledge gets taken seriously and which doesn't. In the past, they have only allowed those with "formal" credentials into their inner circle. Even now, you can't offer a paper if you aren't associated with a university. This is a stumbling block. But I am going to bypass all of this thanks to the internet. Times are a changin.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep bringing up ridiculous things such as his talking to imaginary people because you have nothing else to go on. I used dialogue because it anticipated the questions the reader would have. So what if I chose to use a pretend dialogue?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The book reads as if Lessans wrote the dialogs, they read as if they were actual conversations, yet you have admitted that you fabricated and inserted them all. Did you change the introduction or forward to explain that YOU, as the editor and compiler, wrote the imaginary dialogs? If not, why not?

I wrote that I compiled the book. I never used dialogue as a means of incorporating an event that did not take place. The only time I used it was to clarify a concept. I would say, "My friend had this question." Most were actual conversations; the ones where he said he talked to a pastor, or where he specifically stated that he went to a university, or when he called Will Durant on the phone, or when he mentioned a friend went to the Canada Expo and saw a sign that read, the eyes are not a sense organ.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does this have to do with the concepts he is presenting? I'm not blaming you for questioning, but you are not only questioning, you are telling me in so many words that your conclusions are more accurate than his, which is a joke.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My conclusions about what? My opinions about conscience and the meaning of the term free will are just as provable and evidenced as his, we are equal in that.

This is not an opinion. You are making it appear as if your assertions are just as equal as Lessans' because you believe that any opinion is just as worthy of consideration as any other opinion, but this is not an opinion so they are not equal.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did Lessans study neuroscience and psychology? If so, what exactly did he study and how did he study it? He made no references to other works nor offered citations of any texts of any kind, so we can't tell he studied, you see.

Are you going back to that again? You don't have to know what he studied if you are capable of grasping these principles. They speak for themselves. Is that all you have left in your little arsenal to attack him with? Give it up LadyShea. It's not working. He had the capability and knowledge to make this discovery. If you want to compare apples to apples, he knew more about human psychology than many professionals who have the formal credentials. So don't go spouting off this garbage as some last ditch effort to discredit him, which does no such thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The reader does need to know what he studied in order to evaluate whether his statements about specific fields such as neuroscience and psychology are remotely credible.

That is absolutely 100% false. He was not an astrophysicist like Dragar, and he was also not an astronomer, but his discovery IS CREDIBLE. If you understood his reasoning, you would not need to know what he studied to determine that his demonstration is sound. The only reason you ask for his credentials is because you don't have a grasp of the discovery or you would not need this. If some pychologist who has formal credentials said man has free will, and Lessans with no formal credentials said man does not have free will, this does not make the psychologist correct. You're all wet LadyShea. The irony is that neuroscience is proving man has no free will, but in a slightly different way. Eventually it will be proven to be true. This is not just a philosophical argument.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our university system is what I meant. It allows only those with "formal" credentials into their inner circle. Even now, you can't offer a paper if you aren't associated with a university.

More lies. Of course you can. Some very famous papers have been published by people not associated with a university. This is pure crackpottery, right here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know of any. You can call this an assertion or a hypothesis if you prefer. It appears that in spite of people losing brain matter, they may lose certain mental functions and even assume different personalities. As a result they be more prone to angry outbursts, but as long as they understand the difference between right and wrong (which does take a certain amount of mental function), they do not lose their conscience and suddenly become murderers.

Uh huh, "it appears" where? What did you hear or read that has led to your views on this topic?

show spoiler

. The Neural Basis of Human Moral Cognition

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So this 1 year old's "innate" conscience told him to punish the naughty puppet with violence. How does that fit in to your argument?

These sections mirrors what my point was, that some adaptive instincts are present at birth that will lead to a conscience and values system. This is not a fully formed set of moral values, nor is it a "conscience" as I understand the term.

Regardless of the motive for sympathetic reactions and the desire to alleviate pain (most of our motivations are selfish in nature; i.e., we are getting something out of it) does not take away from the fact that these motivations can be seen early in a child's life. It is also true that punishing, or disliking, unfairness might have a biological basis (which I've been saying all along), but this doesn't change the fact that conscience is not just a matter of the culture in which a person is bred.

A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone. Which is not to say that parents are wrong to concern themselves with moral development or that their interactions with their children are a waste of time. Socialization is critically important. But this is not because babies and young children lack a sense of right and wrong; it’s because the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be.

The Moral Life of Babies - NYTimes.com

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

conscience is not just a matter of the culture in which a person is bred

Who said it was? Who are you arguing with in this statement?

You said "we are all born with the same conscience". Can you back that up or not?

I am countering that we are born with the capacity to develop a conscience, but that conscience itself is a function of a complex and subjective moral values system which is in turn interdependent on the society one lives and interacts with. From the moment of birth babies interact with society and learn from those interactions...they learn what gets a positive reaction and what gets a negative one, for starters.

Also "rudimentary glimmers" are not a full blown conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh huh, "it appears" where? What did you hear or read that has led to your views on this topic?

show spoiler

. The Neural Basis of Human Moral Cognition

This says nothing about a specific area of the brain such that if it was removed we would lose our moral compass. It discusses brain regions. Again, this is across many neural networks. Brain regions are large parts of the brain, not one area that they can designate as the conscience part of the brain.

Moral cognitive neuroscience is an emerging field of research that focuses on the neural basis of uniquely human forms of social cognition and behaviour. Recent functional imaging and clinical evidence indicates that a remarkably consistent network of brain regions is involved in moral cognition. These findings are fostering new interpretations of social behavioural impairments in patients with brain dysfunction, and require new approaches to enable us to understand the complex links between individuals and society. Here, we propose a cognitive neuroscience view of how cultural and context-dependent knowledge, semantic social knowledge and motivational states can be integrated to explain complex aspects of human moral cognition.

The neural basis of human moral cognition : Abstract : Nature Reviews Neuroscience

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said it was? Who are you arguing with in this statement?

You said "we are all born with the same conscience". Can you back that up or not?

I am countering that we are born with the capacity to develop a conscience, but that conscience itself is a function of a complex and subjective moral values system which is in turn interdependent on the society one lives and interacts with. From the moment of birth babies interact with society and learn from those interactions...they learn what gets a positive reaction and what gets a negative one, for starters.

Also "rudimentary glimmers" are not a full blown conscience.

LadyShea, it is obvious that the interaction between a baby and its environment plays a huge part in how conscience begins to take hold, but without the seed of conscience within every one of us at birth, it would not matter how we are treated. We would have no moral underpinnings at all from which to judge our actions. We are not in conflict here, so stop trying to find a way to use this against Lessans.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making it appear as if your assertions are just as equal as Lessans' because you believe that any opinion is just as worthy of consideration as any other opinion, but this is not an opinion so they are not equal.

I do not believe any opinion is just as worthy of consideration as any other. Informed opinions based on research, study, and evidence are much more worthy of consideration.

I said Lessans and I were equal in regards to our opinions regarding the workings of conscience. Which, yes, Lessans view of it is an opinion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, it is obvious that the interaction between a baby and its environment plays a huge part in how conscience begins to take hold, but without the seed of conscience within every one of us at birth, it would not matter how we are treated. We would have no moral underpinnings at all from which to judge our actions. We are not in conflict here, so stop trying to find a way to use this against Lessans.

You are a backpedaling weasel. You are now saying we are born with "seeds" and "rudimentary glimmers" of conscience, rather than your previous assertion that we all have the same conscience at birth that is fully formed and requires no development over time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not develop over time; it is fully developed

I have repeatedly stated my view that we are born with the capacity to form a conscience. You disagreed with me. Do you agree with me now?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This says nothing about a specific area of the brain such that if it was removed we would lose our moral compass.

Why is that an important factor in the discussion? Why is that even interesting? How does this compare with other mental functions? Is it different or similar in that regard?

There are specific and consistent regions, which is not "in the entire brain" as you originally stated. Are you changing your view, again?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peaceguirl

From reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times, he learned much about human nature

"Human Nature" as described by Edward Gibbon, right? Edward Gibbon, who coincidentally, was quite lacking in formal credentials yet still taken seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had the capability and knowledge to make this discovery. If you want to compare apples to apples, he knew more about human psychology than many professionals who have the formal credentials.

How is anyone supposed to evaluate these claims, peacegirl? Can you prove he "knew more" than anyone at all, let alone "many professionals"? Your good opinion of your father, though commendable, is not evidence of anything.