A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I understand, but I disagree with his reasoning and conclusions.

I know you do, but your answers show me you don't understand why responsibility goes up, not down, under the changed conditions.

[LadyShea]

I don't believe human conscience to be predictable across all of humanity. Conscience is individual.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I dislike pasting and cutting

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't believe human conscience to be predictable across all of humanity. Conscience is individual.

LadyShea, you have no understanding as to why conscience, which is now at a 5, will go to a 10 under the changed conditions. Don't you want to understand how this can be accomplished? To just assert that conscience is not predictable is based on your present understanding of human nature. You haven't given this discovery a chance.

[Doctor X]

So Lessans is powerless against Kryptonite!!!



Well, that and reality.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you have no understanding as to why conscience, which is now at a 5, will go to a 10 under the changed conditions. Don't you want to understand how this can be accomplished? To just assert that conscience is not predictable is based on your present understanding of human nature. You haven't given this discovery a chance.

And to assert that conscience is now at a 5 and can go to 10 (which is a nonsensical statement but whatever) is based on nothing more than what Lessans understood about human nature, which I have no reason to believe was above or beyond my own understanding. In fact as he did not have access to the knowledge we now have regarding neuroscience, I would say my understanding is probably somewhat greater. Maybe I am a 60 to Lessans 50

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one said it precludes other options prior to the choice being made.

So you don't understand the objections. Dearie me, what a

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How preposterous!

Indeed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And to assert that conscience is now at a 5 and can go to 10 (which is a nonsensical statement but whatever) is based on nothing more than what Lessans understood about human nature, which I have no reason to believe was above or beyond my own understanding. In fact as he did not have access to the knowledge we now have regarding neuroscience, I would say my understanding is probably somewhat greater. Maybe I am a 60 to Lessans 50

Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean you're not interested in pursuing this anymore? I am not going to beg anyone, but I would hope that there is someone who wants to go through these few pages before I go. I couldn't get past the first sentence with doc, so he's out. It's too frustrating.

I already know you believe conscience can't work universally. I'm telling that it can. But to even come close to knowing whether it can or cannot, you have to understand why I believe it can. After all these pages there has been very little progress made regarding his first discovery.

[Doctor X]

After nearly 300 pages--and years before that--she cannot answer even ONE objection.

Pathetic.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So you don't understand the objections. Dearie me, what a

I understand quite well what the objections are. For you to state that making the choice precludes other options prior to the choice being made, is nutty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

After nearly 300 pages--and years before that--she cannot answer even ONE objection.

Pathetic.

--J.D.

Not really when you realize that we never got past page 5. It's the strangest thread I've ever been in, and the last I'll ever be in. No one could even give me a straight answer to this one question. What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already know you believe conscience can't work universally. I'm telling that it can. But to even come close to knowing whether it can or cannot, you have to understand why I believe it can.

So tell me, in your own words, why you think conscience works in a universal and predictable way?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't the first clue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you care to point out where I said that?

Ah, never mind. I already know the answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So tell me, in your own words, why you think conscience works in a universal and predictable way?

LadyShea, this is not going to work. I've tried this, and there are gaps in understanding. That's why talking on forums is very difficult. If you want to sincerely understand what he discovered, and why conscience will not permit someone to hurt another without justification, then why won't you let me know if you have any objections to what I posted on post # 7323, so we can move forward in a step by step fashion? Also, please answer the question I asked on the post to Doctor X. What other choice do we have other than living our life the best we can, or opting out of this life? This is not a trick question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You haven't the first clue.

Would you care to point out where I said that?

Ah, never mind. I already know the answer.

Sorry about that. I think it was doc that said that. How can there be objections Stephen, when there isn't anything to object to because we have yet to get past page 5?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many philosophers have gotten confused over this one
point because it was assumed that a world without blame would only
make matters worse, decreasing responsibility to an even greater
extent and giving man the perfect opportunity to take advantage of
others without having to worry about consequences. But this can only
occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows him to come
up with reasonable excuses.

This is a great example of what I was talking about some pages ago, the last time I was bored enough to stick my head in here, about Lessans faulty, or more accurately non-starter, logic.

He states that "tak[ing] advantage of others without having to worry about consequences" can only happen when they "know [they] will be blamed." There is never any reason given for this statement (as far as I recall, it is damnably tedious to follow the poor prose and hokey dialogue), it is simply treated as self-evident. Indeed, immediate counter-arguments practically create themselves, for example, if one "knows he will be blamed," that seems to preclude "[not] having to worry about consequences," since blame is a consequence.

She is right about one thing, he never seems to present anything that can be restated as a logical syllogism. Instead he gives us a series of conclusions without any premises, isolated assertions that are to be accepted without support in order for any of his work to make any sense whatsoever. Both he and peacegirl state multiple times that if one of these conclusions seems in error you simply don't understand it, and that the work must be accepted before it can be understood.

This is a very poor approach, completely backward in fact, to everything he and she claim this work to be, it is lousy science and lousy philosophy. Despite his statements to the contrary, there never was any mathematics involved, so it doesn't even count as lousy mathematics. Most of his conclusions-in-lieu-of-arguments don't find any traction even if one goes looking for the supporting logic/evidence he neglected to provide, and many of them are outright disproved by the logic and evidence available.

I would scarcely have believed it possible, but peacegirl's presentation and defense of the work has been even more ridiculous than the work itself, with rampant hypocrisy and weaseling, self-contradictions and double-talk. I still enjoy looking in now and then to see what wonderful things she will say next, like this one:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I dislike pasting and cutting

Truly, this is the most bizarrely entertaining pseudo-science/logic I have ever seen pushed on the internet, way better than Sov/Soph in my humble opinion, and the person doing the pushing is more than half the show. I can only hope against hope that her personal hero Deepak Chopra, or some similarly famous bullshit peddler, will hear of this work and take up its soiled and shabby banner, pushing it a bit out of the shadows of well-deserved obscurity and into spots on morning "news" and daytime talk shows. Then I can look back and say, "I was laughing at this nonsense before it was cool."

I've never been able to say that before...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by asshat

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise.

Just as a fun experiment, I decided to read at random something that asshat wrote, since I no longer actually read her stupid posts.

Care to support the above WRONG claim, asshat?





"It could not have been otherwise that Oswald chose to kill JFK. Hence, JFK's killing was a necessary, not a contingent act."



See "modal fallacy," asshat.

[LadyShea]

I have no problem with the fact that we only have the choice of living or not living.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

So Lessans is powerless against Kryptonite!!!



Well, that and reality.

--J.D.

Set some on his grave, I'll bet he doesn't rise up.

[LadyShea]

Either explain why you personally believe conscience works in a universal and predictable way or don't peacegirl. I don't really care.

If you want a serious discussion quite evading sincere questions with this BS about gaps in understanding. I have been asking you to explain things based on your opinion and in your own words since page 1 and you won't do it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand quite well what the objections are. For you to state that making the choice precludes other options prior to the choice being made, is nutty.

A clear deficiency in reading comprehension.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can there be objections Stephen, when there isn't anything to object to because we have yet to get past page 5?

Fine, I surrender. Two hundred ninety-four pages in, and there are no objections.

Originally Posted by Kael

Truly, this is the most bizarrely entertaining pseudo-science/logic I have ever seen pushed on the internet, way better than Sov/Soph in my humble opinion, and the person doing the pushing is more than half the show.

Slobberin's devotion to his craft was remarkable, but it pales to nothing compared to what we've seen here. All this thread lacks is some fuzzy craniotomy porn.

Originally Posted by Kael

I can only hope against hope that her personal hero Deepak Chopra, or some similarly famous bullshit peddler, will hear of this work and take up its soiled and shabby banner, pushing it a bit out of the shadows of well-deserved obscurity and into spots on morning "news" and daytime talk shows.

That may be a job for Phil "Ain't Got No License, But I Sure Got A Whole Lotta Cash" McGraw. That would be a pairing for the ages.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really when you realize that we never got past page 5. It's the strangest thread I've ever been in, and the last I'll ever be in. No one could even give me a straight answer to this one question. What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward.

Living is the only choice, no-one said otherwise except you.

Why should we go farther if the first thing he says, on which he bases everything else, is wrong. Everything that follows would be wrong as well. There would be no point is saying accept it 'for sake of argument' what follows would be a pointless exersize in futility.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Slobberin's devotion to his craft was remarkable, but it pales to nothing compared to what we've seen here.

I know! All his stuff eventually degenerated into screaming rants and pictures of genitalia, and stayed that way until he could get himself banned. peacegirl has her rants sometimes, but she keeps resetting and coming back for more! The stamina is absolutely incredible.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you personally... your opinion... in your own words

I think I see the problem here...