A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you going again putting a spin on what you know I meant, just to make me look bad.

L.O.L. Davidm is not putting a 'spin' on it, nor is he trying to make you look bad, you and Lessans are doing that all by yourselves, and very nicely at that.

[thedoc]

Did anyone notice the party we missed?

Peter Wolfgramm w/ noisemaker - YouTube

&feature=related

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of these natural disasters would cause the new world to collapse.

Who said anything about collapse? I simply pointed out that various forces work on societies and there is no way to predict how the pressure and stress and reactions will play out, or manifest, in a theoretical population.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Complex adaptable brains don't enter into it because this doesn't change how conscience works.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you know this how? Conscience is a product of the brain, correct? Therefore it is also complex and adaptable.

How would he or you know it works in a predictable way?

He observed who? How many? When? Where? Under what circumstances? How does he know his observations of a few people can be extrapolated to all people? And you don't think this is massive arrogance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not heritable, therefore people aren't born with a more evolved conscience than others.

As if heritability is the only, or even the main factor, in brain development and physiology? And what do you know about neuroscience to make such a claim anyway? And what's a "more evolved" conscience?

You're writing checks you can't cash, peacegirl.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I simply pointed out that various forces work on societies and there is no way to predict how the pressure and stress and reactions will play out, or manifest, in a theoretical population.

Ahh, but we can, it has evolved into something we call marketing, it is the presentation of an idea with the desired emotional response.


The Mercury Theatre on the Air

[Jerome]

Listen

http://sounds.mercurytheatre.info/mercury/381030.mp3

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Forces of nature. Flood, earthquake, tornado, drought, volcanic eruption, asteroid strikes, etc.

None of these natural disasters would cause the new world to collapse.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about collapse? I simply pointed out that various forces work on societies and there is no way to predict how the pressure and stress and reactions will play out, or manifest, in a theoretical population.

We can predict how the reactions will play out because the factors that cause stress and pressure will be eliminated once these principles become a permanent condition of the environment. Obviously, we can't control the weather completely, but we can prevent the extremes of weather we are seeing due to global warming. In addition, this type of pressure will not cause people to desire hurting one another, especially when the world will come to the aid (as they do today) of the people affected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Complex adaptable brains don't enter into it because this doesn't change how conscience works.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you know this how? Conscience is a product of the brain, correct? Therefore it is also complex and adaptable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would he or you know it works in a predictable way?

Because this is what conscience is there for. It is there to monitor our behavior and to whisper in our ear when we are about to do something that could hurt someone without justification. Let me repeat: That is what the function of conscience is for, nothing else.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He observed who? How many? When? Where? Under what circumstances? How does he know his observations of a few people can be extrapolated to all people? And you don't think this is massive arrogance?

I can't get through to you LadyShea. This is not an extrapolation of a small population. He saw certain behaviors throughout history that were related to how people act. It was through his voracious reading that led him to these spot on observations. Until you can relax your one and only standard (empirical evidence), it will be like talking on two different frequencies. This has nothing to do with arrogance.

It is not heritable, therefore people aren't born with a more evolved conscience than others.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As if heritability is the only, or even the main factor, in brain development and physiology? And what do you know about neuroscience to make such a claim anyway? And what's a "more evolved" conscience?

You're writing checks you can't cash, peacegirl.

There are people who believe we are born without the level of conscience that would prevent us from doing evil things. Have you ever seen the movie, "The Bad Seed"? You, once again, are placing the cart before the horse by setting up a standard that causes you to hand wave away anything Lessans has to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Market the book with the goal of what? Who's your target demographic? You have stated that the principles can't be applied on an an individual life basis because of the free will environment, that it's the whole world or nothing. That right there will limit any word of mouth advertising, because people want to say "OMG you have to read this book and apply the principles to improve your own life" rather than "some day, some how, maybe someone important will read this and change the world".

So even you sold 100 copies, and some percentage of those people think Lessans was onto something, then what?

You won't approach scientists, or scholars and they're your only chance to get some evidence and authoritative support. World leaders won't base world changing decisions on what some people think might work based on a book they read, they'll want evidence.

I want to add to this post that the only way that I see this knowledge getting the acknowledgement it deserves is through a grassroots effort. People who recognize the validity of his observations will hopefully pass this book onto others (people like Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra could help speed up the process). Only when there is pressure from the general population will scientists begin to pay any attention.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point. We can predict how the reactions will play out because the factors that cause stress and pressure will be eliminated once these principles become a permanent condition of the environment.

The factors I mentioned cannot be eliminated or controlled. That was the whole point. You can't eliminate fear and panic in the face of a deadly pandemic. You can't eliminate desperation if a catastrophic natural disaster causes a food shortage.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, we can't control the weather completely, but we can prevent the extremes of weather we are seeing due to global warming.

There will always be earthquakes, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, disease emergence...these are not caused by global warming. You cannot control the effects of an asteroid strike. Man cannot control nature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In addition, this type of pressure will not cause people to desire hurting one another, especially when the world will come to the aid (as they do today) of the people affected.

You don't know that. You can hope. You can believe. You cannot know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Complex adaptable brains don't enter into it because this doesn't change how conscience works.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you know this how? Conscience is a product of the brain, correct? Therefore it is also complex and adaptable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would he or you know it works in a predictable way?

He observed who? How many? When? Where? Under what circumstances? How does he know his observations of a few people can be extrapolated to all people? And you don't think this is massive arrogance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't get through to you LadyShea that this is not an extrapolation. He saw certain behaviors throughout history that were related to how people act. It was through his voracious reading that led him to these spot on observations. Until you can relax your one and only standard (empirical evidence), it will be like talking on two different frequencies. This has nothing to do with arrogance.

Reading cannot tell you how conscience works in all people at all times. It is very arrogant to think you can know such a thing from reading books.

Also, do you even know what extrapolation means?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not heritable, therefore people aren't born with a more evolved conscience than others.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As if heritability is the only, or even the main factor, in brain development and physiology? And what do you know about neuroscience to make such a claim anyway? And what's a "more evolved" conscience?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're writing checks you can't cash, peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many people believe that we are born without the level of conscience that would prevent them from being evil.

Many people don't know what they are talking about. Conscience is a product of a complex and adaptable living brain. We don't know all the factors involved.

Conscience is where the further study you keep calling for is definitely needed, because we are only now even getting a glimpse into the cognitive and emotional functioning of the brain, but here you think you have a conclusion?

I can come at a discussion from a different angle and be correct. You, once again, are placing the cart before the horse by setting up a standard that causes you to hand wave away anything Lessans has to say.

Projecting. I have logical and evidential support and you have a strongly held belief and a lot of confusion. Who's doing all the handwaving?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said there will be a food shortage when the whole world comes together to help these people? You have to remember that the resources will be available because the entire economic system will be revamped based on our new understanding of human nature. Do you see how you are jumping to premature conclusions?

I realize there are factors that cannot be predicted, but my question to you remains: How would a natural disaster cause the ruin of the Golden Age of man? Disease emergence, although unpredictable, would not cause man to revert back to the old way of life. Even if there was a pandemic, which would be remote because biological warfare will be eliminated, people would do everything they could to help one another. It is true that self-preservation is the first law of nature, but you're assuming that there will always be a fight for survival.

This just shows me that you don't understand this law of our nature which compels us to desire helping others in time of need. I suggest that you read the entire book at least twice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would he or you know it works in a predictable way?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He observed who? How many? When? Where? Under what circumstances? How does he know his observations of a few people can be extrapolated to all people? And you don't think this is massive arrogance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't get through to you LadyShea that this is not an extrapolation. He saw certain behaviors throughout history that were related to how people act. It was through his voracious reading that led him to these spot on observations. Until you can relax your one and only standard (empirical evidence), it will be like talking on two different frequencies. This has nothing to do with arrogance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Reading cannot tell you how conscience works in all people at all times. It is very arrogant to think you can know such a thing from reading books.

How do you know that? He had more understanding of human nature than many scientists who base all of their conclusions on demographics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, do you even know what extrapolation means?

Yes, I know what extrapolation means. You are surmising that this knowledge is based on a demographic, which cannot be extrapolated to other demographics. This is completely wrong when it comes to this discovery because this knowledge is not based on as a particular group that becomes the basis for inference.

Extrapolate: To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not heritable, therefore people aren't born with a more evolved conscience than others.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As if heritability is the only, or even the main factor, in brain development and physiology? And what do you know about neuroscience to make such a claim anyway? And what's a "more evolved" conscience?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're writing checks you can't cash, peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many people believe that we are born without the level of conscience that would prevent them from being evil.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many people don't know what they are talking about. Conscience is a product of a complex and adaptable living brain. We don't know all the factors involved.

Conscience is where the further study you keep calling for is definitely needed, because we are only now even getting a glimpse into the cognitive and emotional functioning of the brain, but here you think you have a conclusion?

LadyShea, your knowledge is becoming ignorance. Lessans does have a conclusion and it's correct. He didn't need neuroscience to tell him he is right.

I can come at a discussion from a different angle and be correct. You, once again, are placing the cart before the horse by setting up a standard that causes you to hand wave away anything Lessans has to say.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Projecting. I have logical and evidential support and you have a strongly held belief and a lot of confusion. Who's doing all the handwaving?

I am not confused at all LadyShea. You are trying to pigeonhole me as some kind of fundie. You are handwaving Lessans away as if he was an ignoramus, and you are hiding your feelings behind a friendly facade.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK. We've established this. Light is a condition of seeing. Therefore, it must be present, as Lessans says. So far, so good.

Why not?

Lessans and you maintain that:

1. Light travels at a finite rate of speed.

2. Light is a condition of seeing, and that it must be present for anything to be seen.

3. If God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbors for 8.5 minutes.

What can we glean form points 1. and 2. in conjunction with 3., apart from the fact that Lessans was nuts?

Two points.

1. It cannot be the case that we would see the light of the sun immediately, but not our neighbors for 8.5 minutes, because the source light (sun) and reflected light (off of the neighbors) is the same light. If it's the same light, then when you see the source light, you will see the reflected light at the same time, if what the light is reflected off of, is standing right next to you. Do you actually deny this, peacegirl? Are you really that crazy? And if you do deny it, explain how it is possible for us to see the source light, but not the reflected light, when it is the same light.

2. It cannot logically be the case that the light from the sun needs to be present for us to see the sun; AND that we see the sun immediately, IF, as Lessans says, light travels at a finite rate of speed, and would take 8.5 minutes to reach our eyes. In that case, by Lessans' own reasoning, we would have to wait 8.5 minutes to see the sun, because the light won't be present for that period of time. Thus, Lessans has contradicted himself.

Will you, or will you not, address this contradiction?

Like I said: when hell freezes over, you will.

Back to projecting again, are we? Let's remember whose father we're talking about here. The only one whose world who would crumble is yours, if the realization ever dawned on you that you have wasted your life on Internet message boards defending tripe. As for myself, I can't wait to see major scientific theories overturned; I think that's neat.

You are basing your entire argument on afferent vision, not the finite speed of light. But obviously, you don't care to see the difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No no david. If SR is replaced or overturned, you will lose your job, your house, family, probably your hair too, and you would never get laid again....it's all a personal stake, see

From this comment alone it is obvious, LadyShea, that you have total disregard for anything Lessans has to offer. You will never understand this discovery with this kind of resentment toward him. This includes all of you to an extent, but especially you, Davidm and Stephen Maturin, who are looking to pounce on Lessans any opportunity you get.

[LadyShea]

Of course I have no regard for anything Lessans has to offer, peacegirl, because I have no reason to think anything he offered is worth accepting.

I have given you every opportunity, and then some, to make a convincing argument for Lessans work, to demonstrate the attitudes of a real scholar, to understand and address objections. You have failed on all counts. Yet, I am still giving you opportunities to redeem yourself and you keep digging a deeper hole. You aren't doing Lessans or yourself any favors here.

I have no resentment towards him. He wrote a book I think is probably mostly mistaken, one that I never would have even considered reading and would have left to its inevitable obscurity. Had you not come here trying to make him out as a Messiah I would not even bother refuting it. I feel no resentment, I feel frustrated with and fascinated with your willful ignorance and religious adherence, but that's not resentment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I have no regard for anything Lessans has to offer, peacegirl, because I have no reason to think anything he offered is worth accepting.

I have given you every opportunity, and then some, to make a convincing argument for Lessans work, to demonstrate the attitudes of a real scholar, to understand and address objections. You have failed on all counts. Yet, I am still giving you opportunities to redeem yourself and you keep digging a deeper hole. You aren't doing Lessans or yourself any favors here.

I have no resentment towards him. He wrote a book I think is probably mostly mistaken, one that I never would have even considered reading and would have left to its inevitable obscurity. Had you not come here trying to make him out as a Messiah I would not even bother refuting it. I feel no resentment, I feel frustrated with and fascinated with your willful ignorance and religious adherence, but that's not resentment.

LadyShea, you would never think of yourself as the one who is confused, so we're definitely at odds. I do not have to redeem myself because I have done nothing that warrants redemption. In your mind I have failed, but that does not mean I have failed. He said in the introduction that the Messiah are the laws of our nature. But of course you either neglected to read this or you conveniently forgot it.

[I]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction p. 14

It is true that many men before me, including socialists,
communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the
cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and
their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own.
However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof
that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not. Mine can be
adequately communicated; theirs was never disentangled from the
illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought and imagination.
Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic belief. In
view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah; and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words. “But what is truth?”
you might ask. “Let us say it is that which cannot be denied by
anyone anywhere.”

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this is what conscience is there for. It is there to monitor our behavior and to whisper in our ear when we are about to do something that could hurt someone without justification. Let me repeat: That is what the function of conscience is for, nothing else.

So, in your worldview conscience is a single thing, with a location of "there", and has a specific purpose...you seem to imply that it was somehow put "there" to fulfill this purpose..by a creator I guess?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your mind I have failed, but that does not mean I have failed.

You may not have failed your own tests, but you have failed all of my tests used for evaluation of ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said in the introduction that the Messiah are the laws of our nature.

You have presented him as the savior of mankind from itself. You presented him as a Messiah. It doesn't matter how he idiosyncratically defined the word (just as he did God).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts

Ah, look at this quote from the book. No wonder she can't think of re-writing that chapter, Lessans emphasized its necessity

[Vivisectus]

There is also the anti-eternalism thing. Time cannot be determined by frame of reference, because then reincarnation is not proven either, as it depends on an absolute NOW to exist that is completely separate from THEN.

For this book to be correct, both special and general relativity need to be wrong. Only a leap of faith can allow you to believe in both it and a working GPS system.

[Vivisectus]

I should have pointed out that this NOW also needs to be universal - it needs to be NOW everywhere at the same time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this is what conscience is there for. It is there to monitor our behavior and to whisper in our ear when we are about to do something that could hurt someone without justification. Let me repeat: That is what the function of conscience is for, nothing else.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, in your worldview conscience is a single thing, with a location of "there", and has a specific purpose...you seem to imply that it was somehow put "there" to fulfill this purpose..by a creator I guess?

Yes, conscience is a single thing. It is of the brain but you can't point to any specific part of the brain and say this is where conscience is located. And no one put it "there" (why do you bring this up when you know that's not what I mean), but it does fulfill a specific purpose (just like every part of us) and that is to let us know when we are about to do something that could be a hurt to someone that cannot be justified or rationalized. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because your concept of the development and even the definition of conscience is not the same as mine. Because you have oversimplified conscience into a single monolithic thing when it is not (hint: it is an interplay of cognition and emotion at minimum). Because you believe that all humans have exactly the same objectively measurable conscience, when it is actually defined and based on subjective values. Because you believe evolutionary processes gives a shit about rationalization and justification.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your mind I have failed, but that does not mean I have failed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You may not have failed your own tests, but you have failed all of my tests used for evaluation of ideas.

I can't change your tests to be more flexible in order to accommodate truths that may not be found through empiricism; only you can do that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said in the introduction that the Messiah are the laws of our nature.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have presented him as the savior of mankind from itself. You presented him as a Messiah. It doesn't matter how he idiosyncratically defined the word (just as he did God).

I don't see where I have presented him as the savior of mankind. This has never been about him personally.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Ah, look at this quote from the book. No wonder she can't think of re-writing that chapter, Lessans emphasized its necessity

That's not why I can't think of re-writing that chapter. I would not re-write this chapter because it would be unethical to alter someone else's work. You of all people should know this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because your concept of the development and even the definition of conscience is not the same as mine. Because you have oversimplified conscience into a single monolithic thing when it is not (hint: it is an interplay of cognition and emotion at minimum). Because you believe that all humans have exactly the same objectively measurable conscience, when it is actually defined and based on subjective values. Because you believe evolutionary processes gives a shit about rationalization and justification.

I have not oversimplified conscience. It works in a very specific way with a very specific function. Yes, evolutionary processes gives a shit about conscience, or else we wouldn't have one. If we didn't, we would do whatever we want whenever we want and not care about anyone else. As far as evolution is concerned, conscience is a protection for ourselves so that we don't do things that we would feel remorseful for later on. This is a form of SELF-PRESERVATION. Never in the history of man has conscience not been a part of his struggle to do what is right. Obviously, there are those who seem to have no conscience, which is why it's difficult to imagine how conscience will be able to control man's behavior in a no free will environment. Not until we enter the Golden Age (an age where there is no blame or punishment) will our conscience reach the temperature necessary to prevent the things we don't want such as war, crime, and hatred.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why I can't think of re-writing that chapter. I would not re-write this chapter because it would be unethical to alter someone else's work. You of all people should know this.

Not if you named yourself co-author and explained your reasoning for writing a new chapter

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because your concept of the development and even the definition of conscience is not the same as mine. Because you have oversimplified conscience into a single monolithic thing when it is not (hint: it is an interplay of cognition and emotion at minimum). Because you believe that all humans have exactly the same objectively measurable conscience, when it is actually defined and based on subjective values. Because you believe evolutionary processes gives a shit about rationalization and justification.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not oversimplified conscience. It works in a very specific way with a very specific function.

Then explain how it works in detail. What all processes are involved?

Yes, evolutionary processes gives a shit about conscience, or else we wouldn't have one. If we didn't, we would do whatever we want whenever we want and not care about anyone else.

I said it doesn't give a shit about justification or rationalization. I didn't say conscience didn't have a purpose.

As far as evolution is concerned, conscience is a protection for ourselves so that we don't do things that we would feel remorseful for later on. This is a form of SELF-PRESERVATION.

Yay, we agree, although I think you have fallen a bit short...it's about self preservation within the framework of reciprocal altruism

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, there are those who seem to have no conscience, which is why it's difficult to imagine how conscience will be able to control man's behavior in a no free will environment.

Conscience can be impaired to varying degrees due to injury, disease as well as congenital factors. Man can't control everything.