A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our nature doesn't allow us to move toward a position that is less satisfactory when a more satisfactory position is available. I might desire to swallow poison rather than to see my family die, if those are the only options available to me.

This has not been proven, only asserted, and extreme examples do not prove the mundane.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's natural to kill until it becomes unnatural. Then not killing becomes natural. That's called evolution.

No, that is not the definition of evolution.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're going to have to [temporarily] accept that this premise is undeniable so we can move on.

No one is going to do any such thing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember that every single movement is in the direction of greater satisfaction because that's the direction desire is forced to take. I

Which argument, as you and Lessans have presented it, commits two formal fallacies, of circularity and modality.

So, no, there is nothing to "remember" here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, that is not the definition of evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Which argument, as you and Lessans have presented it, commits two formal fallacies, of circularity and modality.

So, no, there is nothing to "remember" here.

It does not, but you're too blind to see. If you agreed with anything Lessans said it would be miraculous since you'd have to rethink real time vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No one is going to do any such thing.

Speak for yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This has not been proven, only asserted, and extreme examples do not prove the mundane.

It has been proved 100%.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Here is an excellent example of the basic reasoning failure in peacegirls brain. She understands that the credibility of the "two sided equation" rests on the accuracy of Lessans observation but is completely unable to reason with this knowledge to infer that the onus would then be on her to show the accuracy of Lessans observations. This coupled with her profound ignorance of how science and critical thinking is done is what is leading to this stupid merry go round she is stuck on and is not able to get off.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that Lessans' observations were an accurate description of reality and that the "two-sided equation" is also accurate, it does not necessarily follow that Lessans extension of that "equation" is also going to be accurate. Each step in the process has to be evaluated on its own merits. His extensions are particularly problematic in this regard.

I don't see where.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I call one child beautiful because of certain features, it implies that another child who does not have those features, is ugly.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is just another example of your (and Lessans') flawed binary thinking. To call one child beautiful does not necessarily imply that the possession of those, and only those, features constitute beauty. For example, suppose that the child I call beautiful has blonde hair. It does not follow from this that only children with blonde hair are beautiful. A child with a completely different set of features may, in my eyes and the eyes of others, be just as beautiful as the first child. Therefore, calling one child beautiful does not necessarily imply that child who does not have those features is ugly.

It very much follows that certain features called "beautiful" or "pretty" will influence one's taste. You would very rarely see someone call the witch of the west "beautiful" because her features don't fit into this category. Sure you could like more than one type, but that doesn't change the faulty lens through which we've all been conditioned.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If there is even one person who considers the Wicked Witch of the West beautiful, that would defeat Lessans' claim regarding the universality of this conditioning.

Obviously, it depends on the culture and what is considered beautiful. When the word "beautiful" is attached to whatever features are admired, the child will be conditioned to seeing those features as better looking than those that are not considered as nice.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What reason do we have to assume that conscience works in the way Lessans says it does?

Because he observed that conscience works differently under blame[filled] conditions versus blame[less] conditions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Where, when and how did Lessans observe the operation of conscience under blameless conditions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He observed the way conscience works in a blame[filled] environment, and by understanding our true nature he was able to extend this knowledge into a world that is not yet here. In other words, all that was necessary was to demonstrate how conscience would work when all blame was removed by understanding how conscience works in the world of free will.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your claim was that he had observed the way conscience works under blameless conditions, not that he had reasoned how it would work. Where, when and how did he make such an observation?

He saw these blameless conditions in his mind's eye, and could envision exactly how this world must come about in a relatively short time. The good news is that your resistance isn't going to stop the new world from coming according to God's timetable.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's natural to kill until it becomes unnatural. Then not killing becomes natural. That's called evolution.

No. It. Isn't.


Speaking as an actual evolutionary biologist, I can only say that such a blatant display of ignorance almost makes me want to tear my hair out. Oh, and just because you can copy-and-paste dictionary definitions doesn't mean that you understand them.

[And no, it's not development, either.]

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, how does efferent vision explain Quasars,

Quasar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the Cosmic background radiation,

Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.

WRONG, Evolution does not always mean more complex or better, evolution simply means changing to better survive in a changing environment, if that requires a more simple organism then that is what will survive and endure. 'BETTER' Is a meaningless term in evolution, survival and reproduction is all that is important.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you'd have to rethink real time vision.

'Real time vision' is bogus nonsense, give it up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has been proved 100%.

No it hasen't! (I'm taking a page from Peacegirls playbook.)

[thedoc]

" " " " "

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The good news is that your resistance isn't going to stop the new world from coming according to God's timetable.

So it is religious dogma.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where.

Of course you don't. Lessans's extentions are particularly problematic because accurately extending such concepts into as yet unexplored territory would require rigorous analytical and reasoning skills. Skills which, based on the evidence of his own writing, Lessans appeared to be profoundly deficient in.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, it depends on the culture and what is considered beautiful. When the word "beautiful" is attached to whatever features are admired, the child will be conditioned to seeing those features as better looking than those that are not considered as nice.

If such conditioning is culturally dependant then it is neither universal nor absolute. Again, all that is required is one example of an individual whose personal notions of beauty are in conflict with his/her own cultural environment. Likewise, if just one person is able to find beauty in multiple individuals who do not share physical features in common, then Lessans's claims with regard to this conditioning are defeated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He saw these blameless conditions in his mind's eye, and could envision exactly how this world must come about in a relatively short time. The good news is that your resistance isn't going to stop the new world from coming according to God's timetable.

In other words, he used his imagination. Do you honestly expect anyone to treat the products of his imagination as evidence in support of his claims?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have oxygen from that event, but that doesn't mean we have to be recycled in the same way. It's natural to kill until it becomes unnatural. Then not killing becomes natural. That's called evolution.

It's all natural. Killing, not killing, recycling, not recycling. It's all natural. It is funny that some of the longest lived species to date are killers.

"You're going to have to accept that this premise is undeniable so we can move on."

[Angakuk]

Peacegirl, which ones are the ugly ones?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you we haven't gotten there in the book. I never said "accept this so we can move on". Why do you think I'm trying to get you to understand the two premises that lead to the discovery? I said that I need people to be satisfied enough so that we can move on, but you only hear what you want to hear. I really don't think you will grasp the significance of these principles unless somebody else recognizes their validity first. You may then perk up and pay attention. Your resistant attitude at this point is blocking any chance for true understanding.

So what is your answer?

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, I think you need to remind us all a few more times about how Lessans' observations were all accurate and astute. Don't bother to tell us how you know that, or even try to support the point in any way. That would be silly. Just assert the point over and over a few more times, and tell us we should just accept it instead of being so close-minded. That should really help.

Oh and don't forget to copypaste the same passages (which everyone has already seen and read) several more times. But don't try to explain or support any of it. And if anyone disagrees at any point, just tell them they're wrong. No need to explain how or why. I'm sure this will be the most useful and productive way for you to proceed. Good luck!

[Vivisectus]

This only verifies what I'm saying. Similar to music, art galleries use certain standards to judge the quality of an art piece. But that doesn't mean people don't have individual tastes. I never said they didn't.

Please show me the standards. I just showed you they do not in fact exist.

Even though there is no such thing as a beautiful or ugly piece of art or music (just as there's no such thing as a beautiful or ugly person), using the word "beautiful" as a personal descriptor when judging art or music isn't really hurting anyone as long as it doesn't challenge someone else's opinion.

Again you arbitrarily decide that this is so without showing how or why.

If someone accidentally knocked into me and I reflexively struck back, that will not cause a world war. You are worried about petty instances that wouldn't amount to anything.

No, this would apply across the board, on all levels. This is because the perfect information does not exist, even if we would become perfectly conscientious, which remains a mere assertion. You cannot point at whatever does not fit your system and just decide that only trivial things would be affected.

I believe I have supported his points and will continue to do so.

You are the only person in the world who holds that belief I am afraid. I have seen no support for these ideas whatever.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I'm trying to answer your questions, but it becomes much harder when you have concluded that I'm wrong instead of waiting to hear my response.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

For someone advocating the abandonment of all blame, you sure blame me for a lot of the shortcomings in your own arguments. Somehow it is always my fault that you cannot adequately support your own points.

I am blaming you for blaming me. I am retaliating against your comments because you are concluding that Lessans was wrong and attacking his credibility.

I see we have made another important step forward: your admission that this is a belief based on a leap of faith, and as such irrational.

They were two unrelated comments.

But they do not constitute a rational response.

The purpose of this book is to show that this law of our nature can prevent what the majority of mankind wants to find a solution to: war, poverty, murder, crime, hatred, etc.

More unsupported claims, and no answers.

I refuse to debate this anymore. I already told you that in the new world you are free to do what you want, and there will be nobody to criticize you.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly does not make it go away.

You're entitled to believe what you want.

Indeed. But rational beliefs require support, while irrational ones you can just make up. Hiding behind "I can believe what I want" does not make it any less irrational.

[

quote=Peacegirl]I am not looking for a distraction. I am answering the actual objections.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, you are not. What you do is deny the objections are valid, but without actually addressing them, and then repeating what you believe without supporting it. Over and over again. Unless you spot an opportunity for objecting to the way the objection is phrased, in which case you jump on that.

I thought I did address them. If you don't think they're valid, then that's okay.[/QUOTE]

And now you are reduced to pretending you believed that your evasions were answers. That is not very honest of you Peacegirl.

And yeah, people can believe what they want. But some beliefs are based on logic, reason and sense, while others are not. You can generally tell them apart by looking at how people explain why they believe certain things. If they cannot coherently explain it, then that generally means that theyhave a different reason for believing than they are admitting to - sometimes even to themselves. This is the case with you: you would like to think you believe this work is correct because it is MATHEMATICAL and SCIENTIFIC but the truth is, you believe it because you worship your father.

It doesn't have to be reduced to harm or no harm. I already told you that certain things are subjective. Why aren't you listening Vivisectus? But if the majority of mankind values peace over war, and this discovery has the solution, why are you begrudging this?

Your strawmen are of no interest to me. The reductionism in the book is overly simple and is not applicable to reality for the reasons I set out. Either deal with those reasons or retract - those are the only two honourable options.

You're playing word games with me and I'm getting tired.

No, you merely do not enjoy having to face up to the fact that this book is full of mistakes, and you run out of ways to avoid doing so you claim the person you are talking to is malicious or unable to understand so you can justify ignoring the points made.

Which is funny, because as it turns out it is blaming others that allows you to justify dishonesty to yourself, like you did with Stephen. Not the expectation of being blamed for it yourself. Ironic, no?

I think you have lost your way. I'm not interested in your rebuttals anymore.

You cannot deal with them, so you run away. It is what you always do. And then you come back later and pretend it never happened, or that it was all just people being difficult. This way, you can hold on to your irrational belief: you just blame it all on other people. The book does the same thing: it doesn't even get started, before going into a long tirade about how terribly biased everyone is. To borrow a phrase from it: it advance-blames the reader for disagreeing, and makes it seem like to disagree is to be bigoted against the book.

It definitely would effect the changes due to conscience.

The please supply the reason we should believe his assumptions about conscience were correct. So far you have been unable to.

If you don't think Lessans has a leg to stand on, then that's fine, but I have no desire to debate with you. You have gotten absolutely nothing from this discussion, and I doubt if you will. This is exactly the kind of post that I refuse to waste my time on because your desire to be right outweighs your desire to learn the truth.

For someone who wants to do away with blame, you certainly spend a LOT of time blaming people.

[Vivisectus]

I see I missed this little gem:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am blaming you for blaming me. I am retaliating against your comments because you are concluding that Lessans was wrong and attacking his credibility.

We are making more and more progress! So now you are admitting going on the offensive and throwing blame around on the basis someone is concluding your father was wrong, or doubts his credibility?

As far as I am aware, I am putting forth the point that even if conscience did work the way your father described, a claim that I would still like to see the support for by the way, we would still not have solved anything as we cannot break everything down to simple good/evil divisions. The book requires an absolute standard of good and evil, and does not propose adequate methods of determining them.

You do a lot of blaming, but not a lot of addressing. In stead, you claim malice and use that as a justification for not dealing with the points without admitting there is a problem there. This seems childish to me, and a bit dishonest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No. It. Isn't.


Speaking as an actual evolutionary biologist, I can only say that such a blatant display of ignorance almost makes me want to tear my hair out. Oh, and just because you can copy-and-paste dictionary definitions doesn't mean that you understand them.

[And no, it's not development, either.]

Evolution has more than one meaning. You are referring to #3ab, and I'm referring to #2ab.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So it is religious dogma.

If you can't remember the definition of God that was given in the book (hint hint: the laws that govern our universe), I can't help you.