A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In our society, that's true. You can have sex without love, but that does not change the fact that in order to be "in love", sexual desire plays a major role and you can't separate the two. I have never heard someone say how in love they are without the possibility of a sexual relationship, or being in a sexual relationship.

I would hardly think that your very limited circle of friends would be sufficient to define love in all relationships.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If everyone has a good personality (I'm not sure how you define a good personality), this will not be the main criterion in finding a mate. .

This is odd, as Lessans clearly asserted that everyone would have a 'Good Personality' and yet Peacegirl can't define what a 'Good Personality' is. But she has claimed that Lessans has clearly defined everything else that he makes unsupported assertions about, somewhere hidden in the book, probably behind the door marked "Plane English and the inability to use it".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

...probably behind the door marked "Plane English and the inability to use it".

Maybe this will help:

http://www.aerofiles.com/glossary.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is unproved, it is an assertion, and deeming it a "truth" is very arrogant.

And if it turns out to be true, would you then take back what you said; that is was an assertion and arrogant? It is not arrogant at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question was why do you refer to him as Lessans instead of "My father" or "My Dad"? You are the one that creates a separation in this way, and your purpose in doing that is to try to demonstrate your objectivity, correct?

Yes, I want to separate myself from that name because people hearing over and over "My dad" or "My father" sounds too cozy and I lose legitimacy. It's ashame but it's reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if it turns out to be true, would you then take back what you said; that is was an assertion and arrogant? It is not arrogant at all.

It is an assertion by definition.
It is not yet validated or justified so deeming it a "truth" is arrogant.

If it turns out to be true, it will still be an assertion, it will simply be a supported one, and it would still be arrogant, but the arrogance would be warranted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What they are saying is that he didn't have to do what he did because he could have chosen otherwise; nothing was stopping him from making the correct choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do and did are actions. A whole hell of a lot can go on in the mind before any action is performed.

Can one choose not to immediately act on a conscious decision, in order to contemplate or gather information, thereby changing the antecedent conditions, and then choose to perform a different action?

Only if he has had enough experience in his life to know that collecting more information (if it's available) is a smart thing to do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The why and how and extent of it is irrelevant to the question. Can someone refrain from acting on their first impulse or immediate impression or not?

Only if he finds greater satisfaction in not acting on an immediate impulse, but if he doesn't know that refraining is important until he gathers more information --because many of our choices don't require such serious contemplation --- he won't do it. The capability is there, if that's what you mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even so, you cannot blame someone if he only has a limited amount of information at his disposal and acts on that limited knowledge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The quantity and quality of information available can be a mitigating or aggravating factor in deciding to what level they are responsible for an action.

No LadyShea, the level of knowledge does not determine blameworthiness. If you understood anything at all in regard to "greater satisfaction", you would know that just because someone is or is not knowledgeable about his decision to do something does not make him culpable, as defined by determinism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, the question is can someone refrain from acting on their first impulse or immediate impression or not? If so, they are responsible for the action, as they had the ability to have chosen a different action.

They are responsible for the action in the sense that they performed the action, but to say they are blameworthy is not correct if you understand what determinism states. I will repeat: How can they be judged blameworthy if they could not have chosen otherwise in their circumstances, which included the new antecedent facts which were gathered beforehand?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many times we learn from our experiences, and our mistakes teach us not to make rash decisions and to be more patient. But this doesn't change the fact that regardless of our options, or what we believe our options are, we base our decision on those options in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people are extremely limited in options and have to base their choices on what is available at the moment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what? Do they or do they not have the capability of contemplating actions before performing them?

Of course they have the capability, but they won't use it unless they feel it's important. Often we don't know that we need to garner more facts until the consequences of making a rash decision boomerang. We learn from our mistakes, or from not getting the desired result.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can one consider an array of possible actions, weighing the possible consequences, comparing the actions and consequences to their personal values, morals, and beliefs and then only performing the action that seems "right"?

In my opinion all that is required for one to be considered a moral agent responsible for his/her actions is this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting...to choose different actions in one's imagination first...even if Lessans was right and the final decision rests on which of those imagined action>consequences sequences seems the most satisfactory. Someone without this ability to to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Someone without this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate cannot be held responsible for his actions, but neither can someone who can do these things. A teenager may be told, "you knew better than to do this or that", but he did it anyway because it gave him greater satisfaction, even with the knowledge that he could get in trouble. In this world, of course he would be blamed and punished to protect others from getting hurt (if this was a dangerous situation). In the new world, he would not attempt to do anything that could hurt another so there would be no need to blame him for what he wanted to do.

I do not call this free will, because all of this is caused, however the antecedent conditions can be consciously changed in myriad ways merely by thinking before acting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it can be changed in myriad ways as long as one is still contemplating, but after the choice has been weighed, considered, analyzed, and chosen, it could not have been otherwise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, once an action has been performed, it cannot be unperformed, it becomes an actual truth that a specific action was performed.

When I say it couldn't have been otherwise, I don't just mean it is an actual truth that cannot be unperformed. It's an actual truth that under those exact antecedent conditions, any other choice would have been impossible at that moment becauase it was the least preferable and we can't move in that direction when there's a better choice available.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if someone weighs, measures, contemplates and ponders in his imagination first, and then chooses something that is good for him (such as stealing food from someone because he was hungry), but bad in the eyes of the law? Then what?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He knew it was against the law, and did it anyway because he found the possible consequence of being held accountable by the authorities acceptable when weighing all the possible scenarios, and he is responsible for taking that action.

Of course he takes the threat of punishment into account, which may deter his actions or may not. He is responsible for taking that action, but you are missing the fact that knowing he would be punished, if caught, allows him to take the risk for the satisfaction of certain desires. In fact, threats of punishment do not stop hardened criminals if they want something badly enough, even with the possibility of lifetime incarceration or the death penalty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course he is responsible for his actions because he performed the action, but to say he is morally responsible because he chose something that was wrong, and that he could have made a different choice that was right, is a false assertion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said nothing about judging an action right or wrong, I only discussed one being responsible for their actions because they could have not acted, or performed a different action after contemplating the factors.

Right, and if they could have not acted, or performed a different action after contemplating factors, how can they be held responsible?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Judging what is right or wrong for others is very subjective, based on the values system of the person making the judgment.

That is true, but that is what we do everyday. We judge a person's actions as right or wrong without understanding what made a person make a particular choice from their vantage point. Like Lessans said, dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could he have made a better choice when this choice was good in comparison to not stealing, which was bad, according to his circumstances?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said nothing about good or bad, I said only responsible for his action. It's not about whether he could make a "better" choice (better is subjective), it's about if he could have performed a different action.

And who judges that? How can we know he could have made a different action when we were not in his shoes. We can't go back in time to prove this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the person knew what the law stated, and the possible consequences of breaking the law, and chose to break the law instead of choosing a different action, he/she is responsible for breaking the law.

According to the legal system of today, yes, he would be held responsible, and it's this very legal system that is failing so many people. The recidivism rates are high, and people are not getting rehabilitated. The jails are overcrowded, and the money spent is enormous. The system is in disarray.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, judging what is good or bad for others is very subjective, based on the values system of the person making the judgment.

Then how can you judge what is good and bad for others? That's what you're doing. You're saying that if they did something judged bad by others, they can be held accountable and punished accordingly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is an assertion by definition.
It is not yet validated or justified so deeming it a "truth" is arrogant.

If it turns out to be true, it will still be an assertion, it will simply be a supported one, and it would still be arrogant, but the arrogance would be warranted.

Oh my god, who is the judge that deems it not an assertion or a supported assertion when it is so much more than that? Who makes this great decision? Would it not be an assertion if a scientist said that it was true? How about if Edison was here and said that's a true statement. What about Einstein? It is not the person LadyShea; it is the relations involved. This knowledge contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. You may not see the relations involved, but they are there for those who do see them.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I want to separate myself from that name because people hearing over and over "My dad" or "My father" sounds too cozy and I lose legitimacy. It's a shame but it's reality.

Jesus had the same problem.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The capability is there, if that's what you mean.

Yes, that's what I meant, as I every clearly asked

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even so, you cannot blame someone if he only has a limited amount of information at his disposal and acts on that limited knowledge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The quantity and quality of information available can be a mitigating or aggravating factor in deciding to what level they are responsible for an action.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, the level of knowledge does not determine blameworthiness.

Where I have used the word blame or blameworthiness? Is the person responsible for the action they performed? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you understood anything at all in regard to "greater satisfaction", you would know that just because someone is or is not knowledgeable about his decision to do something does not make him culpable, as defined by determinism.

It speaks to his level of responsibility for any action

I did not use the word blameworthy at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many times we learn from our experiences, and our mistakes teach us not to make rash decisions and to be more patient. But this doesn't change the fact that regardless of our options, or what we believe our options are, we base our decision on those options in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people are extremely limited in options and have to base their choices on what is available at the moment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what? Do they or do they not have the capability of contemplating actions before performing them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they have the capability, but they won't use it unless they feel it's important.

I didn't ask if they will or won't use the ability. And, how does one come to feel things are or are not important?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Often we don't know that we need to garner more facts until the consequences of making a rash decision boomerang. We learn from our mistakes, or from not getting the desired result.

Yes. How do you suppose one can learn what guilt feels like, in order to desire to avoid it at all costs, if they've never made a mistake or performed an action that caused harm? How would they learn to hold themselves responsible if nobody else considers them responsible for any action they perform?

Then why would they hold themselves responsible?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he would not attempt to do anything that could hurt another so there would be no need to blame him for what he wanted to do.

What makes you think a teenager would refrain from acting in a way that could hurt another if he/she has never learned what it is to be responsible for an action taken purposefully after contemplation? How would they know it's important to think things through? How would they develop working conscience if they never face consequences (both positive and negative) or are considered responsible (in both a positive and negative way) for their actions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, threats of punishment do not stop hardened criminals if they want something badly enough, even with the possibility of lifetime incarceration or the death penalty.

And the threat of pain of a guilty conscience may not prevent some people from performing actions that harm others.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said nothing about judging an action right or wrong, I only discussed one being responsible for their actions because they could have not acted, or performed a different action after contemplating the factors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, and if they could have not acted, or performed a different action after contemplating factors, how can they be held responsible?

They could have not acted- meaning they could have refrained from acting. They could have performed a different action after contemplation. They could have done differently than they did, so are responsible for what they actually did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Judging what is right or wrong for others is very subjective, based on the values system of the person making the judgment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but that is what we do everyday.

Sure, we judge others based on what we each think is right and wrong. However, I was not speaking to judging others as doing right or doing wrong, only if they are or are not responsible for their actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could he have made a better choice when this choice was good in comparison to not stealing, which was bad, according to his circumstances?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said nothing about good or bad, I said only responsible for his action. It's not about whether he could make a "better" choice (better is subjective), it's about if he could have performed a different action.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And who judges that?

Judges what? It's not a judgment call.

He/she is responsible for actions taken, because he/she could have acted differently or not acted at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can we know he could have made a different action when we were not in his shoes. We can't go back in time to prove this.

We know because we've already agreed that people have the ability to contemplate, and therefore change the antecedent conditions, indefinitely, and choose from multiple actions or choose not acting at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the person knew what the law stated, and the possible consequences of breaking the law, and chose to break the law instead of choosing a different action, he/she is responsible for breaking the law.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to the legal system of today, yes, he would be held responsible,

He is responsible for his actions. Period. Breaking the law is just a consequence of the action he performed after contemplation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, judging what is good or bad for others is very subjective, based on the values system of the person making the judgment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then how can you judge what is good and bad for others?

I judge them based on my own subjective values system the same as everyone else. But, that's irrelevant to this discussion

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you're doing. You're saying that if they did something judged bad by others, they can be held accountable and punished accordingly.

Where did I use the words accountable, "bad" or say anything about being punished? You are arguing against a strawman again.

Being responsible for an action is a neutral position. Responsibility may be for an action others judge as "good" just as easily as it could be judged as "bad"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, who is the judge that deems it not an assertion or a supported assertion when it is so much more than that? Who makes this great decision?

Did you forget the definition of assertion? Look it up. It's not a judgment, it's just what the word means.

Support can take many forms, look up epistemology again and see if you can find some of the ways to justify your beliefs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would it not be an assertion if a scientist said that it was true? How about if Edison was here and said that's a true statement. What about Einstein?

Sure it would still be an assertion no matter who said it. Assertions are assertions. Look up the word, as you seem really confused as to its definition.

Assertions may be supported, or they may be unsupported. Yours is unsupported at this time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...just because someone is or is not knowledgeable about his decision to do something does not make him culpable, as defined by determinism.

Determinism does not define culpability.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are responsible for the action in the sense that they performed the action, but to say they are blameworthy is not correct if you understand what determinism states.

Determinism does not state anything at all about responsibility or blameworthiness. You must be thinking of hard determinism - a form of incompatibilism which you have failed to support or argue for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat: How can they be judged blameworthy if they could not have chosen otherwise in their circumstances, which included the new antecedent facts which were gathered beforehand?

I will repeat: They can be judged blameworthy because they could have chosen otherwise had the antecedent circumstances been slightly different.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Someone without this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate cannot be held responsible for his actions, but neither can someone who can do these things.

Of course they can. Anyone free of compulsion and coercion can be legitimately held responsible and blameworthy precisely because they do have this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate their decisions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the new world, he would not attempt to do anything that could hurt another so there would be no need to blame him for what he wanted to do.

Your claims about what would happen in the new world are and remain wholly unsupported by anything in the way of actual evidence or sound reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say it couldn't have been otherwise, I don't just mean it is an actual truth that cannot be unperformed. It's an actual truth that under those exact antecedent conditions, any other choice would have been impossible at that moment becauase it was the least preferable and we can't move in that direction when there's a better choice available.

And that's simply not the kind of 'ability to choose otherwise' which is relevant for moral responsibility and blameworthiness.

(Btw, our 'dual' seems to have become decidedly one-sided as of late.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if it turns out to be true, would you then take back what you said; that is was an assertion and arrogant? It is not arrogant at all.

IF it turns out to be true, it will be sometime in the future, but for 'now' (which is where we are, and don't forget, Peacegirl, the future does not exist, only the present, So there is no future evidence and no support for anything you have said), everything LadyShea says is true.

[thedoc]

I seem to have stumbled onto a contradiction by Peacegirl. She is constantly claiming that future testing and evidence will vindicate Lessans, but then she also claims that the future and the past do not exist, only the present. Which is also part of the argument for real time seeing, we cannot see the past because it does not exist. But to the point, she claims that the future does not exist, so if this claim of hers is true, there can be no future evidence that will prove Lessans claims true. Peacegirl has just negated the possibility of any evidence for the validity of Lessans assertions.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now instead of sleeping, the people (if any) in the front pews, will be passed out.

No one ever sits in the front pews. They must be defective. I am thinking of having them replaced with recliners.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never heard of a true marriage being one that is not consummated.

[snip]

I never saw two young people excited to get married and have little sexual appeal for each other.

[snip]

I have never heard someone say how in love they are without the possibility of a sexual relationship, or being in a sexual relationship.

Your lack of personal knowledge about something is hardly good evidence that the thing does not exist. If you had never seen a black swan that would not be good evidence that black swans don't exist. It would only be evidence that you had never seen one. Your anectdotal evidence tells us something about you and the scope of your experience. It tells us nothing useful about what does or does not actually exist.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat: How can they be judged blameworthy if they could not have chosen otherwise in their circumstances, which included the new antecedent facts which were gathered beforehand?

I will repeat: What is it that you think prevents us from judging them to be blameworthy?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, and if they could have not acted, or performed a different action after contemplating factors, how can they be held responsible?

Why do you think they can't be held responsible under such circumstances. Try answering this question without simply restating the claim.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No one ever sits in the front pews. They must be defective. I am thinking of having them replaced with recliners.

Are you Lutheran, Lutherans are notorious for filling the pews from the back first. I believe it is so that they can make a quick exit after the final A-men, either that or it is to be first in line for the food after the service. Eating is the other thing Lutherans are known for.

[Angakuk]

No, no, no. It is all about humility and leaving the seats of honor for those who are more worthy. You are so out the door because your mind is already made up and all you care about is making Lutherans look silly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, no, no. It is all about humility and leaving the seats of honor for those who are more worthy. You are so out the door because your mind is already made up and all you care about is making Lutherans look silly.

Lutherans certainly do not need my help to make them look silly. But the food is good.

[thedoc]

When I was growing up my father would always pick the last pew to sit in and the rest of us with him. Now my wife is practically the worship comittee at church, changing the vestments and setting up for communion, so she is in the first row of seats to keep an eye on things. This does present a bit of a conflict for me as there is a contridiction between how I grew up and how I am experiencing the service now. Our congregation is in a temporary building till the new church is built, and we are useing folding chairs, so I am sitting in the front row and sometimes I'm a little self conscious being out in fromt of everyone. Especially when the grandaughter is a bit fussy. Today it got so bad that I took her out for the last part of the service, but she would not settle down and not disturb the service, but it's hard for a 3 year old to sit still that long, and today the service was different. There was no play time during the sermon, there was no sermon, just an extended Gospel lesson.

[Angakuk]

When I was young my father only attended church on those infrequent occasions when he was compelled to do so because it was a move in the direction of greater satisfaction. However, when we did go he liked to get there early. He always said that he wanted to get there early enough to get a seat in the back with the sinners. No one could make him sit in the front because he did not want to. Over this he had mathematical control. Years later my folks started attending a church where they served coffee after services every Sunday and they ushered people out of the church starting with the front pews first. My father made a dramatic conversion from the back pew to the front pew. Clearly this was because he derived greater satisfaction from sitting in the front pew and being first in line for coffee. Lessans was right after all. Q.E.D.

[thedoc]

I'm not going to speculate why he would want to sit with the sinners, unless he was just more comfortable there. But I am reminded of Bill Cosby's account of going to church as a child. He and his friends would stick a bit of chewing gum to their fingers and when the offering plate came around would snag some coins. The process would make a clink and the ushers thought they were putting coins in rather than taking them out.

[koan]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I seem to have stumbled onto a contradiction by Peacegirl. She is constantly claiming that future testing and evidence will vindicate Lessans, but then she also claims that the future and the past do not exist, only the present. Which is also part of the argument for real time seeing, we cannot see the past because it does not exist. But to the point, she claims that the future does not exist, so if this claim of hers is true, there can be no future evidence that will prove Lessans claims true. Peacegirl has just negated the possibility of any evidence for the validity of Lessans assertions.

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm not going to speculate why he would want to sit with the sinners, unless he was just more comfortable there. But I am reminded of Bill Cosby's account of going to church as a child. He and his friends would stick a bit of chewing gum to their fingers and when the offering plate came around would snag some coins. The process would make a clink and the ushers thought they were putting coins in rather than taking them out.

My dad also claimed to have made withdrawals from the offering plate when he was a kid (no mention of chewing gum though). He and his brother then went and spent the money on candy. Maybe that was why he thought he ought to be sitting with the sinners. That story, btw, predates Cosby's first album.