A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

From the other thread...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your position justifies punishment because it is believed that the person was free to make a better choice given changed antecedent conditions, which therefore justifies blameworthiness. In the compatibilist point of view, there was nothing restraining his actions like a person with a strong compulsion who could not act in a different way given new antecedent conditions.

Yes, and what is your objection to this position?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is still a belief in free will because it states that a person could have done otherwise, which means that he had the freedom (the free will) to change his actions.

It's not a belief in contra-causal free will, but it is a belief in compatibilist free will. What of it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true had he desired this, but under the conditions he did not, which means he was compelled to choose the alternative that gave him greater satisfaction, in spite of the knowledge that he might be punished for his "wrongdoing."

So what? You are speaking of a different kind of compulsion to that which I have been talking about, and your kind simply isn't relevant to whether or not we are morally responsible or blameworthy. Lessans basically agrees, only he wrongly thinks that the moral responsibility his kind of compulsion allows doesn't extend beyond conscience (i.e. self-blame) to include blame from others.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, something isn't working in our society. It really behooves you to listen to what this discovery has to offer before passing judgment.

I've read his book, and paid close attention to the explanations of his one and only disciple for over two years now. I think I am more than qualified at this point to pass judgment. Of course, my judgment is, as always, provisional and remains open to future evidence and argument.

[koan]

The Saga Of The Sleeping Baby:
summarized because peacegirl admitted she was wrong.

Originally Posted by koan

[snip]
And he gets jiggy with it by combining a whole bunch of fallacies all in one paragraph:
Proof By Example. He considers one, cherry picked, example of an observable event (eg baby sleeping with eyes open) then uses that example to claim it proves a general statement by Affirming The Consequent.

It's difficult to find a passage in the book that doesn't contain at least one fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't cherry pick, or do any of those other things you are accusing him of. Sorry, that wasn't what he did. In the example with the baby, he was just saying that no baby would react to anything in the room even if his eyes were wide open (other than the pupils dilating and contracting), unlike the other senses where there would be an immediate reaction, because the eyes do not function like the other four senses.

Originally Posted by koan

"The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve." (p117)Fallacy of the single cause.
Setting aside that sound travels through air and light travels through air... they both travel through air... neither one actually touches your eyes or your ear directly... (which is just obvious lack of knowledge on Lessans' part) he reduces the act of hearing and the act of seeing to incredibly simplistic terms so he can then go on to say:
"This is somewhat equivalent to a baby sleeping with his eyes wide open who does not awaken when objects are placed in front of him, although a loud noise which strikes the ear drum can easily do the job."(p117)
That is extreme cherry picking. Placing an object in front of an eye? Why not choose an equivalent visual to a loud noise, like flashing a bright light in front of its eyes? Instead, he assures his outcome by silently waving a hand or holding a stuffed animal in front of the sleeping infant in a dark room. He also forgets he is saying the other senses would equally arouse the sleeping baby. What smells did he taunt it with? Did he test taste without impinging on other senses? Why does the baby not wake if you gently stroke its back with touch? If you play white noise the sound will not wake it. But how often have you woken someone sleeping (who even have their eyes shut at the time) by flicking on the light in a dark room? I almost got divorced because of it. People wake up very unhappy just with the stimulation of sight. But Lessans doesn't want to talk about that. He only wants examples that prove his thesis.


eta: the scenario with my light experiment went like this... I had to get up at 5am for work. My husband didn't have to get up until after 8am. He told me not to turn on the light in the bedroom every morning while I got ready because the light woke him up. I had to try and find clothes (most of which were black) in the dark and did not cause him any problem until my "fuck this is stupid" remarks were elevated in volume to a sufficient point that they also woke him up. A light switch: bad for sleeping husband Me mumbling "fuck fuck what the fuck? how the fuck?" didn't cause him a problem until I got to week two of trying to find matching socks and just started yelling "fuckity fuck fuck" until he woke up to hear my anger.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He wasn't talking about a sleeping baby. He was talking about a wide awake baby. He said very clearly that light causes the pupils to dilate which can be upsetting when a person is trying to sleep, even though their eyes are closed.

Flashing a bright light into the eyes is not the same thing as seeing a colorful object. Obviously, a bright light flashed in a baby's eyes could cause pain because the pupils may not be able adjust quickly enough. He was talking about the ability of the eyes to focus on objects in the external world where there would be some recognition. There is a definite difference between a baby's ability to hear an object and respond to it, and a baby's ability to see objects at birth. Scientists have concluded that babies don't focus very well at birth (Lessans didn't make this up), but they say it's because the ciliary muscle is undeveloped. Lessans refutes that claim and offers his reasons why he believes that's not the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The operative word is "equivalent." He was not actually referring to a sleeping baby.

Originally Posted by koan

"Equivalent" means similar whilst sleeping and wide awake are not similar. Some might say they are opposites.

If he meant wide awake he'd have said "somewhat equivalent to a wide awake baby". Your father would be very unhappy that you literally reversed the meaning of his words.

An equivalent to a sleeping baby would be a baby who had been temporarily knocked unconscious and medics were trying to rouse it by checking the pupils and giving smelling salts while yelling "can you hear me?" An equivalent to a wide awake baby would be a baby who is not sleeping, and can't even be induced to sleep by all the methods exhausted mothers attempt.

Originally Posted by koan

If we accept your explanation, then what Lessans said was

^
That is a scientific experiment with words wherein we mathematically substitute the value of your equivalent words.

Now what do we have?
It is true that a wide awake baby does not awaken when objects are placed in front of him, because he is already awake and you can't awaken from being awake. In that case, a loud noise will also not be able to awaken an awake baby. What you will notice with wide awake babies is that placing an object in front of him, causes him to reach out and grab it and loud noises cause it to cry. So though he will be right about one thing: awake babies can't be awakened, he will be wrong about what waving objects in their faces causes to happen. His sentence was rendered hopelessly ridiculous by your attempts to help him out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, fair enough. He was trying to show a difference between what a baby sees at birth and what a baby hears at birth.



That was my mistake and has nothing to do with the validity of his claim.

So we've proven that Lessans cherry picked his examples. And we've shown that peacegirl is both willing to substitute the opposite of what Lessans said to defend him (lie) and willing to admit she did wrong when her trickery makes his case worse. (taking blame upon herself like a good student)

We now see her trying to substitute a freshly birthed baby for a sleeping baby. Are you suggesting the moment of birth? because they don't come out of the womb sleeping. It's a fairly traumatic event and we feel better when they are awake and crying at the time. We'll slap their little bottoms to make sure of it.

The condition your substitution needs to meet is that the condition also allows for the state of sleep (because of the word "equivalent"). The next problem you have is that, at any point, after the birthing moment... where a lot of strange stuff is happening to the little guy and he most certainly is awake... we still have a post birthed baby sleeping with his eyes open, who is not blind by defect, failing to awake due to a change in light equivalent to a loud noise. And we need to be able to repeat this experiment multiple times to make it scientific.

Sleeping with the eyes open is a disorder called Lagophthalmos. It's not common, it's problematic and atypical.

[LadyShea]

willing to admit she did wrong when her trickery makes his case worse.

So many times.

She will p. much take the fall when even she can't defend the statement because it is so outrageously wrong or stupid

[koan]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So many times.

She will p. much take the fall when even she can't defend the statement because it is so outrageously wrong or stupid

That's why I summarized. To highlight that it wasn't just peacegirl who was wrong. Big Daddy Lessans screwed up too. It's an interesting distraction tactic: She grossly alters what he said so people might forget that he was wrong and just think it was her making a mistake.

thedoc did a great job showing how touch is the only sense that stands apart from the other senses in how it functions. So we've now debunked any evidence that eyes are not sense organs if we can agree that the trial by dog isn't valid either. I offer the following: I think when you show a dog a picture of its master it doesn't seem to recognize the photo because it's looking and thinking "you know that's not him, it's just a picture of him, right?" There is no reason to believe the dog thinks otherwise since, knowing its master isn't there means he's not going to get a biscuit.

The thing that worked for Lessans in cherry picking these examples was that neither babies nor dogs have the ability to tell him that's not what they were doing. He can supply their thoughts without worrying about negation. That's why tests with adult humans tend to be more substantive.

[koan]

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're so lost with your formal logic, it's really no wonder you don't get it. You don't even understand why both of these principles are correct, and why they lead to the two sided equation. Why else would it be considered two sides? I never said that sometimes we are compelled and sometimes we are not. We are always compelled to do what we do, from the day of our birth to the day of our death. So you're misinterpreting what he's saying.

That logic, it's so annoying isn't it? If it weren't for logic Lessans would be famous by now.

Two sided equations.
Example: 2a+3=7 (solve for a)
2a=7-3
2a=4
a=4/2
a=2
solved

What is your two sided equation when the factors are A-"Man has no free will because he always does what nature demands will satisfy him" and B-"Man always has complete control over what will satisfy him"? what is it equal to? Since A supports Determinism and B supports Free Will, let's call A +1 and B -1 the result is C
C=A+B
C=1-1
C=0

How do you get the conclusion that 0=Determinism instead of 0=Compatibilism?

Since you like mathematical thinking so much, perhaps you can show me how the equation results in Determinism. But he wasn't trying to prove Determinism anymore was he? He was trying to prove that Determinism wouldn't result in anarchy. (As if anarchy is a bad thing) So he intentionally balanced the equation with Determinism and Free Will both being valid. By doing so, he is actually making C= Compatibilism because Determinism is A, not C.
I can't imagine his equation was A+B=A unless B is zero, meaning it is unnecessary. If that's the case you can eliminate the hassle of Chapter 2.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep, you did

You can't force people to do anything, you can make the information available is all.

The only way you could be resonably sure that people will read the book in proper order is to publish it as a serial in some periodical, but even then it is not an absolute gaurentee. They could just collect them all before they sit down to read, or they could read the first few, and then give up. But they would only have access to the book one chapter at a time, over a period of time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

From the other thread...

Yes, and what is your objection to this position?

It's not true, that's what my objection is. Compatibilists are using a definition that in their thinking makes free will true, or the free will they're talking about, which justifies blameworthiness and therefore punishment. But if you understood Lessans' position in the slightest, which you don't, it leaves out the fact that we can only move in one direction even though we have the ability to make a choice without the kind of compulsion you're talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is still a belief in free will because it states that a person could have done otherwise, which means that he had the freedom (the free will) to change his actions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not a belief in contra-causal free will, but it is a belief in compatibilist free will. What of it?

It's all a bunch of empty words strung together, with no back up in reality. That's what of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true had he desired this, but under the conditions he did not, which means he was compelled to choose the alternative that gave him greater satisfaction, in spite of the knowledge that he might be punished for his "wrongdoing."

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what? You are speaking of a different kind of compulsion to that which I have been talking about, and your kind simply isn't relevant to whether or not we are morally responsible or blameworthy.

Says who? The fact that we can only move in one direction (the direction that gives us greater satisfaction) is pivotal to the understanding that we are not blameworthy or morally responsible. But this is only one of two principles that lead to the discovery. I feel like you're putting cotton in your ears and singing na na na na na, so you don't have to hear the truth. If someone is compelled to only move in one direction, how can we blame him for having moved in that direction? Why are you so blind to what I'm saying? And don't just blurt out that I'm wrong because yours is a different of kind of free will (the compatibilist kind) that can hold people moral responsibility. You then get to have your cake and eat it too because it's not the contra-causal kind of free will. Baloney. It's a contradiction even though you're trying very hard to make it appear as if it's not. In fact, it can't get more logically incorrect. You are blind to your own false thinking.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans basically agrees, only he wrongly thinks that the moral responsibility his kind of compulsion allows doesn't extend beyond conscience (i.e. self-blame) to include blame from others.

You are very confused here with the two kinds of responsiblity. Neither type of responsibility involve the moral kind; the kind that says you are to blame and are deserving of punishment. And what do you mean "doesn't extend beyond conscience to include blame from others"? You are not following his reasoning at all Spacemonkey. Lessans is extending the principle of "no blame" based on the knowledge that man's will is not free. He is extending the principle to show that the implications of no blame take us to greater responsibility for our actions, not less responsibility which philosophers believed, and the reason they turned away from determinism. Knowing that one is not responsible prevents the act that would cause someone to self-blame because he would know he was responsible (the kind of responsible that LadyShea was asking to define). To know that there would be no consequences would present consequences that are still worse, preventing the action because we would not want to be responsible for doing something that we would regret and could not justify.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, something isn't working in our society. It really behooves you to listen to what this discovery has to offer before passing judgment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've read his book, and paid close attention to the explanations of his one and only disciple for over two years now.

If you read the whole book twice (which I doubt), you did not get the full understanding. You are basing your rejection of "greater satisfaction" because you think you have proved him wrong by your belief that compatibilism is right. But it's wrong, and I can see where it's wrong. If you want to stick to your worldview, stick with it. There are plenty of people who will see that these principles are undeniable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think I am more than qualified at this point to pass judgment. Of course, my judgment is, as always, provisional and remains open to future evidence and argument.

You are not as qualified as you think you are if you actually think that compatibilism is correct due to the definition of free will they are using. I'm glad you're open to future evidence and argument, but my argument is well taken as it stands.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not true, that's what my objection is. Compatibilists are using a definition that in their thinking makes free will true, or the free will they're talking about, which justifies blameworthiness and therefore punishment. But if you understood Lessans' position in the slightest, which you don't, it leaves out the fact that we can only move in one direction even though we have the ability to make a choice without the kind of compulsion you're talking about.

"It's not true" is not an objection. An objection would be some REASON for thinking that compatibilism is not true. And you don't have one of those. I'm not 'leaving out' Lessans claims about being compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but rather pointing out that this is completely irrelevant to the issues of moral responsibility and blameworthiness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's all a bunch of empty words strung together, with no back up in reality. That's what of it.

That's not true. I've carefully explained the meanings of the terms and definitions involved in compatibilism. If you still think it's all just a bunch of empty words strung together, then you clearly haven't been paying any attention at all to my explanations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Says who? Your compatibilist cronies? It is pivotal to the understanding that we are not blameworthy or morally responsible. I feel like you're putting cotton in your ears and singing na na na na na, so you don't have to hear the truth. If someone is compelled to only move in one direction, how can we blame him for having moved in that direction? Why are you so blind to what I'm saying? And don't just blurt out that I'm wrong because yours is a different of kind of free will (the compatibilist kind) that can hold people moral responsibility. You get your cake and eat it too, and you think this is not a contradiction because it's not contra-causal free will? It can't get more logically incorrect. You are blind to your own false thinking.

Was any of the above meant to comprise a rational point? We can blame others because they are free of the form of compulsion and coercion I have defined for you. I've also explained to you exactly why this is the only kind of compulsion relevant to moral responsibility and blameworthiness. You ignored and continue to ignore this explanation. So which one of us is blocking their ears to avoid the truth? And you are still talking about a contradiction you have yet to identify or present to us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What kind of moral responsibility does the kind of compulsion Lessans claim exists? And what do you mean "doesn't extend beyond conscience to include blame from others"? This does not include self-blame. It prevents the need for self blame, but in order to prevent that for which we would blame ourselves, our conscience needs to recognize the consequences of our actions in a no blame world. It isn't pretty which prevents the very act that necessitated blame and punishment in a free will environment.

The hell? Your first question here doesn't parse. It isn't even a grammatically complete sentence. Lessans wrongly thought that the kind of moral responsibility his kind of compulsion allows entails only the legitimacy of self-blame via conscience, and not blame from or towards others. But he agreed with me that the compulsion he speaks of does allow a form of moral responsibility - just not one that legitimizes external blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you read the whole book twice (which I doubt), you did not get the full understanding. You are basing your rejection of "greater satisfaction" because you think you have proved him wrong by your belief that compatibilism is right. But it's wrong, and I can see where it's wrong. If you want to stick to your worldview, stick with it. There are plenty of people who will see that these principles are undeniable.

If I'd read the book twice you'd be complaining that I hadn't read it three times, and if I'd read it three times you'd be complaining that I need to read it four times. You can't see where compatibilism is wrong. If you could, then you'd be explaining how and why it is wrong instead of just repeatedly asserting that it's wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not as qualified as you think you are if you actually think that compatibilism is correct due to the definition of free will they are using. I'm glad you're open to future evidence and argument, but my argument is well taken as it stands.

'Your argument'? You don't have one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are very confused here with the two kinds of responsiblity. Neither type of responsibility involve the moral kind...

That's not true. You can't have a guilty conscience without feeling that you have done something morally wrong. Therefore the kind of responsibility which Lessans allows is a form of moral responsibility.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

From the other thread...

Yes, and what is your objection to this position?

It's not true, that's what my objection is. Compatibilists are using a definition that in their thinking makes free will true, or the free will they're talking about, which justifies blameworthiness and therefore punishment, a justifiable response. But if you understood Lessans' position in the slightest, which you don't, it leaves out the fact that we can only move in one direction even though we have the ability to make a choice without the kind of compulsion you're talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is still a belief in free will because it states that a person could have done otherwise, which means that he had the freedom (the free will) to change his actions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not a belief in contra-causal free will, but it is a belief in compatibilist free will. What of it?

It's all a bunch of empty words strung together, with no back up in reality. That's what of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true had he desired this, but under the conditions he did not, which means he was compelled to choose the alternative that gave him greater satisfaction, in spite of the knowledge that he might be punished for his "wrongdoing."

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what? You are speaking of a different kind of compulsion to that which I have been talking about, and your kind simply isn't relevant to whether or not we are morally responsible or blameworthy.

Says who? Your compatibilist cronies? It is pivotal to the understanding that we are not blameworthy or morally responsible. I feel like you're putting cotton in your ears and singing na na na na na, so you don't have to hear the truth. If someone is compelled to only move in one direction, how can we blame him for having moved in that direction? Why are you so blind to what I'm saying? And don't just blurt out that I'm wrong because Lessans' proof of determinism (greater satisfaction) doesn't relate to moral responsibility. It very much relates; it's the key to why we cannot blame if we want to achieve the kind of world that blame and punishment could never accomplish. You are blind to your own false thinking.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans basically agrees, only he wrongly thinks that the moral responsibility his kind of compulsion allows doesn't extend beyond conscience (i.e. self-blame) to include blame from others.

There is no split in who is, or is not, morally responsible. Lessans is showing that when we are not held morally responsible by the world because we finally know the truth of our nature --- that man's will is not free --- it prevents the very action that his conscience would permit in a free will society. And what do you mean "doesn't extend beyond conscience to include blame from others"? There will be no need for self-blame when one is prevented from doing those things that would lead to feelings of guilt. That's why the knowledge that there will be no consequences presents consequences that are worse than any kind of punishment society could offer. To repeat: It's not that there are no consequences in a no blame society. It's the fact that the consequences are so terrible to contemplate that it prevents the action which can no longer be justified.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, something isn't working in our society. It really behooves you to listen to what this discovery has to offer before passing judgment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've read his book, and paid close attention to the explanations of his one and only disciple for over two years now.

If you read the whole book twice (which I doubt), you did not get the full understanding. You are basing your rejection of "greater satisfaction" because you think you have proved him wrong by your belief that compatibilism is right. But it's wrong, and I can see where it's wrong. If you want to stick to your worldview, stick with it. There are plenty of people who will see that these principles are undeniable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think I am more than qualified at this point to pass judgment. Of course, my judgment is, as always, provisional and remains open to future evidence and argument.

You are not qualified, in fact, you're far from it. I'm glad you're open to hearing more argument, but my argument is already well founded as it stands.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true. You can't have a guilty conscience without feeling that you have done something morally wrong. Therefore the kind of responsibility which Lessans allows is a form of moral responsibility.

True, the phrase "morally wrong" only means a hurt to someone which a person obviously needs to know in order not to do that which is wrong (or a hurt). But we cannot judge what is right or wrong for someone else because we know that they are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and who are we to judge what gives them greater satisfaction? Read this again. Maybe it will sink in this time.

Let me
elaborate for greater understanding.

p. 70 “If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to
wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody,
is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him?
This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells
you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to
do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he
wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then
it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something
judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are
interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you
for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse, to extenuate the
circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action,
otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong you would
not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one
is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is,
no one is going to question your conduct in any way because you
know thatthey must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free,
is it possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause
for what you know you have done, when you also know that no one
is blaming you?

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I
agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, “I
couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” or offer any other
kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him
in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility,
right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of
judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will
not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of
your responsibility for hurting someone, or for doing what is judged
improper, when you are held responsible by a code of standards that
criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by
others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that
man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not
free (don’t jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my
problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically
impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause
for what you know you have done simply because you know that no
one is blaming you.

Being constantly criticized by the standards that
prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of
satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while
refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed
various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that
were considered wrong, because he didn’t like being in the wrong. But
the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that
no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his
will is not free regardless of what is done, and there will be no more
criticism or blame regardless of his actions, man is also prevented
from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented
from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given
an opportunity to do so, which compels him, completely beyond
control, but of his own free will or desire, not only to assume full
responsibility for everything he does, but to be absolutely honest with
himself and others.

How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying
to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or
blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity
to lie; and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your
responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free
will man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and
wrong and get away with murder the very things our new knowledge
positively prevents.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we cannot judge what is right or wrong for someone else because we know that they are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and who are we to judge what gives them greater satisfaction?

That's retarded. If we know that they are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then we also know the same for ourselves, and therefore have nothing to feel guilty about. We have the perfect excuse to present to our conscience - we couldn't have done otherwise as we were just moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. And if the fact that we were not compelled to do something we did not want to do is enough to make us still feel guilty, then this should also be enough to make us feel that others should still be blamed. I've pointed this out to you countless times before. Lessans uses one side of his non-equation when considering conscience, and the other when considering the blameworthiness of others, but fails to see that the opposite sides of his non-equation are equally well applicable in each case. It really is quite a spectacular example of unsound reasoning and poor insight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, the phrase "morally wrong" only means a hurt to someone which a person obviously needs to know in order not to do that which is wrong (or a hurt). But we cannot judge what is right or wrong for someone else

So who decides, without judging actions of others, what is a hurt that is wrong that should trigger a citizens conscience in order that they be prevented from doing it?

How does the individual come to know what is a hurt unless s/he has been taught or learned it in some way? How is that knowledge acquired in the new world?

[LadyShea]

You post that excerpt and then wonder why we consider Lessans arrogant, and deny koan's observation?

This imaginary friend didn't ask a single question! He just agrees and tells Lessans how awesomely smart he is. All the dialogs are just massive ego stroking.

Originally Posted by Excerpt

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“I agree with this.”

“You are right again.”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I
agree that it is not possible.”

“You are absolutely correct.”

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Says who? The fact that we can only move in one direction (the direction that gives us greater satisfaction) is pivotal to the understanding that we are not blameworthy or morally responsible. But this is only one of two principles that lead to the discovery.

This is not a 'FACT', it is mearly an assertion by Lessans that he never properly supported, except with faulty reasoning and non-logic. And since it is 'pivotal' to what follows the discovery is also unsupported. It would seem that this is the one point that Peacegirl/Lessans really need to focus on and offer some acceptable evidence, but having none, it fails.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

The Saga Of The Sleeping Baby:
summarized because peacegirl admitted she was wrong.

So we've proven that Lessans cherry picked his examples. And we've shown that peacegirl is both willing to substitute the opposite of what Lessans said to defend him (lie) and willing to admit she did wrong when her trickery makes his case worse. (taking blame upon herself like a good student)

There is absolute no trickery here just because I misinterpreted what you said. If an infant is actually sleeping with his eyes open, he should be aroused by the visual stimulus. I am not talking about pointing a bright light in a baby's eyes where it would be painful. I am talking about a bright object due to light that was already in the room, and recognizing it in his sleep just like he would recognize a loud object.

We now see her trying to substitute a freshly birthed baby for a sleeping baby.[/quote]

No koan. You are not going to get away with this bullshit.

Originally Posted by koan

Are you suggesting the moment of birth? because they don't come out of the womb sleeping. It's a fairly traumatic event and we feel better when they are awake and crying at the time. We'll slap their little bottoms to make sure of it.

The condition your substitution needs to meet is that the condition also allows for the state of sleep (because of the word "equivalent"). The next problem you have is that, at any point, after the birthing moment... where a lot of strange stuff is happening to the little guy and he most certainly is awake... we still have a post birthed baby sleeping with his eyes open, who is not blind by defect, failing to awake due to a change in light equivalent to a loud noise. And we need to be able to repeat this experiment multiple times to make it scientific.

Sleeping with the eyes open is a disorder called Lagophthalmos. It's not common, it's problematic and atypical.

What the hell are you talking about girl? You are a specimen to be examined because you are not thinking correctly. Your responses are so out the door that I couldn't help but respond that it is not me that has the problem, it is you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You post that excerpt and then wonder why we consider Lessans arrogant, and deny koan's observation?

This imaginary friend didn't ask a single question! He just agrees and tells Lessans how awesomely smart he is. All the dialogs are just massive ego stroking.

Yes, I could have taken that out but I wanted people to know that this is mathematical reasoning. There is no doubt that he was right, and when you realize this you will understand why this was something I wanted to keep in. This was not about arrogrance; it was about skepticism which could ruin our chances for a better world because people will judge him prematurely. Koan knows shit, and I say that with clarity. She is a total big shot who comes to this forum and thinks she is the one who can bring Lessans down. She doesn't know what she's talking about and if she doesn't stop opening her big mouth, I will leave because I am not going to defend myself against such ignorance and arrogance. You get two for one with this kind of stupidity.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I could have taken that out but I wanted people to know that this is mathematical reasoning.

Having an imaginary friend assert that is indeed the best way to let people know.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an infant is actually sleeping with his eyes open

Why would this be the case? Why is this rare and strange scenario being used in an example meant to enlighten?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he should be aroused by the visual stimulus.

And maybe they would be aroused. How on Earth could this be tested given that it's not at all common to find babies sleeping with their eyes wide open?

Is this meant to be some kind of empirical statement or merely a weird thought experiment?

I am not talking about pointing a bright light in a baby's eyes where it would be painful. I am talking about a bright object due to light that was already in the room, and recognizing it in his sleep just like he would recognize a loud object.

Loud object, WTF is that? Give me an example of a loud object that would be equivalent to a bright object.

A bright light is the only fair comparison to a loud noise, peacegirl.

BTW, my son slept through a fireworks show that was right over our heads when he was an infant. It was very loud. I have seen babies sleep through alarms and the vacuum cleaner and barking dogs.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Having an imaginary friend assert that is indeed the best way to let people know.

No shit! How did that editing session go?

"How can I let people know this is mathematical reasoning? Hmm. There is no math or anything for readers to use as a clue. EUREKA! I'll simply insert a pretend person and create a fictional dialog where the imaginary character recognizes the greatest mathematical reasoning ever! BRILLIANT!"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an infant is actually sleeping with his eyes open, he should be aroused by the visual stimulus.

There is no reason to accept this as true or supported. If the baby is asleep there is no reason to believe that they are receiving any stimulus from the eyes, open or closed.

[LadyShea]

She doesn't know what she's talking about and if she doesn't stop opening her big mouth, I will leave because I am not going to defend myself against such ignorance and arrogance

Why are you threatening to leave again when you have no real intention of doing so?

koan has made coherent points and supported her views. Why not try the same in your refutation for once?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

That's why I summarized. To highlight that it wasn't just peacegirl who was wrong. Big Daddy Lessans screwed up too. It's an interesting distraction tactic: She grossly alters what he said so people might forget that he was wrong and just think it was her making a mistake.

thedoc did a great job showing how touch is the only sense that stands apart from the other senses in how it functions. So we've now debunked any evidence that eyes are not sense organs if we can agree that the trial by dog isn't valid either. I offer the following: I think when you show a dog a picture of its master it doesn't seem to recognize the photo because it's looking and thinking "you know that's not him, it's just a picture of him, right?" There is no reason to believe the dog thinks otherwise since, knowing its master isn't there means he's not going to get a biscuit.

The thing that worked for Lessans in cherry picking these examples was that neither babies nor dogs have the ability to tell him that's not what they were doing. He can supply their thoughts without worrying about negation. That's why tests with adult humans tend to be more substantive.

Lessans did not cherry pick. You are making all kinds of stuff up. It's amazing the hoops you're jumping through to be right. I refuse to put up with this gross misrepresentation of this work or who Lessans was. You bulldozed in here in the middle of two years of discussion and you think you have some kind of special knowledge that will bring Lessans down. Trust me, anything you have to say was already dealt with. So for me to waste my time with you when you haven't asked one sincere question (not two or three; just one which you haven't provided), is insane. So we're done. You're entitled to spout off anything you want, but don't expect a response from me.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I could have taken that out but I wanted people to know that this is mathematical reasoning.

Is it possible to know something that isn't true?