A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

This discussion got sidetracked by your demanding stats about lurkers. They seem to be on topic again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how many times has it been explained to you that asserting things are so does not make them so.

Appeal to non-existent evidence that you merely hope and believe will come to exist in a hoped for, but not certain to come to pass, future.

That's the proposition under dispute.

You cannot claim this is proof when you just stated the proof does not yet exist, and can't exist unless this proposition is accepted without evidence first.

That's circular.

Bump

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not necesssarily true. Maybe a person doesn't want to steal, but it is the lesser of two evils because there is no other way to get food.

If a person did not want to steal then they would not steal. Remember, nothing can make someone do something they do not want to do. Over this we have mathematical control.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On the third point, we can employ Rawl's veil of ignorance. Someone has performed a harmful action, but you do not know whether this person is yourself or somebody else.

The prophet Nathan did not have the advantage of CCTV, but he employed essentially the same approach when, in II Samuel 12, he rebuked David for arranging Uriah's death.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's false Spacemonkey. I do get to assert that it is inconsistent with 'free-will', because there is no such thing as free will. You cannot define something that does not exist, no matter how hard you try to make it look as if it does. As long as you believe your definition has merit in the real world (which it does not), we have no basis for communication and I'm not going to waste my time proving that your definition is useless in order to defend my useful definition because it is reflective of reality. I'm done Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not done.

Is that a request or a demand? I don't take demands very well.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've made further responses to me after your present post, and you will no doubt continue to make more after this. You don't get to assert that determinism is inconsistent with 'free will', because if you mean the contra-causal kind then your point is irrelevant, and if you mean the compatibilist kind then your point is simply wrong. Everyone agrees that determinism is incompatible with contra-causal free will, but it is a simple and completely uncontroversial fact that determinism is not incompatible with compatibilist free will.

Right, because compatibilism makes it uncontroversial by the way they define these terms. Does that make it an absolute? No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nor is compatibilist free will defining something that doesn't exist, as it is quite obvious that we do indeed possess a freedom from experienced compulsion and coercion and the ability to act in accordance with our choices. This freedom exists. You just don't like it being labelled as a version of 'free will'.

But the question arises, is this free will the kind of free will that makes someone blameworthy. Lessans used the phrase, "I did it of my own free will" all through the book. This kind of free will only means I did it because I wanted to, nothing was stopping me from making my choice. But he qualified that phrase by saying, "I did it of my own free will" does not mean that he actually did anything of his own free will. That's why he included this statement in the book, which I posted earlier.

Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you are doing is playing word games with your logic. We cannot be unfree and be free at the same time in any way, shape, or form. If will is not free, it is never free. You don't get to decide what actions have your vote and which don't in terms of moral responsibility. Believing that there is such a thing called "soft" determinism is a way to sneak in free will. It's amazing that you are so blind to the faulty logic of compatibilism. You want to believe in determinism, but you want to keep your moral superiority so that you can can judge people's actions as right or wrong, and in the same breath you say it does not conflict with the kind of determinism that happens to blend with your brand of free will. You are delusional. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can have both determinism and compatibilist free will. I can do so because they are not incompatible. And we can be both free (from experienced compulsion and coercion) and unfree (from causal determination) at the same time. I do get to decide on moral responsibility because, as you already agreed, whether or not we are morally responsible and blameworthy given compatibilist freedom is not a factual question, but is itself a value judgment.

The attempt to distinguish between "mere determination" from "universal determinism," as if the determination type renders a certain type of free will valid, is invalid, if the proposition that presupposes there is this type of free will is based on faulty logic. If that is the case, these definitions are only useful in making it appear that there is no contradiction between determinism and free will so that blameworthiness can be justified. Considering that moral responsibility and blameworthiness in compatibilism is not a factual question, but a value judgment, it is an admittance that the actual proof of this type of free will is nowhere to be found. I am trying to show you that Lessans' proof of determinism renders any type of moral judgment as unjustified. All he is asking you to do is follow his reasoning, but you won't do that because you are so busy defending compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is completely false.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Um, yeah. I agree. So why did you say they were incompatible?

Logic can make what is true appear false and what is false appear true. Whether that logic is grounded in reality is what matters.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep on convincing yourself of the truth of compatibilism and you'll continue to stay in your protective delusional bubble.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey"']What am I supposedly protecting myself from? All I was doing here was explaining to you the simple difference between the words 'determination' and 'determinism'. This isn't controversial, and isn't at all critical to my arguments. It was just something that you didn't understand, and asked me to help you with.[/quote]

I thought the phrase "mere determination" as opposed to "universal determinism" is what gives the illusion of compatibility, so I would think it is critical to your argument.

[quote="Spacemonkey

You keep insinuating that I am supporting compatibilism only because I want to protect my beliefs, and that the definitions involved are ad hoc and created purely to force a compatibility. That is simply false. I support compatibilism because of the reasoned argument I have given you, and the distinctions used by the definitions are introduced on the basis of those same reasoned arguments. But instead of ever addressing those arguments you keep launching into fallacious ad hominem attacks on the motivations behind them.

How can I win an argument with you if you refuse to even consider that the definitions given in compatibilism are only useful in serving a particular purpose (i.e. determning who is blameworthy) but not in considering whether these definitions are truly meaningful in a deeper sense because they describe reality. You will keep coming back with the same argument which means you won't consider Lessans views at all because you're too busy defending yours.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have listened to you over and over again. You are claiming that one type of free will is deserving of blameworthiness, and the other is not. I understand the two different senses of free will that compatibilism distinguishes in order to give one a free pass of no blame, and the other not a free pass. But there is no difference if determinism is true, no matter how much you want to believe there is. You are just repeating yourself and trying to convince yourself that this is a perfectly reasoned and useful definition. It is not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are not addressing the point you are here replying to, which was the importance of distinguishing between the two kinds of ability to choose otherwise.

We're back to square one because you can't prove a person could choose otherwise given new antecedent conditions. Yes, he is free of the constraints of experienced compulsion, but you still don't know for a fact that this person could have chosen not to [pick your crime] at that moment of time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And on the two kinds of freedom, they are obviously different whether determinism is true or not.

They are different in their definition, yes, but even with your type of free will that you believe justifies punishment, you cannot prove a person could have acted otherwise (you cannot go back in time) which is required in order to claim the type of free will that is worthy of your judgment of blameworthiness. Your mantra that this has no relevance because all that is required is whether the person was free from experienced compulsion, is not proof that this person actually had the freedom to change his actions given the options that were before him (the new antecedent conditions).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They are different because they are defined differently and therefore have differing truth conditions. If determinism is true then we can have the compatibilist kind but not the contra-causal kind.

But the question remains: Is the kind of compatibilistic determinism you are using in your logic actually useful if it does not reflect the real world? How can we find a deeper truth if you won't consider the possibility that the different truth conditions you speak of are non-existent except as a theorical construct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no contradiction the way you define two different types of determinism, and two different types of free will. It's very easy to make definitions up and make it look like it all fits. Don't you see what you're doing? Of course not. And who is the delusional one?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you for finally admitting that there is no contradiction in compatibilism. But I have not made up definitions just to make it look like things fit. The definitions I have used are based on principled distinctions which I have justified for you with arguments explaining why determinism is irrelevant to blameworthiness and why what matters is only what we could have done given slightly different but relevantly similar antecedent conditions. You have never addressed these arguments, and instead persist in fallacious ad hominem attacks on the motivations of compatibilists.

But when you say "what matters is what we could have done", you are stating a belief, not a proof. You don't know if a person could have done differently given your "free will" conditions. You keep insisting that this is all that is needed for blameworthiness, but if someone could not have done differently, and it was proven that he could not have done differently, then your rebuttal is not indicative of a major truth value. It's a theoretical premise only upon which the rest of your logic is based. If it is wrong, your whole thesis is wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just repeating yourself Spacemonkey. The logic is faulty.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually this was a new point, rather than repetition of an ignored point. Instead of showing you why what matters is the ability to choose otherwise given slightly different antecedent conditions, this time I showed you why the ability to chose differently in the exact same causal scenario is not relevant to blameworthiness. Yet as usual you have not addressed the argument at all. Please show me exactly where my logic is allegedly faulty, with specific reference to the argument I presented in the post you were here replying to. I'm afraid your bare assertion that it is faulty is no going to be enough.

All you said is that blameworthiness is justified in the same causal scenasrio because it can be used as a deterrent for future actions as it becomes part of the next group of changed antecedent conditions. But if these threats of punishment only make a partial change in behavior, but does not make a dent in changing the actions of our most hardened criminals, why wouldn't you be a little bit open-minded in trying to understand Lessans' proposal instead of telling me he's wrong before you have thoroughly studied his work for accuracy. And please don't tell me you have. All you are doing is defending your present position (which, by the way, is a free will position for all intents and purposes, because "free will" implies that a person could have done otherwise); a world in which all the blame and punishment, all the incarcerations, all the capital punishment, and all the punitive measures taken throughout history have not only not deterred bad things from happening, but they have created a more dangerous world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Blame and punishment can deter some people from doing harm, but it has failed to prevent hard criminals (the ones we really want to stop) from acting on their desires. Blame and punishment has been used since the beginning of time, as part of our development. I hope people take this discovery seriously (I don't have hope for this thread) because it offers a solution that is foolproof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That blame and punishment is not a foolproof solution for preventing harm to others is wholly and completely irrelevant to my arguments. You were here replying to my explanation of precisely why this is the case.

But it's relevant to mine, okay?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still miss the point that will is not free, and if that is so, you have to follow the reasoning which is the key to the solution. You won't do that. You are stuck defending your position at all costs, and that is why you will not allow yourself to understand the two-sided equation because you cannot admit to yourself that there are no flaws. That would mess with your worldview and that's too painful.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just ignored another argument (my comments on your use of the word 'programmed') and again insisted that the will is not free without distinguishing which kind of freedom you are talking about. You again launch into a fallacious ad hominem attack on my motivations instead of addressing any of my arguments or explanations. You are not being rational or reasonable.

I'm frustrated, that's why I launch ad hominem attacks on your motivations. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really do want to understand this knowledge, but your attitude isn't helping, and it appears to me that all you want to do is be right because of your patronizing attitude. I hope I'm wrong because I'm investing a lot of time trying to get you to raise the veil so you can see clearly, without these useless definitions clouding your vision.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you wasting your time replying to post #22732? I just explained in the last post you replied to that you could and should skip these posts and only answer my last two posts.

I knew this was going to happen.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not science Spacemonkey. I am paying a lot of attention to your posts; in fact, the only reason I'm still here is because of your posts.

Aha! Now we know who to blame.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that a request or a demand? I don't take demands very well.

I believe that would qualify as either a plain statement of fact or a prediction. If it was the latter, it has now been proven the former.

[LadyShea]

You have ignored this post 4 times

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

[Vivisectus]

Question - how does Lessanism account for the evolution of sight?

We know the first sight organs were very primitive light receptors. Cells that react to light, in order to guide these incredibly simple and primitive organisms to where the food was.

Brains, as we understand them now, had not evolved yet.

So did these creatures not have sight? Or a different sight? How did this new, different sight we are supposed to have come to be? Is Lessanism compatible with evolution?

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Question - how does Lessanism account for the evolution of sight?

We know the first sight organs were very primitive light receptors. Cells that react to light, in order to guide these incredibly simple and primitive organisms to where the food was.

Brains, as we understand them now, had not evolved yet.

So did these creatures not have sight? Or a different sight? How did this new, different sight we are supposed to have come to be? Is Lessanism compatible with evolution?

I think she said here somewhere that she doesn't believe in evolution.

She didn't quite put it that way, she said there needs to be further testing or something (surprise, surprise).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that a request or a demand? I don't take demands very well.

And yet you have no problem demanding that everyone forget everything they have learned and accept lessans unsurported assertions on several subjects that he provides absolutely no solid data in evidence. Hypocrite

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Question - how does Lessanism account for the evolution of sight?

Just like conscience, it is a God given gift to us lessor mortals.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, why did you waste your time responding to this post? It did not contain the arguments that you need to address. Posts #22735 & #22736 are the ones you need to READ and then address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that a request or a demand? I don't take demands very well.

It was an astute observation. You claimed you were done with me, but that was obviously not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, because compatibilism makes it uncontroversial by the way they define these terms. Does that make it an absolute? No it doesn't.

But the question arises, is this free will the kind of free will that makes someone blameworthy.

Exactly. The compatibility of compatibilist free will with determinism, and the existence of compatibilist free will are not in dispute. Therefore there is no question of whether or not my definitions reflect reality. The kind of compulsion I have defined exists, as does the compatibilist notion of freedom I defined. The only question is whether or not this freedom is sufficient for the kind of moral responsibility that justifies blameworthiness. And on that I have provided arguments which you are still evading and have yet to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The attempt to distinguish between "mere determination" from "universal determinism," as if the determination type renders a certain type of free will valid, is invalid, if the proposition that presupposes there is this type of free will is based on faulty logic.

Good thing then that this distinction between determination and determinism is not a part of my argument, as I already explained to you in previous posts. That distinction is a wholly uncontroversial point agreed to by compatibilists and incompatibilists alike, and does not play any role in my argument for compatibilism. This is why I say that you are not paying proper attention to my posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Considering that moral responsibility and blameworthiness in compatibilism is not a factual question, but a value judgment, it is an admittance that the actual proof of this type of free will is nowhere to be found.

No, it is not. The point is simply that the question of blameworthiness is not one of empirical fact, but rather a moral value judgement (i.e. 'X is blameworthy' is to say that we should blame people in a given situation for performing a certain kind of action - it is prescriptive, not descriptive). That does not mean that anything goes, or that arguments are impossible. It just means that the arguments involved will not be based on empirical fact, but instead upon one's ethical and meta-ethical views. The arguments I presented are based on a utilitarian perspective. These arguments are what you need to stop evading and start addressing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought the phrase "mere determination" as opposed to "universal determinism" is what gives the illusion of compatibility, so I would think it is critical to your argument.

Then you thought wrongly, and clearly haven't been paying enough attention to my posts. The important distinctions in my argument are between compatibilist free will and contra-causal/libertarian free will, and between the ability to do otherwise in the exact same situation and the ability to do otherwise in similar situations given differing antecedent conditions. The distinction between determination and determinism was an irrelevant and tangential terminological point that I explained to you because it had confused you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can I win an argument with you if you refuse to even consider that the definitions given in compatibilism are only useful in serving a particular purpose (i.e. determning who is blameworthy) but not in considering whether these definitions are truly meaningful in a deeper sense because they describe reality. You will keep coming back with the same argument which means you won't consider Lessans views at all because you're too busy defending yours.

The only way you can possibly win an argument with me is to address the arguments I have presented instead of weaseling and evading them. It is uncontroversial that my definitions reflect reality, and your comments on the alleged motivations behind them are fallacious and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one because you can't prove a person could choose otherwise given new antecedent conditions. Yes, he is free of the constraints of experienced compulsion, but you still don't know for a fact that this person could have chosen not to [pick your crime] at that moment of time.

They are different in their definition, yes, but even with your type of free will that you believe justifies punishment, you cannot prove a person could have acted otherwise (you cannot go back in time) which is required in order to claim the type of free will that is worthy of your judgment of blameworthiness. Your mantra that this has no relevance because all that is required is whether the person was free from experienced compulsion, is not proof that this person actually had the freedom to change his actions given the options that were before him (the new antecedent conditions).

But when you say "what matters is what we could have done", you are stating a belief, not a proof. You don't know if a person could have done differently given your "free will" conditions.

We've been over this repeatedly, but you keep returning back to square one, forgetting the answer already given to this point. There are TWO kinds of ability to choose otherwise. One is the ability to choose otherwise in the exact same causal scenario, which I don't have to prove because I am not arguing that we have this ability. The other is the ability to choose differently given slightly different antecedent circumstances, which again does not stand in need of proof for it is plainly obvious that different causes can produce different resulting effects. I've explained this to you dozens of times already. This again is why I say you are not paying attention to our discussion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the question remains: Is the kind of compatibilistic determinism you are using in your logic actually useful if it does not reflect the real world? How can we find a deeper truth if you won't consider the possibility that the different truth conditions you speak of are non-existent except as a theorical construct?

No, that question does not remain. It has been answered. It is completely uncontroversial that my definitions pick out forms of compulsion and forms of freedom that undoubtedly exist in the real world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you said is that blameworthiness is justified in the same causal scenasrio because it can be used as a deterrent for future actions as it becomes part of the next group of changed antecedent conditions. But if these threats of punishment only make a partial change in behavior, but does not make a dent in changing the actions of our most hardened criminals, why wouldn't you be a little bit open-minded in trying to understand Lessans' proposal instead of telling me he's wrong before you have thoroughly studied his work for accuracy. And please don't tell me you have. All you are doing is defending your present position (which, by the way, is a free will position for all intents and purposes, because "free will" implies that a person could have done otherwise); a world in which all the blame and punishment, all the incarcerations, all the capital punishment, and all the punitive measures taken throughout history have not only not deterred bad things from happening, but they have created a more dangerous world.

We've been over this before as well. Blame is effective. That's why we use it. It isn't perfectly effective in preventing harm, but my argument does not require it to be. My argument was that blame is justified to the extent that it can causally influence future behaviour. And you still have no objection to this point at all. You just keep resorting to your faith-based belief that Lessans' system will be more effective in preventing harm. But this means you have no objection to compatibilism until you can first meet my objection to his fallacious two-sided non-equation, and support his big fat assumption regarding the innate potential perfection of conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm frustrated, that's why I launch ad hominem attacks on your motivations.

So develop some self control and stop doing it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This discussion got sidetracked by your demanding stats about lurkers. They seem to be on topic again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how many times has it been explained to you that asserting things are so does not make them so.

Appeal to non-existent evidence that you merely hope and believe will come to exist in a hoped for, but not certain to come to pass, future.

That's the proposition under dispute.

You cannot claim this is proof when you just stated the proof does not yet exist, and can't exist unless this proposition is accepted without evidence first.

That's circular.

His proof that man's will is not free is valid, but if you don't see it and you want more proof that he was right, we have to set up a society using these principles. You can keep accusing him of circular reasoning, but his inferences were not circular.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, why did you waste your time responding to this post? It did not contain the arguments that you need to address. Posts #22735 & #22736 are the ones you need to READ and then address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that a request or a demand? I don't take demands very well.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It was an astute observation. You claimed you were done with me, but that was obviously not true.

Because I feel that you will never give up your position so no matter what I say to show you where you're wrong, you will just come back with the same old refutation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, because compatibilism makes it uncontroversial by the way they define these terms. Does that make it an absolute? No it doesn't.

I have answered you adequately. Yes, we are justified in blaming and punishing people in a free will society because this has been the only way of deterring people from doing that which is wrong or for having them pay a price for doing that which is wrong.

So why did you bring up "mere" determination if it didn't matter. I wouldn't have asked you what it meant if you didn't bring it up in the first place.

This knowledge is based on empirical fact. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way but it's true. And holding people blameworthy may have a utilitarian benefit, but it's not the ultimate cure. Your prescription doesn't seem to be working all that great.

Since the early 1970s, the number of individuals in jails and state
and federal prisons has grown exponentially. Today, nearly two million
people are currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons and local
jails. The growth of imprisonment has been borne disproportionately by
African-American and Hispanic men from poor communities in urban
areas. Rising incarceration should have greatly reduced the crime rate.
After all, incapacitated offenders were no longer free to rob, assault,
steal, or commit other crimes. However, no large-scale reduction in
crime was detected until the mid-1990s. The failure of crime rates to
decline commensurately with increases in the rate and severity of
punishment reveals a paradox of punishment: recent experiments have
shown that among persons of color, especially those who are poor or
reside in poor neighborhoods, harsher punishment has produced
iatrogenic or counterdeterrent effects.

We identify two processes that produce punishment paradoxes or
defiance of legal sanctions. First, the long-term and spatially
concentrated shift of social and economic resources from informal social
controls to formal legal controls, particularly incarceration, weakens
localized informal social controls and creates recurring cycles of
discontrol.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/gr...Meares-PDF.pdf

And I am trying to show you that your argument is flawed. You cannot prove that someone could do otherwise in the exact same situation because all testing of this theory is done in a different situation than the one from which the original choice was made. And the ability to choose in similar situations given differing antecedent conditions is trivially true because the majority of us have this kind of freedom. But this does not answer the deeper question as to whether this apparent freedom from physical or mental contraint is an indication that we actually have free will.

Are you kidding me Spacemonkey? That's what I mean when I say that no matter what I explain to you, your retort is that your arguments are uncontroversial and your definitions reflect reality. They are controversial and they don't reflect reality. Seriously, what's the point of this conversation if you are not open to this discovery because you're so sure you're right and he's wrong? I see the flaws and it's getting really hard for me.

But this definition does not prove that we have free will; the kind that justifies blameworthiness. It is a definition that allows you to feel ethically justified to hold someone responsible because you believe they have the ability to act according to different antecedent conditions if they want to, and if they don't want to then they are culpable for their actions. But this again is not proof that this person could actually choose differently than what he actually chooses. If you are not interested in proof, and you feel this is enough to hold someone responsible, then continue to living in this environment. I am just trying to show you that there is a better way when we understand that man does not have free will, even in those conditions where he appears free because he doesn't have those experienced kinds of compulsions.

That's not the kind of free that is equivalent to having free will. I can be free of compulsion, and be able to act differently according to new antecedent conditions (which I have no argument with), and still not have free will. If you cannot consider the possibility that man does not have free will and Lessans is right, you will not desire to follow his reasoning. You will continue to tell me that your definition of free is all that is necessary to justify blame and punishment, which goes right back to the free will belief that a person had the ability to choose otherwise. But if choosing otherwise was the worst possible choice under his circumstances, he could not have chosen it.

Spacemonkey, you are really getting on my nerves. Please don't keep testing me because you're on thin ice. If you don't care about our conversation, keep it up.

So develop some self control and stop doing it.

Why does everything that comes out of your mouth have an insulting overtone? I'm sorry you resent me so much.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is everything that comes out of your mouth have an insulting innuendo?

Because you read that into my posts and then use it as a weaseling excuse for not addressing my points.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry you resent me so much.

I don't resent you at all. I'm sorry you have such a hard time facing reality.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, Posts #22735 & #22736 are the ones you need to READ and then address.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if you don't see it and you want more proof that he was right, we have to set up a society using these principles

Who do you think will invest the time and energy into setting up this society? Really the only way that would get done is if you find some adherents and set up an intentional community (aka commune) yourself

[Vivisectus]

Interesting. So if we assume the book is correct, then evolution must be wrong: there is no way we can reconcile the development of simple cells that react to light with efferent sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If a person did not want to steal then they would not steal. Remember, nothing can make someone do something they do not want to do. Over this we have mathematical control.

That's true, but they wanted to steal because it gave them greater satisfaction under their circumstances. After all, self-preservation is the first law of nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you read that into my posts and then use it as a weaseling excuse for not addressing my points.

Like I said, it's up to you whether we continue the conversation. Just know that if you keep insulting me by calling this major work a non-discovery (when you have no clue), and a non-equation, I'm done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry you resent me so much.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't resent you at all. I'm sorry you have such a hard time facing reality.

It's a matter of perspective who is the one not facing reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Interesting. So if we assume the book is correct, then evolution must be wrong: there is no way we can reconcile the development of simple cells that react to light with efferent sight.

Of course we can. Efferent sight only relates to how the brain and eyes work in unison. If a simple cell doesn't have a brain, it can still react to light as a survival mechanism. Please don't respond to this post because I won't answer it. I don't want to get into this conversation again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who do you think will invest the time and energy into setting up this society? Really the only way that would get done is if you find some adherents and set up an intentional community (aka commune) yourself

Not really. If this knowledge is brought to light and recognized as a genuine finding by scientists, it would not be difficult to start the transition process. In a relatively short time, this new world could easily become a reality. It's just getting over the disbelief that this is an actual solution to the world's problems that is not just another pie in the sky wishful thinking fantasy of an idealized world that could never be realized.

[LadyShea]

If this knowledge is brought to light and recognized as a genuine finding by scientists

That won't happen because, as we've established, the foundational premise is a non-falsifiable tautology.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, it's up to you whether we continue the conversation.

Actually, it's up to you. I've told you which posts need addressing but you keep ignoring them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just know that if you keep insulting me by calling this major work a non-discovery (when you have no clue), and a non-equation, I'm done.

Why should I call something that is not an equation an equation? Why should I restrict myself to calling his 'discovery' an alleged discovery when you refuse to do the same?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a matter of perspective who is the one not facing reality.

Sadly, no. It is not.