A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guess what, peacegirl? 6th century BC to 3rd century BC is not 2000 years! Your own quotation shows that you are wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, when I previously asked you to define and explain conscience as Lessans used it and meant it to be understood, you resorted to posting dictionary definitions. When I mentioned personal values systems that included cognition (ie: thinking) you stated that cognition is not related to conscience.

This indicates, to me, that you are using an understanding of conscience that bears no resemblance to the scientific understanding of what conscience is and how it forms. Now you throw out that conscience is "given" to us for a purpose, and it moves even further from rationality and into the realm of some kind of belief system.

So, please tell me in your own words what conscience is, and how it develops in individuals.

The following definition is an accurate account of what is meant by this term:

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1]

Conscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Guess what, peacegirl? 6th century BC to 3rd century BC is not 2000 years! Your own quotation shows that you are wrong!

Maybe Morrison's calculations weren't exact, but the point remains. Change is slow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, the trivial fact that the claim is completely untrue in no way undermines its validity?

An interesting point of view, to say the least.

This has nothing to do with the validity of these principles Lone Ranger, unless you're looking to find flaws that aren't really there. Isn't that you're goal? To find errors (even if they are minor) so that his claims will be undermined? This is not good science, I'm sorry.

[Kael]

There is no need to go looking for errors, they present themselves with flashing neon signs and loudspeaker announcements.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not good science,

This is interesting, Peacegirl, who knows nothing about science, is schooling us on what is good science. Peacegirl must have learned everything she knows about science from her father, who also knew nothing about science, but said his 7th grade dropout, non-education is better than any PHD scientist's education. She doesn't understand the scientific method, what constituted good data, or what makes a valid experiment, but she thinks she can tell us what is 'good science?'

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe Morrison's calculations weren't exact, but the point remains. Change is slow.

"Calculations weren't exact" just like Lessans calculations were a bit off, by about 180 degrees.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The following definition is an accurate account of what is meant by this term:

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1]

Conscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LadyShea didn't ask you to copypaste a definition from Wikipedia. She asked you to tell us in your own words what conscience is, and how it develops in individuals.

Of course you can't actually do that, because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're even talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You asked me to make a distinction between responsibility and moral responsibility. I answered you and you didn't let me know if you understood what I was saying. Are you satisfied with my answer so we can move on, or are you still in need of clarification?

That was a different question though, wasn't it? And in that post you did completely ignore the question reposted above. So by referring me back to that post you were simply avoiding the question you were presently replying to and which you have yet to answer:

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That we can choose "of our own free will" is the only thing that may have a similarity to compatibilism, but to say we have free will as a result of this observation is inaccurate. You can argue with me over semantics all you want, but we're not going to get anywhere if you do.

You can deny that compatibilist free will is sufficient for moral responsibility if you like, but you don't get to deny that we have compatibilist free will unless you can show how the definition is not satisfied. If we meet the definition for having compatibilist free will, then by definition, WE HAVE compatibilist free will. Denying that is like admitting a person is an unmarried male while refusing to acknowledge that they are a bachelor. You are being blatantly irrational on this point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being responsible for a choice only means that you performed that action. If you run a red light and injure someone who stepped off the curb, you are responsible for stepping on the accelerator. No one made you do it. By the same token, you are not morally responsible because this is the only choice you could have made at that moment since your will is not free. Therefore, you cannot be held morally responsible or judged in any way for that choice, even if the consequences of your actions are devastating to others. Please be patient because I know this sounds like the antithesis of what the response should be in a free will society, and can only cause more harm. But it's the opposite, as you'll soon see if you give me a chance.

Just because something isn't worthy of blame doesn't mean that an action on our part is not a serious hurt to others, and it is this very hurt that conscience can't stand (that's the purpose of having a conscience) without being able to offer some kind of excuse to others as to why we we were not responsible, or only partially responsible. We often lie to ourselves with these same excuses. Our excuses or rationalizations allow our conscience to feel better about what took place.

Of what relevance is this 'responsibility' divested of all moral responsibility? Why should my conscience care about actions for which I should not be held accountable? Why would I blame myself via conscience for an action which is not blameworthy. Why would others not be justified in blaming and punishing me for the kind of action which would cause me to have a guilty conscience? If I have grounds which will convince other people that my actions should be excused, then why would not the same grounds convince me that I have no reason to feel guilty?

This is still hopelessly inconsistent. You simply can't separate the functioning of conscience from our judgments of moral responsibility. Our conscience constitutes our intuitions of what is or is not morally right and wrong. So if I am convinced that some action is one that a person should not be blamed for, then I can't possibly feel guilty about doing it. And if I do have a guilty conscience about some action, then I will thereby consider it to be the kind of action which should warrant blame and punishment for anyone doing it.

Think of it this way. If I do something bad, and have a guilty conscience as a result, then other people will be able to imagine doing the same thing themselves and feeling guilty too, and will therefore judge my action to be blameworthy on that account. But if I imagine other people doing the same bad act and realize that they cannot be blamed for it (because they, like me, would have been just moving in their direction of greater satisfaction) then I will realize that I am not blameworthy either and have nothing to feel guilty about, and my conscience will cease to trouble me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually it's your loss. I'll go on and find other more interested people who will give Lessans the time of day, which nobody is doing. But you'll be left without a clear explanation and you'll go through life thinking that this knowledge was flawed. How very unfortunate for you.

Note the ignored question:

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And then you bring up range again! Hey peacegirl, what's the range of my eyesight? You never answered this, because you couldn't - you're talking nonsense.

On A Clear Day You Can See Forever

&feature=related

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that. I said if you did read it, you didn't understand the first thing about this knowledge, which you obviously do not.

Are you lying or is this just another memory failure? See below:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have done no such thing.

See? Will you now apologize, or at least admit your mistake?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's your prerogative to think whatever you want. I have no control over anyone's thoughts or opinions.

Indeed. You have no control over your own thoughts and opinions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are hanging on by a thread in order that your special relativity remains intact. It's very clear to me David that you feel very threatened, and there's no telling how you will retaliate. I feel sorry for you because your life may depend on a falsehood. I can imagine how mad you are right now, but the facts remain. We see efferently. I'm sure you have so much more to give than this one error, but we may never see it.

Classic projection. Hanging on by a thread... keeping beliefs intact... feeling threatened... wanting to retaliate... thinking much of one's life may be based upon a falsehood... feeling mad. All your own emotions and repressed fears, which you cannot face and are projecting upon others in your frustration.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the facts remain. We see efferently.

The facts contradict efferent vision, which you cannot explain without contradicting yourself. I can start copying my list of questions on vision into this thread for you if you like. And I will do so if you keep claiming in this thread that efferent vision is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LadyShea didn't ask you to copypaste a definition from Wikipedia. She asked you to tell us in your own words what conscience is, and how it develops in individuals.

Of course you can't actually do that, because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're even talking about.

What do you think I am trying to do Spacemonkey? I am trying to show what happens to conscience under the conditions Lessans' describes. LadyShea will take me on another tangent, and I refuse to go there. If you don't think I have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about, I ask you for the 3rd time, why are you here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

&feature=related

Another perfect video for the discussion. Loved it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you lying or is this just another memory failure? See below:

See? Will you now apologize, or at least admit your mistake?

Indeed. You have no control over your own thoughts and opinions.

We did not spend over a year discussing the book, nor have we been discussing it recently until you found me here. There was a large time lapse in between.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That we can choose "of our own free will" is the only thing that may have a similarity to compatibilism, but to say we have free will as a result of this observation is inaccurate. You can argue with me over semantics all you want, but we're not going to get anywhere if you do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can deny that compatibilist free will is sufficient for moral responsibility if you like, but you don't get to deny that we have compatibilist free will unless you can show how the definition is not satisfied.

I said that's fine if all you're saying is we get to choose.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If we meet the definition for having compatibilist free will, then by definition, WE HAVE compatibilist free will. Denying that is like admitting a person is an unmarried male while refusing to acknowledge that they are a bachelor. You are being blatantly irrational on this point.

I am not irrational at all. I just wanted to make absolutely sure that you aren't attributing moral responsibility to this definition. We have to be on the same page for you to have a chance at understanding the two-sided equation, and how this knowledge leads to peace on earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being responsible for a choice only means that you performed that action. If you run a red light and injure someone who stepped off the curb, you are responsible for stepping on the accelerator. No one made you do it. By the same token, you are not morally responsible because this is the only choice you could have made at that moment since your will is not free. Therefore, you cannot be held morally responsible or judged in any way for that choice, even if the consequences of your actions are devastating to others. Please be patient because I know this sounds like the antithesis of what the response should be in a free will society, and can only cause more harm. But it's the opposite, as you'll soon see if you give me a chance.

Just because something isn't worthy of blame doesn't mean that an action on our part is not a serious hurt to others, and it is this very hurt that conscience can't stand (that's the purpose of having a conscience) without being able to offer some kind of excuse to others as to why we we were not responsible, or only partially responsible. We often lie to ourselves with these same excuses. Our excuses or rationalizations allow our conscience to feel better about what took place.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of what relevance is this 'responsibility' divested of all moral responsibility? Why should my conscience care about actions for which I should not be held accountable?

You will see why soon.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would I blame myself via conscience for an action which is not blameworthy.

Because being blameworthy and doing harm are two different things. In other words, just because one is not being blamed does not mean he has not caused harm, or could cause harm. You'll understand this better as we proceed, if we proceed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would others not be justified in blaming and punishing me for the kind of action which would cause me to have a guilty conscience?

You're starting to jump to conclusions again. You haven't followed his reasoning even up to this point. First of all if will is not free, we have to follow the implications to see where it takes us. Isn't that what he asked of everyone? So why are you doubting him before we even get there?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If I have grounds which will convince other people that my actions should be excused, then why would not the same grounds convince me that I have no reason to feel guilty?

Because that's not what happens, that's why. This has to do with how conscience works, and you'll see this more clearly as we continue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is still hopelessly inconsistent. You simply can't separate the functioning of conscience from our judgments of moral responsibility.

You're right that we can't separate the functioning of conscience from our judgment of moral responsibility which paradoxically gets stronger in a "no blame" environment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Our conscience constitutes our intuitions of what is or is not morally right and wrong. So if I am convinced that some action is one that a person should not be blamed for, then I can't possibly feel guilty about doing it. And if I do have a guilty conscience about some action, then I will thereby consider it to be the kind of action which should warrant blame and punishment for anyone doing it.

Once again, we're not talking about an action that has already happened. We're talking about the prevention of an action that, in the world of free will, could not be entirely eliminated through threats of punishment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Think of it this way. If I do something bad, and have a guilty conscience as a result, then other people will be able to imagine doing the same thing themselves and feeling guilty too, and will therefore judge my action to be blameworthy on that account. But if I imagine other people doing the same bad act and realize that they cannot be blamed for it (because they, like me, would have been just moving in their direction of greater satisfaction) then I will realize that I am not blameworthy either and have nothing to feel guilty about, and my conscience will cease to trouble me.

Let me repeat: This knowledge does not condone hurtful behavior by the realization that man is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, it prevents that behavior from occurring. I do like your questions and I hope you wait until you get a true understanding of how powerful this law is in preventing what blame and punishment has never been able to accomplish.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You can answer that question in your dreams because I'm not. You're all ruining it for yourselves.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then Lessans' claims go out the window because you refuse to answer reasonable and relevant questions as and when they are asked. Your loss.

Actually it's your loss. I'll go on and find other more interested people who will give Lessans the time of day, which nobody is doing. But you'll be left without a clear explanation and you'll go through life thinking that this knowledge was flawed. How very unfortunate for you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Note the ignored question:

Ignoring it doesn't change the fact that you will lose out.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

Let's keep moving forward so that you will get your answer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another perfect video for the discussion. Loved it!

Peacegirl is so detatched from reality that she doesn't see the irony, and that it contradicts her position, she just enjoys the pretty music without any understanding of the lyrics and the meaning of the song. She has done this repeatedly with music ment to mock or counter her ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

There is no need to go looking for errors, they present themselves with flashing neon signs and loudspeaker announcements.

Absolutely, if one uses false criteria to judge. But if your criteria is wrong, it puts Lessans out to pasture, which would not be helping our world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl is so detatched from reality that she doesn't see the irony, and that it contradicts her position, she just enjoys the pretty music without any understanding of the lyrics and the meaning of the song. She has done this repeatedly with music ment to mock or counter her ideas.

It in no way contradicts my position. It actually supports it, but you may not see this yet. In spite of your legitimate questions, I truly hope you don't give up. It turns out that you are the only one that is addressing the most importants point in this discussion. No one else seems to care about how this discovery actually works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Was it not made big and bold enough for you?


I just gave you a list of facts that flatly contradict real-time seeing. None of the observation need have anything to do with light. They are things we see, and should not see if Lessans is right. But we do see them. So Lessans is wrong.

And then you bring up range again! Hey peacegirl, what's the range of my eyesight? You never answered this, because you couldn't - you're talking nonsense.

The range of your eyesight is how far you are able to see in relation to the object in question. I will not answer any questions related to sight until it is acknowledged that Lessans' first discovery was spot on.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you have a problem with but don't bring more questions, as I will not answer until people recognize that Lessans' first discovery was spot on.

Of course you won't answer any more questions on light and sight, because you can't. It's a convenient escape hatch for you that you demand that everyone "recognize that Lessans' first discovery was spot on," before you discuss what you can't discuss (light and sight) because nobody is going to do that. He has no discovery. As has been repeatedly demonstrated to you, his argument commits a fallacy of circularity and a modal fallacy. Hence, it runs afoul not just of empirical reality, but of logic itself. Not that you care. You will deny reality and logic itself in your mad quest for an undeserved recognition for you and the buffoon Lessans.

Folks, this has become perhaps the longest-running freak show on the Internet. A thread on free will has been started elsewhere; that can lead to interesting discussion and not this nonsense. Consider abandoning this thread and let peacegirl talk to herself in the mirror. It is what she truly deserves. (A mirror, I might add, that reflects light, which is why she is able to see herself in the mirror -- a simple demonstration right there of the fallacy of Lessans' claims, along with the hundreds of others that have been pointed out to her.)

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The range of what we see is dependent on distance which requires a response from pixels in a camera, or receptors in the eye (cones and rods), if you're talking about human vision.

Oh look: you can't answer me - you're talking nonsense. Your statement is literally nonsense. It makes zero grammatical sense.

And this has no bearing on the huge list of reasons that real time vision is wrong, that you cannot answer, and that you admitted you couldn't answer, but because of your faith in Lessans you are certain somewhere there is an answer. That's not science, peacegirl. We don't cling to a description of the world we read in a book, especially not in the face of contradictory evidence. We don't 'hope' there is an answer.

Maybe Morrison's calculations weren't exact, but the point remains. Change is slow.

Your blind faith appears in the most bizarre ways. You describe a calculation that gets an answer of 2000 years instead of 300 years as 'not exact'. You know what I call a calculation that is out by a factor of more than 10? Wrong.

And it wasn't 'change' that was slow, it was that more compelling evidence convinces more people. The Greeks didn't preach the same tired old thing over and over until everyone believed them. They argued and produced evidence. Eventually there was evidence that contradicted a flat Earth - just like there is evidence that contradicts real time vision, or all these other claims you make. That's what produced uniform opinion about the shape of the Earth. People looked at the evidence, and changed their mind.

The opposite of what you're doing, in fact. There's no evidence that could ever change your mind, because you simply believe that there is always some explanation that will prove Lessans right. That's the opposite way of approaching the world to all these scholars you seem so fond of.

[davidm]

Dragar, I reprinted your big list of disproofs of efferent seeing. Look at her response at the very end.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, all of these are correct, but this does not make real time vision true. These two things are mutually exclusive.

The woman is off her rocker, obviously. But this is all it comes down to. You show her multiple and repeated disproofs of real-time seeing, and she simply says, "Iz not!"

What makes anyone think she will ever behave differently?

ETA: I assume she meant to write, "but this does not make real-time vision FALSE." and "These two things are NOT mutually exclusive." OTOH, who knows what she meant to write? At this stage I doubt she even knows anymore, she just hammers at the keybaord more or less at random I think.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

&feature=related

Woooondeeerfuuul won-der-ful. I saw Mathis perform in Vegas.