A revolution in thought

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's try again: I believe there is a possibility that Lessans could have been wrong regarding something about which he was positive that he was correct, but not in reference to his three discoveries.

The reason you think this question is a trap is exactly the reason it was asked in the first place. You are assigning value to Lessans' feelings of certitude, rather than to the veracity of the ideas themselves. It would be easy enough to answer this question "Yes, Lessans could have been mistaken about a thing even if he was certain it was correct" without needing to concede any ground whatsoever on whether you believe he was actually mistaken about these particular ideas.

This only feels like a trap to you because, in your mind, the fact that he was certain of these ideas is actually evidence that they are accurate, when it is in fact nothing of the kind. Someone's certainty or lack thereof has nothing to do with an idea being correct or incorrect, verifiable truth or ass-pulled nut-hattery. But, to your worldview, that Lessans says he is certain of X is actually a defensible reason to believe X. That is what is being pointed out by asking you this question, and that is what you keep proclaiming to be true by your insistence that it is a trap, and your continual refusal to answer it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Facebook is a social network, not a computer networking company. I found a list of the top companies. There is absolutely no reason the economic system could not get off the ground because we have the technological ability in which to do so. Maybe I'll use of these names instead. LadyShea, what do you think?

Computer networking Companies; List of Top Computer networking Firms

I wouldn't use a specific company at all, I would use a generic term such as "a networked financial tracking system" and then use IBIR

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wouldn't use a specific company at all, I would use a generic term such as "a networked financial tracking system" and then use IBIR

Thank you! I think that sounds much better.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Kael

Someone's certainty or lack thereof has nothing to do with an idea being correct or incorrect, verifiable truth or ass-pulled nut-hattery. But, to your worldview, that Lessans says he is certain of X is actually a defensible reason to believe X. That is what is being pointed out by asking you this question, and that is what you keep proclaiming to be true by your insistence that it is a trap, and your continual refusal to answer it.

As I wrote previously

There is a Baloney Detector for kids too. I work on this with Kiddo, as part of the science education I have already started with him (schools are woefully lax in science, unfortunately, due to the emphasis on reading/math standards and testing)

1. Forceful declarations do not substantiate facts or truth

2. Every effect has a rational cause

3. Two events occurring in sequence do not imply a causal relationship

4. The universe is governed by natural laws and principles

5. The inability to think of an alternative does not make the reason at hand right, nor does proving one idea wrong make another idea right

6. All the data and/or observations must be considered

7. Beware of generalizing from the Particular to the universal

8. Quantities must add up

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Stormlight, Lessans meant to write Satin. Had he not meant to write Satin he would not have written Satin. I don't understand why this is not clear to you. You just need to give him a chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Maybe he knows something we don't?

You let the cat out of the bag. I'm from outer space; hence my father's 7th book. An Urgent Message From a Visitor to Your Planet.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's try again: I believe there is a possibility that Lessans could have been wrong regarding something about which he was positive that he was correct, but not in reference to his three discoveries.

That's better. Still a little hedging there and it is not at all clear why those three things ought to merit an exemption, but it appears we are making progress.

This next question is not quite so simple, as it can't easily be answered with a simple yes or no (you ought to like that).

What would it take to convince you that Lessans was wrong about something (excluding the three discoveries) about which he was positive that he was correct?

A little bit of wisdom for you. Of course people are going to use your words against you. The only way for anyone to prevent having their words used against them is for them to remain perpetually silent. Therefore, if you are afraid of having your words used against you, then you should not be here (or anywhere) discussing or promoting anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It costs 250.00 to edit a typo on a .pdf file you have posted on somebody's forum?

SRSLY bad business model dude, take my advice and sell it as an eBook so you can make corrections and edits on the fly.

I have someone who has helped me with the formatting. I realize that I could do this part myself. The issue isn't the changes I make on the .pdf. It's the fact that the publisher has to reset their equipment to accomodate the changes; I'm not sure why they told me the printer has increased their charges. They don't have to do anything except print the book. This is a POD company, which means that it costs you for the initial set up so a person can buy a book on demand. This saves you from having to order a large inventory of books at once.

[LadyShea]

I am saying fuck the printers for this project. I doubt you will get any sales of the printed/bound book. You may get some if it is eBook though.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

The reason you think this question is a trap is exactly the reason it was asked in the first place. You are assigning value to Lessans' feelings of certitude, rather than to the veracity of the ideas themselves. It would be easy enough to answer this question "Yes, Lessans could have been mistaken about a thing even if he was certain it was correct" without needing to concede any ground whatsoever on whether you believe he was actually mistaken about these particular ideas.

But the reason I didn't say that is because people would conclude that if he could be mistaken about a thing even if he was certain he was correct, then he could be mistaken about these particular ideas. I have to say, in all honesty, I don't remember him ever saying he was absolutely certain about something which turned out to be untrue.

Originally Posted by Kael

This only feels like a trap to you because, in your mind, the fact that he was certain of these ideas is actually evidence that they are accurate, when it is in fact nothing of the kind. Someone's certainty or lack thereof has nothing to do with an idea being correct or incorrect, verifiable truth or ass-pulled nut-hattery. But, to your worldview, that Lessans says he is certain of X is actually a defensible reason to believe X. That is what is being pointed out by asking you this question, and that is what you keep proclaiming to be true by your insistence that it is a trap, and your continual refusal to answer it.

Only because I believe people would conclude that he very well could have thought he was correct about this, but be wrong. I know that his feelings of certitude are not actual evidence. He said the only thing that matters is the actual proof. He wrote this on page 6, which I've already posted, but for your benefit I'll post it again.

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying fuck the printers for this project. I doubt you will get any sales of the printed/bound book. You may get some if it is eBook though.

First of all, it's already a free download. Secondly, it's very difficult to read this book online. It's too long, which doesn't lend itself to this type of format. I get cross-eyed trying to read long books on the computer. Plus, you can't go back and double check things easily.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I wrote previously

Very cool LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

The font is a problem right off the bat. It is terrible on the eyes. I would use Arial or Times or something very standard.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, it's already a free download. Secondly, it's very difficult to read this book online. It's too long, which doesn't lend itself to this type of format. I get cross-eyed trying to read long books on the computer. Plus, you can't go back and double check things that easily. Maybe I'm wrong.

You're also using PDF, which I don't find as useful as other ebook formats. If it were me, I'd be converting it to the EPUB format, and possibly Mobipocket or Amazon's format. These conversions are almost as simple as converting a Word document into PDF.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the reason I didn't say that is because people would conclude that if he could be mistaken about a thing even if he was certain he was correct, then he could be mistaken about these particular ideas.

Emphasis mine. Since this is an entirely true statement, why would you be concerned that people might come to this conclusion?

I have to say, in all honesty, I don't remember him ever saying he was absolutely certain about something which turned out to be untrue.

Completely irrelevant. He could have been mistaken about everything else he ever said and still be correct about one thing. The point is his certitude does not matter.

Only because I believe people would conclude that he very well could have thought he was correct about this, but be wrong.

Again, this is a valid conclusion, so why are you worried that people might arrive at it?

This line of discussion came up because it was pointed out that Lessans sets up a textbook strawman to knock down when he talks about being positive and also correct. It is indeed extremely foolish and logically fallacious to conclude that he might be wrong because he was positive. Fortunately, no one actually thinks that. Instead, the actual viewpoint he attempts to disprove by instead disproving this fanciful representation of it is that he could be wrong despite being positive. This viewpoint is logically sound, and applies to every idea and ideologue anywhere, ever.

To reiterate: the entire point here is that his positivity, his certitude, his assurance that he is correct does not matter. His ideas, like all others, must stand on their own merits. That you believe those merits to be sufficient, while seemingly everyone else does not, is a separate discussion.

Oh, and I've read the book, thanks, I have no burning desire to read it again, so don't waste your time copy-pasting it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's try again: I believe there is a possibility that Lessans could have been wrong regarding something about which he was positive that he was correct, but not in reference to his three discoveries.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That's better. Still a little hedging there and it is not at all clear why those three things ought to merit an exemption, but it appears we are making progress.

They don't require an exemption Angakuk. He is using a mathematical standard.

Is there
the slightest possibility that your head full of knowledge does not
contain as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you
gamble your life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or
is there just the remotest chance that you only think you know?
What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your
knowledge and wisdom; the fact that it was taught in college?
Is your determination of truth based on the fact that it was written
by a notedauthor, composed from your own analysis and understanding,
or revealed through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain,
so positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three
forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion
and education — the most dangerous thinking of all; the kind that
really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed but because of
some fallacious standard presumes it does, I have found it necessary
to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope
that I can break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and
reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated
relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic
explosion destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest with yourselves;
do you really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there
is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with
the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things
despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I
know this is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest
possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to
yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard otherwise
you had better not read this book for my words are not meant for your
ears.

But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage I would
like to remind you, once again, that this book is not a religious or
philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination;
it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the word God seem
incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will understand
immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical
reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and
crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This next question is not quite so simple, as it can't easily be answered with a simple yes or no (you ought to like that).

What would it take to convince you that Lessans was wrong about something (excluding the three discoveries) about which he was positive that he was correct?

A little bit of wisdom for you. Of course people are going to use your words against you. The only way for anyone to prevent having their words used against them is for them to remain perpetually silent. Therefore, if you are afraid of having your words used against you, then you should not be here (or anywhere) discussing or promoting anything.

He might have been wrong about a chess move. He actually bought a book on strategy. He loved to play this game; it was a challenge to him. He might also have been wrong about directions. He didn't have a GPS system, so he may have admitted that he made a wrong turn.

[Angakuk]

[quote=peacegirl;954613]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

They don't require an exemption Angakuk. He is using a mathematical standard.

No, he is not. Or, if he is, then he has neglected to share this standard with the reader so that the reader may apply the standard him/herself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He might have been wrong about a chess move. He actually bought a book on strategy. He loved to play this game; it was a challenge to him, as well as billiards, which was his favorite.

Completely irrelevant and non-responsive. I did not ask you for an example of one time that he might of been wrong. I asked you to provide the criteria that you would use to determine whether or not he had been wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the reason I didn't say that is because people would conclude that if he could be mistaken about a thing even if he was certain he was correct, then he could be mistaken about these particular ideas.

Originally Posted by Kael

Emphasis mine. Since this is an entirely true statement, why would you be concerned that people might come to this conclusion?

Because I want them to be excited about reading the book, and somehow they could misconstrue his positiveness with falaciousness.

I have to say, in all honesty, I don't remember him ever saying he was absolutely certain about something math related which turned out to be untrue.

Originally Posted by Kael

Completely irrelevant. He could have been mistaken about everything else he ever said and still be correct about one thing. The point is his certitude does not matter.

It does matter.

Only because I believe people would conclude that he very well could have thought he was correct about this, but be wrong.

Originally Posted by Kael

Again, this is a valid conclusion, so why are you worried that people might arrive at it?

To use a premise that he has been certain he was right, but found out he was wrong, therefore he could be certain and wrong here too, is valid. But I never heard him espouse that he was certain about something where it required mathematical analysis, and realized that he was wrong. The only time he would ever say he was wrong is if a math problem didn't work out. Then he obviously would be wrong. But this math problem did work out.

Originally Posted by Kael

This line of discussion came up because it was pointed out that Lessans sets up a textbook strawman to knock down when he talks about being positive and also correct.

That was not a strawman in the way you're describing. He was showing how other people think, not what is true. He never implied that the reason he was correct was because he was positive. That's baloney.

Originally Posted by Kael

It is indeed extremely foolish and logically fallacious to conclude that he might be wrong because he was positive.

Yes, it is foolish. That's why he wrote it.

Originally Posted by Kael

Fortunately, no one actually thinks that. Instead, the actual viewpoint he attempts to disprove by instead disproving this fanciful representation of it is that he could be wrong despite being positive. This viewpoint is logically sound, and applies to every idea and ideologue anywhere, ever.

He was trying to show that this line of reasoning may preclude people from reading the book because they may assume that being positive automatically translates to being "wrong", because other people have been positive and wrong also. They are correct that being positive has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is whether he is using accurate reasoning ability, astute observational skills, and a strict mathematical standard by which to judge the veracity of this knowledge.

Originally Posted by Kael

To reiterate: the entire point here is that his positivity, his certitude, his assurance that he is correct does not matter. His ideas, like all others, must stand on their own merits. That you believe those merits to be sufficient, while seemingly everyone else does not, is a separate discussion.

Oh, and I've read the book, thanks, I have no burning desire to read it again, so don't waste your time copy-pasting it.

I am allowed to cut and paste the passages that are relevant to this discussion. If you don't want to read it, don't read it.

[Kael]

Of course you are 'allowed' to post walls of copy-pasta instead of actually applying your mind and putting things in your own words. I simply wanted to inform you that the effort is wasted, at least with regard to me.

I also feel compelled (likely of my own free will) to once again inform you that calling it "mathematical" over and over will not change the criteria of what constitutes and actual mathematical proposition, nor will it suddenly make your father's work meet those criteria.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

They don't require an exemption Angakuk. He is using a mathematical standard.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, he is not. Or, if he is, then he has neglected to share this standard with the reader so that the reader may apply the standard him/herself.

He did the best he could. That you don't follow his reasoning does not negate its accuracy.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This next question is not quite so simple, as it can't easily be answered with a simple yes or no (you ought to like that).

What would it take to convince you that Lessans was wrong about something (excluding the three discoveries) about which he was positive that he was correct?

A little bit of wisdom for you. Of course people are going to use your words against you. The only way for anyone to prevent having their words used against them is for them to remain perpetually silent. Therefore, if you are afraid of having your words used against you, then you should not be here (or anywhere) discussing or promoting anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He might have been wrong about a chess move. He actually bought a book on strategy. He loved to play this game; it was a challenge to him, as well as billiards, which was his favorite.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Completely irrelevant and non-responsive.

It wouldn't take much to convince me that Lessans was wrong about something that he was positive about, because this happened on occasion. I know he was human and got things wrong. I'm not just a believer because he was my father and he could do no wrong. I added in the last post that he may have got his directions wrong even though he believed he was going the right way. In those days they didn't have GPS. He would have gladly admitted his mistake. I don't know why you keep harping on this. I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST ANGAKUK!

[SharonDee]

Out of context theater!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is foolish. That's why he wrote it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Of course you are 'allowed' to post walls of copy-pasta instead of actually applying your mind and putting things in your own words. I simply wanted to inform you that the effort is wasted, at least with regard to me.

I have no control over your actions. Whatever gives you greater satisfaction you should do.

Originally Posted by Kael

I also feel compelled (likely of my own free will) to once again inform you that calling it "mathematical" over and over will not change the criteria of what constitutes and actual mathematical proposition, nor will it suddenly make your father's work meet those criteria.

It doesn't matter what word you use Kael. These relations are undeniable, and reveal a law of man's nature that was never fully understood.

[LadyShea]

It is a truthful, scientifically proven, linguistically sound, and undeniable FACT that the act of seeing is the act of acquiring information...yet you happily and repeatedly deny that fact peacegirl.

I am afraid that certainly makes you appear to be a fundamentalist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The font is a problem right off the bat. It is terrible on the eyes. I would use Arial or Times or something very standard.

The font online is much lighter than the actual book. I tried a darker font originally using a smaller font size. I thought it was too hard on the eyes, even though it was about 40 pages less. Then I went up a font size which made it easier to read, but more pages. You can't go by what you see online.

I tried to replace IBM with financial tracking system, but it doesn't work in many of the sentences that require something more specific. I think I better leave well enough alone. I told people that he lived in the 20th century. Shouldn't that be enough? Also, he used the term International Bureau of Internal Revenue. Wasn't that what you suggested?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is a truthful, scientifically proven, linguistically sound, and undeniable FACT that the act of seeing is the act of acquiring information...yet you happily and repeatedly deny that fact peacegirl.

I am afraid that certainly makes you appear to be a fundamentalist.

LadyShea, it's all about your definition of "information." I am not disputing that the propogation of light transmits information from point A to point B, and that we see the results of that transmission. But efferent sight has nothing to do with acquiring information faster than the speed of light. It doesn't even fit because nothing is traveling. Physics states that there is nothing that can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Comparing these two things is like putting apples and hot dogs in the same food category.

You gave the example of a simple sea creature with no brain that was acquiring information from light. But how in the world can a sea creature acquire information without a brain? Even the strawman knew that in The Wizard of Oz. As I said earlier, the creature might be having a reflexive reaction that was there to help him survive, but you can't say that the protective mechanism that occurred (which evolved over time) had anything to do with his ability to acquire information.