A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would know if they had read the book in full because the questions would be different.

Just what sort of questions are you looking for? Perhaps you should post questions and answers that will help people better understand the book. Many sites have a list of FAQs to help new users, if you were to make up several questions that you think are important and post the answers, it may help, and would prevent others asking questions that you feel are not relevant.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just what sort of questions are you looking for? Perhaps you should post questions and answers that will help people better understand the book. Many sites have a list of FAQs to help new users, if you were to make up several questions that you think are important and post the answers, it may help, and would prevent others asking questions that you feel are not relevant.

Of course "FAQ" would no longer seem to be the appropriate term.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Are you paraphrasing peacegirl? Has she posted something similar in the past?

I would guess that she was examining the outer surface of her molars with the tip of her tongue.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course "FAQ" would no longer seem to be the appropriate term.

I was merely useing FAQs as an example of how questions and answers are posted to pre-empt a lot of questions being asked by new users.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course "FAQ" would no longer seem to be the appropriate term.

I would say that if peacegirl has accomplished anything on her forays onto the internet it would have to be a list of frequently asked questions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Are you paraphrasing peacegirl? Has she posted something similar in the past?

Nah, just poking fun at the phony dialog peacegirl filled the book with.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I was merely useing FAQs as an example of how questions and answers are posted to pre-empt a lot of questions being asked by new users.

Of course. I was just pointing out the irony. It wasn't meant as a criticism. It seems the questions she wants to answer are not those which are frequently asked.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I would say that if peacegirl has accomplished anything on her forays onto the internet it would have to be a list of frequently asked questions.

But it seems that those are not the ones that she wants to answer.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nah, just poking fun at the phony dialog peacegirl filled the book with.

You are probably on to something. Since peacegirl wrote the phony dialog they probably represent the questions she is expecting. The dialog is more of a script we are supposed to follow.

[LadyShea]

She admitted as much, she said the dialog was created to answer anticipated questions.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His conclusions can't be falsified because they're not false.

Please learn what the term "falsifiable" means. Every scientific theory is falsifiable, even the ones that are not false. It's a critical component of the scientific method, and often used in mathematical proofs, logical proofs, and philosophy.

[naturalist.atheist]

Her illness and the book are strongly coupled. She could easily be a twisted character in an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You are probably on to something. Since peacegirl wrote the phony dialog they probably represent the questions she is expecting. The dialog is more of a script we are supposed to follow.

If someone were a horribly cruel person, they could read the book and post questions exactly as Lessans/peacegirl expected.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

If someone were a horribly cruel person, they could read the book and post questions exactly as Lessans/peacegirl expected.

I don't know which is crueler, asking her questions she clearly does not understand over and over and getting the same incoherent, inconsistent babble over and over again, or asking her questions she is prepared to answer and letting her repeat what she has scripted and posted over and over again.

It's babble either way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. Without independent validation, or even the possibility for it independent validation, it remains an assertion

If it ain't testable, it ain't scientific.

You have no idea how ignorant you sound. I do not desire to discuss this book with you any further.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea how ignorant you sound. I do not desire to discuss this book with you any further.

Oh but you will. You can't stop.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't know which is crueler, asking her questions she clearly does not understand over and over and getting the same incoherent, inconsistent babble over and over again, or asking her questions she is prepared to answer and letting her repeat what she has scripted and posted over and over again.

It's babble either way.

I think that generating false hope (and the delusion of having an acolyte) would be more cruel than exposing her to the truth. It would only encourage the dysfunctional thinking.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea how ignorant you sound. I do not desire to discuss this book with you any further.

Ignorant of what?

And who are you kidding anyway? You could just stop posting, yet you come here to tell me you don't want to talk to me anymore

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

How would they be different?

People would understand what he's talking about. They would ask questions about the two-sided equation and how it relates to the different areas of human relation. No one even understands what his discovery is. In all of these pages, I can't believe how little progress has been made. The only two refutations came from Angakuk and Vivisectus, but I tried to show them that their argument did not prove him wrong. Other than those two, Spacemonkey is the only person who has relevant questions, but his interrogation is getting to me.

Angakuk tried to refute his claim by saying that if we have two things that satisfy us exactly the same, then we can't be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction because they both give us the same satisfaction. That doesn't prove this knowledge wrong. I tried to explain that no matter what a person's next move is, it is in the direction of greater satisfaction. For example, if I don't know what to choose because I like both choices the same, I may decide to go eenie-meenie-miney-mo, flip a coin, let someone else choose for me, walk away from either choice because I would rather choose nothing than choose something, but this IS STILL A MOVEMENT IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. Even the donkey example only means that he is paralyzed to make either choice, but eventually he must choose something, or die. Most people will decide whether to drink or eat before their paralysis of not knowing which to choose would kill them.

The second refutation was that Lessans didn't distinguish between other people forcing us to do things against our will which obviously Lessans was not referring to because this relates to someone doing something to us which we may not be able to control -- and the fact that nothing can make us do something against our will, which is a true statement (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink).

Vivisectus tried to refute the fact that a blame filled environment does not cause a lesser conscience. He said that an analogy would be like firemen are the cause of fires. That's not a good analogy because firemen don't cause fires, but a blame filled environment does weaken conscience.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think that generating false hope (and the delusion of having an acolyte) would be more cruel than exposing her to the truth. It would only encourage the dysfunctional thinking.

From what I've seen the constant repitition is making it easier for her to keep her delusions. It might be more of a shock to her if people played along but made it obvious that it was only for the sake of her mental illness.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered your question, and it was not contradictory.

No you didn't, and yes it was:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The white light is constantly bouncing off of the object with the blue light in it.

The blue wavelength light is not bouncing off of anything...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you didn't, and yes it was:

But isn't that (N) light and (P) light that act different?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People would understand what he's talking about. They would ask questions about the two-sided equation and how it relates to the different areas of human relation.

Why would people ask questions if they understood what Lessans was talking about? Is there some specific question about the two sided equation that people have not been asking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Ignorant of what?

And who are you kidding anyway? You could just stop posting, yet you come here to tell me you don't want to talk to me anymore

Your attitude is obnoxious LadyShea. You keep screaming that it's an assertion, and it's not. You keep telling me that it's a modal fallacy, and it's not. You keep telling me that it's a tautology, and it's not. You keep telling me that it's a mess, and it's not. So rather than me getting upset, I would rather not talk to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Why would people ask questions if they understood what Lessans was talking about? Is there some specific question about the two sided equation that people have not been asking.

I went over the two-sided equation a long time ago but I didn't realize how little of Chapter One was understood. Spacemonkey is on the right track. He's trying to understand how it is possible to not make other people blameworthy for the same wrongdoing that we would hold ourselves responsible for. That is all answered in Chapter Two which we're never going to get to.