A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really not see any inconsistency in claiming that our experiments don't count because they were (allegedly) not suffciently controlled, and also that your anecdotes should count despite being completely uncontrolled?

Why do you suppose it is that you have such completely different standards of evidence for that which you think supports Lessans vs. that which you think does not?

There is nothing wrong with empirical testing, but sometimes the experiment itself is flawed and as a result it may appear that something is true when it really isn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can wrong conclusions ever some out of well-intended anecdotal and uncontrolled observations? The inconsistency you claim not to be able to see, is that on the one hand you claim that adequate controls are required, while on the other hand you claim they are not necessary at all. Do you see it now?

But you do. For evidence against Lessans, you insist that it must have adequate controls. But for (alleged) evidence in his favor you insist that completely uncontrolled anecdotal observations should count. Those are different standards of evidence.

But Lessans' observations are much more than anecdotal. I am just confirming that I have never seen dogs recognize anyone from a picture, but this is not what I'm using as proof. I told you that Lessans came to this conclusion in an indirect way, and only after years and years of reading and study. Yes, it would have been nice if he had started out with a theory, and then looked to see if his theory was correct through empirical testing, but this is not how it happened. It was not his intention to discover anything. He had no theories; he had no presuppositions; he had no hypothesis. He didn't even think about the eyes, or whether man's will was free or not. After years of reading, he had a revelation when he heard a preacher say that man's will is free, and something bothered him, but he didn't know what. That's when it all started. This dissatisfaction with the present understanding of determinism put him on a new course of reasoning, which led him to these incredible findings, along with his discovery regarding the eyes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with empirical testing, but sometimes the experiment itself is flawed and as a result it may appear that something is true when it really isn't.

How do you determine whether an experiment was flawed or not, especially if you don't even read the study?

[Vivisectus]

Yes, a photograph of the object-word relation has to be taken first. In other words, first we see the object in real time, and then we attach a word to it which forms a mental slide in our brain. This is exactly how it works.

If that is how sight works, then once we have the slide for "daffodil", we would simply see them all the same. This is not what happens: we receive information from the eyes, and then classify what we see as a flower, of the species daffodil.

If this was not the case, we would simply see the same slide over and over. In stead we can recognize a daffodil even if it has been half-destroyed by SOME CLUMSY OAF OF A DOG WHO HAS BEEN A VERY VERY BAD GIRL - apologies, this is a sore subject for me at the moment.

The point is - there is no word-slide for daffodil-with-some-petals-missing, Daffodil-that-has-been-completely-squished, Daffodil-that-has-been-completely-squished-in-a-different-way, Daffodil-that-is-only-half-squished... etc etc etc.

[Vivisectus]

Yes, it would have been nice if he had started out with a theory, and then looked to see if his theory was correct through empirical testing,

Correction: it would have been scientific, rather than mystical. As it is, we have all this based on non-repeatable, purely personal "astute observations" which are not distinguishable from mystical insights.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see no reason to believe that she is that different from scores and scores of fundamentalist believers anywhere. The owners and operators of the Creation Museum ignore just as much reality as she does, and I don't see anyone trying to get them institutionalized, while many of them admit to hearing voices!

I get a little worried sometimes when she gets very incoherent without noticing, as she does seem very confused when that happens. But I am sure that this is merely caused by the fact that her belief is so strong and yet also in such strong conflict with reality. I would be surprised if she had similar difficulties in everyday life, as she has no need to deny reality there.

In fact, I very much doubt anyone else is aware that she holds these beliefs. You can see both in the book and from her statements that built into her belief are explanations for the disbelief of the rest of the world, and reasons why she could not simply start the revolution herself. It is always someone else's fault: biased scientists, politicians and priests with vested interests in the status quo, close-minded people, etc etc etc.

There are also explanations for why she has not simply begun to live according to the book herself: she has to exist in a "free will environment". This is why her children were schooled normally, why they dated, why it seems they are completely unaware of or just avoiding anything to do with the book.

So the beliefs are pretty well insulated from the real world. This is necessary to retain the belief, otherwise the conflicts with reality would be too obvious. But when there are no irrational beliefs to defend, I very much doubt she has much of a problem with anything.

This is all very reasonable sounding, but in my experience fundamentalists and others with strong beliefs do not hide them or try to insulate their beliefs from the rest of society. Most religions teach that you should live as you believe. So If what you say is the case with Peacegirl, then she is much different than other fundamentalists and could be an indicator that she does, in fact, understand that what she is professing on the internet is at odds with reality. One thing that would seperate Peacegirls belief from reality is that if she is institutionalized or under someones close supervision, where she is cared for and does not need to have much contact with the rest of the world. I would have a hard time believing that Peacegirl believes her fathers ideas as strongly as it appears on this forum and yet functions in the real world with no outward sign of her beliefs, or without trying to convince others of the truth of these principles.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are constantly focusing on the light ONLY, because this is the only way you can logically reconcile this apparent discrepancy, but that's only because you are thinking terms of light + travel = destination.

And that is because this is the way vision works in the real world, and there is no discrepancy with afferent vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that is because this is the way vision works in the real world, and there is no discrepancy with afferent vision.

Exactly right. The only discrepancy is the one Lessans created...there is no reason at all to think that light + travel = destination isn't an accurate description of reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's true that the object must be in view, then the light becomes a mirror image

You are positing additional assumptions (Occam's razor, remember?) without explaining them. How does light "become" a mirror image, and what exactly is the mirror image? What is the location of this mirror image? If it is made of light (ie photons) how did the photons GET to be at the mirror image's location?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you determine whether an experiment was flawed or not, especially if you don't even read the study?

Because I know dogs can't recognize photographs, just as I know that efferent vision requires the object to be in view. If that is not the first premise, it is logically impossible to recognize the truth. That's why, ironically, to satisfy your need to see proof, it will require empirical evidence (which is biased from the start) because every single test expects to find the result that satisfies afferent vision. Can you see the humor in this? I need the empirical evidence that you rely on to prove that Lessans was right, yet this is not how he uncovered this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly right. The only discrepancy is the one Lessans created...there is no reason at all to think that light + travel = destination isn't an accurate description of reality.

You are positing additional assumptions (Occam's razor, remember?) without explaining them. How does light "become" a mirror image, and what exactly is the mirror image? What is the location of this mirror image? If it is made of light (ie photons) how did the photons GET to be at the mirror image's location?

But it is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I know dogs can't recognize photographs

And how did you come to know this? What methodology do you use to determine the truth of something?

"Because Lessans said so" isn't a rational thought process. "Because I have never seen it" isn't a rational thought process. Certainly refusing to look at data and evidence that might refute your beliefs is the epitome of irrationality and the definition of confirmation bias.

Do you enjoy being thought of as ignorant and irrational?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is.

I know that efferent vision requires the object to be in view. If that is not the first premise, it is logically impossible to recognize the truth. That's why, ironically, to satisfy your need to see proof, it will require empirical evidence (which is biased from the start) because every single test expects to find the result that satisfies afferent vision. Can you see the humor in this? I need the empirical evidence that you rely on to prove that Lessans was right, yet this is not how he uncovered this knowledge.

And again, you're surprised that people think you're just a fundie with a different religion?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have yet to observe a dog recognize his master from a picture by a wag of his tail or any other sign that would be telling.

Well if that is what you want, I have had several dogs and have been associated with many more owned by others and every time I showed them a picture of myself they would wag their tails and show great recognition of my image in the photo, as if to say they recognezed the me in the photo and saw the resemblance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know this is anecdotal but empirical observation counts.

Could you describe what constitutes an 'emperical observation' and what are the standards and controls that would make them valid?

Bump Please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I know dogs can't recognize photographs,

So you start with your conclusion and this becomes the litmus test for any experiment.

[LadyShea]

Look peacegirl, reality check time.

After a year of this, it should be obvious to you that you are incapable of offering the kind of evidence and argumentation needed to persuade or convince this group of people that Lessans was anything other than a guy with some thoughts he put on paper.

Maybe you're right and this is because we are closed minded and indoctrinated. Maybe you're right that we are only hurting ourselves. That's on us. But, by continuing you are hurting yourself because every minute you spend here is a futile one.

You could be learning to build a website. You could be learning to self publish eBooks. You could be searching for a more receptive group of people. You could be recording a lecture series for YouTube. You could be writing a blog. You could be thinking up possible empirical tests. You could be studying the available literature on all these topics to find the holes that Lessans ideas fill or finding the heretofore unanswered questions that Lessans ideas answer. You could be in a University getting the credentials needed to present this work from a place of authority (since you think that was a big factor in Lessans failure to get the work looked at).

But no, you are here, at talking to a handful of people who think you are bonkers. That seems counterproductive to reaching your goals.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If that is how sight works, then once we have the slide for "daffodil", we would simply see them all the same. This is not what happens: we receive information from the eyes, and then classify what we see as a flower, of the species daffodil.

That's not true Vivsectus, because the light that is there is used to see the object, so if it is a different daffodil, that is what will be seen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If this was not the case, we would simply see the same slide over and over. In stead we can recognize a daffodil even if it has been half-destroyed by SOME CLUMSY OAF OF A DOG WHO HAS BEEN A VERY VERY BAD GIRL - apologies, this is a sore subject for me at the moment.

I know you love your dog and I don't want you to bring anything into the conversation that upsets you. But honestly, I want to explain that light provides a mirror image. This will show up on film because the mirror image is exactly what we see in real time because there's no time involvement.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point is - there is no word-slide for daffodil-with-some-petals-missing, Daffodil-that-has-been-completely-squished, Daffodil-that-has-been-completely-squished-in-a-different-way, Daffodil-that-is-only-half-squished... etc etc etc.

You're right Vivisectus, but as Lessans explained, recognition is not only about commonalities, it is the ability to distinguish differences, which takes words, and this is a huge part of the equation which no one seems to be taking into account. I will repeat this excerpt because you obviously didn't get it the first time, which is understandable. Why do you think he said you need to read the book two or three times. But no one gives a dam. They think they know it all.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 127

Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed. She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter
can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs
because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her
mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these
names and words her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized
and when she sees these differences again she projects the word or
name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is
formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or
words we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Look peacegirl, reality check time.

After a year of this, it should be obvious to you that you are incapable of offering the kind of evidence and argumentation needed to persuade or convince this group of people that Lessans was anything other than a guy with some thoughts he put on paper.

Maybe you're right and this is because we are closed minded and indoctrinated. Maybe you're right that we are only hurting ourselves. That's on us. But, by continuing you are hurting yourself because every minute you spend here is a futile one.

Probably.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You could be learning to build a website. You could be learning to self publish eBooks. You could be searching for a more receptive group of people. You could be recording a lecture series for YouTube. You could be writing a blog. You could be thinking up possible empirical tests. You could be studying the available literature on all these topics to find the holes that Lessans ideas fill or finding the heretofore unanswered questions that Lessans ideas answer.

STOP RIGHT THERE! I KNEW YOU HAD A MOTIVE. THIS WAS NOT ABOUT HELPING LESSANS. THIS WAS ABOUT KEEPING THE STATUS QUO SO YOU CUOLD BE THE QUEEN BEE OF THIS THREAD. I REALLY SEE THROUGH YOU LADYSHEA, AS SAD AS THIS IS.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You could be in a University getting the credentials needed to present this work from a place of authority (since you think that was a big factor in Lessans failure to get the work looked at).

Fuck that, okay? Lessans was exhausted and I'm exhausted. I will not jump through any more hoops.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But no, you are here, at talking to a handful of people who think you are bonkers. That seems counterproductive to reaching your goals.

It does, but someone may read this post and be interested. You don't know where interest will come from, so I am not thinking this is a lost cause, but it is now turning into a cost/benefit decision for me to stay.

[LadyShea]

I didn't pretend to have a motive to help Lessans. Duh. As I said, he was a guy who wrote down some ideas. And LOL at the speculation as to my "true" motives. I have no desire to be a Queen Bee...Queen Bee of what? The 5 people who still read this thread?, Anyway if I wanted to be pedastled I would have my own blog or my own website or my own book or lecture series or whatever, because I know how to do all those things.

I am trying to help you. You're exhausted you say? From what do you think?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't pretend to have a motive to help Lessans. Duh. As I said, he was a guy who wrote down some ideas.

I am trying to help you. You're exhausted you say? From what do you think?

From trying to defend him, and prove he was right. I appreciate your trying to help me LadyShea, and I am very grateful.

[davidm]

lol, queen bee Shea!

PEACEGIRL SEES THROUGH YOU LADYSHEA, STOP RIGHT THERE YOU ARE RUNINING IT FOR EVERYONE!1.

Another reality check for peacegirl: NO ONE is ever going to read this nonsense and conclude that it is anything but nonsense, unless you can find some really uneducated and gullible people. You won't find them at FF.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no desire to be a Queen Bee...Queen Bee of what? The 5 people who still read this thread?, Anyway if I wanted to be pedastled I would have my own blog or my own website or my own book or lecture series or whatever, because I know how to do all those things.

'Queen Bee'? Must be the 'Fairy' wings on your avatar.

The only pedastal I would be interested in would be the ones my grandchildren put me on, but they would only put me there to knock me off when they call me 'Grumpa'.

[LadyShea]

By the way, since I am sure you haven't noticed, you have competition here at , a new member, michaelsherlock, has also written a book he is peddling, with what he claims is the answer to war and poverty and crime and suffering. Those "interested readers" might pick his way over Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

lol, queen bee Shea!

PEACEGIRL SEES THROUGH YOU LADYSHEA, STOP RIGHT THERE YOU ARE RUNINING IT FOR EVERYONE!1.

Another reality check for peacegirl: NO ONE is ever going to read this nonsense and conclude that it is anything but nonsense, unless you can find some really uneducated and gullible people. You won't find them at FF.

Thankyou, I really appreciate that.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true Vivsectus, because the light that is there is used to see the object, so if it is a different daffodil, that is what will be seen.

I know you love your dog and I don't want you to bring anything into the conversation that upsets you. But honestly, I want to explain that light provides a mirror image. This will show up on film because the mirror image is exactly what we see in real time because there's no time involvement.

You're right Vivisectus, but as Lessans explained, recognition is not only about commonalities, it is the ability to distinguish differences, which takes words, and this is a huge part of the equation which no one seems to be taking into account. I will repeat this excerpt because you obviously didn't get it the first time, which is understandable. Why do you think he said you need to read the book two or three times. But no one gives a dam. They think they know it all.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 127

Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed. She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter
can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs
because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her
mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these
names and words her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized
and when she sees these differences again she projects the word or
name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is
formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or
words we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

That really is the most demented nonsense I have ever heard. And none of this deals with the problem of categories.