A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not true LadyShea. The way this knowledge has been handled, is the problem. There is no weaseling or dissembling. That's all in your head.

LOL, this thread contains plenty of proof of your weaseling and dissembling. You can't delete it or edit it. Your words stand and you can't disclaim them now.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread has already been ruined, which is exactly what David (who is threatened by this knowledge) hoped to achieve.

Now I am the one who ruined it for everyone! Take that, LadyShea.




Just to rub peacegirl's snout in it: Nobody but you is threatened by knowledge. The proven knowledge that we see Jupiter's moons in delayed time by itself already completely destroys all of Lessans' claims about light and sight. And that is what you can't have. It terrifies you to face reality, and learn that you've wasted your life on nonsense. And rather than thank the people here who have gone far out of their way to try to educate you, you continue to insult us and whine. Do you think anyone reading this thread thinks otherwise?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now I am the one who ruined it for everyone! Take that, LadyShea.




Just to rub peacegirl's snout in it: Nobody but you is threatened by knowledge. The proven knowledge that we see Jupiter's moons in delayed time by itself already completely destroys all of Lessans' claims about light and sight. And that is what you can't have. It terrifies you to face reality, and learn that you've wasted your life on nonsense. And rather than thank the people here who have gone far out of their way to try to educate you, you continue to insult us and whine. Do you think anyone reading this thread thinks otherwise?

Everything you say is a slight David, and nothing you say will make one bit of difference in the long run.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, this thread contains plenty of proof of your weaseling and dissembling. You can't delete it or edit it. Your words stand and you can't disclaim them now.

When people read this thread, once this knowledge is confirmed valid by other sources, they will see what I was up against. I am not worried at all.

[LadyShea]

When people read this thread, once this knowledge is confirmed valid by other sources, they will see what I was up against.

Confirmed valid by what other sources? Who exactly do you think will confirm it valid? Certainly not any scientists.

I am not worried at all.

Then why are you still here? It seems to me you are trying to "clear your name" or something because I can't even fathom any other purpose your being here could have.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When people read this thread, once this knowledge is confirmed valid by other sources, they will see what I was up against. I am not worried at all.

Before any knowledge can be confirmed as valid it has to actually be valid, unfortunately most of the knowledge in the book is invalid and has been demonstrated so, and other ideas are speculation that are not subject to emperical testing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you say is a slight David, and nothing you say will make one bit of difference in the long run.

Nothing I say, or you say, or anyone says makes a whit of difference about what's true or not. It's just not true that we see in real time. This is a fact not because we say so, but because it's a fact. We are only messengers, plenipotentiaries from the realm of reality trying to get messages from the real world through your thick skull. We have repeatedly shown this to you, that we do not and indeed cannot see in real time, and you've never been able to rebut what you have been shown, have you? Hey, peacegirl, why do we use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars? See? How many times have you been asked that question, and you never can answer that one simple question can you? And you can't answer it because there is no answer that is consistent with Lessans' real-time seeing claims. Rather than just admit the obvious -- that reality demonstrates Lessans to be wrong -- you instead lie and dodge and weasel and waffle and insult us. And you wonder why people find you contemptible.

[thedoc]

There is one question, at least to me, and that is why does she continue to persist in the face of overwhelming evidence that she is wrong. I understand that many atribute it to mental illness, but there are times when that doesn't seem to be the entire story. To my thinking if she were really as mentally ill as some think, her responses would not be as consistant as they are, and in some ways they seem to indicate some cleverness and direction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Confirmed valid by what other sources? Who exactly do you think will confirm it valid? Certainly not any scientists.

Not true LadyShea. You have been wrong that his observations are nothing but assertions. There will be scientists who will give this knowledge the time of day, and will do empirical testing if that is what's called for. I'm not surprised by the response since anything that goes against the grain of modern thought is going to bring a negative response at first. Why do you think Schopenhauer said this:

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.

I am not worried at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why are you still here? It seems to me you are trying to "clear your name" or something because I can't even fathom any other purpose your being here could have.

Why do you keep hounding me on when I'm leaving? I'll leave when I get greater satisfaction than staying. It won't be long so you don't have to analyze my motives. Further, how can I clear my name when there is nothing to clear?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nothing I say, or you say, or anyone says makes a whit of difference about what's true or not. It's just not true that we see in real time. This is a fact not because we say so, but because it's a fact. We are only messengers, plenipotentiaries from the realm of reality trying to get messages from the real world through your thick skull. We have repeatedly shown this to you, that we do not and indeed cannot see in real time, and you've never been able to rebut what you have been shown, have you? Hey, peacegirl, why do we use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars? See? How many times have you been asked that question, and you never can answer that one simple question can you? And you can't answer it because there is no answer that is consistent with Lessans' real-time seeing claims. Rather than just admit the obvious -- that reality demonstrates Lessans to be wrong -- you instead lie and dodge and weasel and waffle and insult us. And you wonder why people find you contemptible.

It is a known fact that the speed of light measures distance, but that does not mean that light brings the image of the external world to the brain. Until further testing can conclusively prove that the eyes are afferent, I will side with Lessans because I believe he was right. I also said that what appears to be proof (such as the moons of Jupiter and the time/light delay) may only be circumstantial, which is why it's important to keep an open mind before making premature judgments. But, of course, you can't do that because you are way too threatened by these claims. If you weren't, you wouldn't be acting this way.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a known fact that the speed of light measures distance, but that does not mean that light brings the image of the external world to the brain. Until further testing can conclusively prove that the eyes are afferent, I will side with Lessans because I believe he was right. I also said that what appears to be proof (such as the moons of Jupiter and the time/light delay) may only be circumstantial, which is why it's important to keep an open mind before making premature judgments. But, of course, you can't do that because you are way too threatened by these claims. If you weren't, you wouldn't be acting this way.

As has been repeatedly explained to your goldfish brain, it's not JUST the moons of Jupiter and light-time delay for sending spacecraft to Mars and other places, it is EVERYTHING. Those are but two examples. Another example that has repeatedly been explained to Your Royal Highness is how the Hubble space telescope functions, and it COULD NOT function in the way that it does, if real-time seeing were true. And the best you can come up in reply is that these iron-clad disproofs of real-time seeing may only be circumstantial? What does that even mean, pray tell? Either we see in real time or we don't. We do the tests: moons of Jupiter, sending spacecraft to Mars, Hubble telescope, to name just three tests among countless others that have been carried out over the centuries. And when we do the tests, we find that we see in delayed time! Now what?

And, once again, asshat, for literally the thousandth time, science does not say that light brings an image to the eye. The image is in the mind, a function of the processing of photons meeting the eye in various light/dark/hue patterns. And you wonder why people here regard you as dishonest, stupid and utterly contemptible.

[LadyShea]

You have been wrong that his observations are nothing but assertions.

No I haven't been wrong at all.

There will be scientists who will give this knowledge the time of day, and will do empirical testing if that is what's called for.

I grant it is possible, but I predict it will not happen. You be sure to let me know if my prediction fails.

Why do you keep hounding me on when I'm leaving?

I am not hounding you on when you are leaving, I am asking you to share your motivation for staying....because it seems completely irrational given your feelings about the people here and the board's culture in general.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No I haven't been wrong at all.

I grant it is possible, but I predict it will not happen.

You can predict anything you want, but that doesn't make your predictions correct.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You be sure to let me know if my prediction fails.

I won't have to. It will be front page news, but most likely not in our lifetime.

Why do you keep hounding me on when I'm leaving?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not hounding you on when you are leaving, I am asking you to share your motivation for staying....because it seems completely irrational given your feelings about the people here and the board's culture in general.

My motivation for staying is as simple as getting caught up in the conversation again, but I see nothing has changed, so I'm not staying for long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

As has been repeatedly explained to your goldfish brain, it's not JUST the moons of Jupiter and light-time delay for sending spacecraft to Mars and other places, it is EVERYTHING. Those are but two examples. Another example that has repeatedly been explained to Your Royal Highness is how the Hubble space telescope functions, and it COULD NOT function in the way that it does, if real-time seeing were true. And the best you can come up in reply is that these iron-clad disproofs of real-time seeing may only be circumstantial? What does that even mean, pray tell? Either we see in real time or we don't. We do the tests: moons of Jupiter, sending spacecraft to Mars, Hubble telescope, to name just three tests among countless others that have been carried out over the centuries. And when we do the tests, we find that we see in delayed time! Now what?

And, once again, asshat, for literally the thousandth time, science does not say that light brings an image to the eye. The image is in the mind, a function of the processing of photons meeting the eye in various light/dark/hue patterns. And you wonder why people here regard you as dishonest, stupid and utterly contemptible.

What is bringing the light/dark/hue patterns praytell? LIGHT!!!!! But you can't automatically conclude that we see reality in our mind when this is the very thing that is being challenged.

[The Lone Ranger]

Regarding the perspicacity and infallibility of Arthur Schopenhauer:

"[W]oman is by nature meant to obey."

"Of Women" (1851)

Schopenhauer did not exactly have the highest opinion of women's intellectual capacities. Nor did he exactly have an infallible grasp of the scientific process.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is bringing the light/dark/hue patterns praytell? LIGHT!!!!! But you can't automatically conclude that we see reality in our mind when this is the very thing that is being challenged.

After this has been explained to you approximately 10,000 times, the only possible explanation for your saying something so mind-bogglingly stupid and ignorant is that your ignorance is willful.

Well, that or damage to the hippocampus.

[LadyShea]

Seeing as how shit Schopenhauer said is totally relevant

As a consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, woman has a smaller share of the advantages and disadvantages these bring with them. She is, rather, a mental myopic~Schopenhauer

[davidm]

Moreover, his quote:

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.

...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl?

[The Lone Ranger]

Similarly, Darwin's claim that species are not fixed, but that they evolve over time was accepted virtually instantly by the scientific community*. So were some of the basic tenets of Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

You'd be hard-pressed to find two theories that were more upsetting to the contemporary scientific status quo than these. So why is it that they were rapidly accepted by the scientific community, and not ridiculed?

Because they did a better job of explaining the world than did competing theories, and they were not contradicted by observations. Even more to the point, they made specific, testable predictions that were quickly confirmed by observations.


That the scientific community is a bunch of close-minded sorts who ridicule every new idea is not just demonstrably wrong, it's idiotic.


*That natural selection was the main driving force behind biological evolution took much longer to be established. Precisely because no one at the time knew of a good way to test that part of the theory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Regarding the perspicacity and infallibility of Arthur Schopenhauer:

"[W]oman is by nature meant to obey."

"Of Women" (1851)

Who said he was infallible? He could have been a curmudgeon for all I know, but that doesn't mean his quote was inaccurate.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Schopenhauer did not exactly have the highest opinion of women's intellectual capacities. Nor did he exactly have an infallible grasp of the scientific process.

Like I said, you can be good at one thing and not good at another. I'm not sure why you brought this up. Are you saying that because he wasn't a perfect man that his quotation should be dismissed as inaccurate?

[LadyShea]

The quote you used is not meaningful in any way since it doesn't hold true in most cases and is almost completely irrelevant in the context of today's scientific and technological environment.

It may have been relevant in the 19th century.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, his quote:

...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl?

He was in the genius category, which is why he wrote this:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

Gentlemen of the News Media,

It is extremely important that this knowledge, this discovery and
what it can accomplish for the benefit of all mankind, be brought to
light as quickly as possible. Otherwise the political parties that run
our lives, given enough time, will plunge us into another world war,
depression, or both, only because they and their advisors, although
they mean well, really don’t know what to do. Consequently, to
forestall the possibility of the judge assigned to this case ruling against
it, and to prevent President Carter from refusing again to grant this
audience, I appeal to you to make public this complaint so the people
can force the government to hear what I have to say. Respectfully
yours.

After that our political leaders had two choices; to believe that I
was a genius or a crackpot. Did I really give them a choice?

Obviously, he knew that if people didn't study his work carefully, they would put him in the crackpot category, which is what you are doing. No surprise.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is one question, at least to me, and that is why does she continue to persist in the face of overwhelming evidence that she is wrong. I understand that many atribute it to mental illness, but there are times when that doesn't seem to be the entire story. To my thinking if she were really as mentally ill as some think, her responses would not be as consistant as they are, and in some ways they seem to indicate some cleverness and direction.

If a clock consistently reads 3pm, no matter how many times it is wound or set, it is obvious it is broken. peacegirls consistency along with her obsessive behavior, various complexes and memory failures indicate her brain is broken.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was in the genius category, which is why he wrote this:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

Gentlemen of the News Media,

It is extremely important that this knowledge, this discovery and
what it can accomplish for the benefit of all mankind, be brought to
light as quickly as possible. Otherwise the political parties that run
our lives, given enough time, will plunge us into another world war,
depression, or both, only because they and their advisors, although
they mean well, really don’t know what to do. Consequently, to
forestall the possibility of the judge assigned to this case ruling against
it, and to prevent President Carter from refusing again to grant this
audience, I appeal to you to make public this complaint so the people
can force the government to hear what I have to say. Respectfully
yours.

After that our political leaders had two choices; to believe that I
was a genius or a crackpot. Did I really give them a choice?

Obviously, he knew that if people didn't study his work carefully, they would put him in the crackpot category, which is what you are doing. No surprise.

You're not exactly helping your case with that ...

[ceptimus]

Jimmy Carter was president from 1977-81.

How much progress has been made in getting these ideas accepted over the last thirty years?