A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I wouldn't answer questions to his second discovery...

Yes you did. Do you need me to remind you of your own words once again?

Mental illness aside, can you at least acknowledge that you have memory impairment?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have stated this on several occasions. Where did you get the idea that the posters at are supposed to be the "best of the best"? I am pretty sure that we have not made that claim.

Speak for yourself, pastor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Speak for yourself, pastor.

We all know that Davidm is 'the best of the best', but what is he 'best of'?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you did. Do you need me to remind you of your own words once again?

Mental illness aside, can you at least acknowledge that you have memory impairment?

She would if only she could remember.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I can't catch my breath because I'm laughing so hard. You have outdone yourself. I have tears streaming down my face as it contorts into weird configurations. You really missed your calling David, SERIOUSLY.

OK, peacegirl has a sense of humor. This means there is hope for her yet.

peacegirl, take Lessans' work as SATIRE, and you will be freed. It's very funny stuff, considered as satire.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that she doesn't believe in free will because of the advances in neuroscience.

No, not because of the "advances" in neuroscience, but because I think the whole concept of "free will" is meaningless and obsolete outside of theistic apologia. We can't choose against our own mind because our mind is what makes the choice. There is no soul separate from the mind, there is no outside "decider", the will cannot be separated from the decision making process...it's all our mind. Though it might very well be true that we always choose what we think is best for ourselves given the circumstances, that does not mean we MUST choose that way, nor can that element of necessary (ie MUST) be proven in any way.

But I want people to understand his reasoning, which is important to understanding the two-sided equation.

His reasoning wasn't difficult to understand, it was just circular and fallacious

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, not because of the "advances" in neuroscience, but because I think the whole concept of "free will" is meaningless and obsolete outside of theistic apologia. We can't choose against our own mind because our mind is what makes the choice. There is no soul separate from the mind, there is no outside "decider", the will cannot be separated from the decision making process...it's all our mind. Though it might very well be true that we always choose what we think is best for ourselves given the circumstances, that does not mean we MUST choose that way, nor can that be proven in any way.

His reasoning wasn't difficult to understand, it was just circular and fallacious

Just calling it circular reasoning is being very kind. He was either a twit or deliberately trying to deceive.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You sound like an interrogator Angakuk. What's up with that? No, I don't lie. She alluded to the fact that these people are some of the best and if they fail to see any validity to this discovery, no one else will either. Whether she said the best of the best is irrelevant; the point still stands.

Then show me where she said, alluded to, made reference to or implied that the professionals posting here were "some of the best". If you can't show me where Lady Shea wrote that, then have the decency to admit that you made it up.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

Speak for yourself, pastor.

Please note that I am not denying that we are "the best of the best". I am simply asking for evidence that Lady Shea, or anyone else (other than davidm, whom we all know is full of shit), ever made such a claim.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please note that I am not denying that we are "the best of the best". I am simply asking for evidence that Lady Shea, or anyone else (other than davidm, whom we all know is full of shit), ever made such a claim.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please note that I am not denying that we are "the best of the best". I am simply asking for evidence that Lady Shea, or anyone else (other than davidm, whom we all know is full of shit), ever made such a claim.

WHAT! Are you kidding me? Davidm, who is the very epitome of decorum and good taste?

[Angakuk]

Yeah, I am just kidding. David is a paragon of every virtue.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yeah, I am just kidding. David is a paragon of every virtue.

Thanks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, peacegirl has a sense of humor. This means there is hope for her yet.

peacegirl, take Lessans' work as SATIRE, and you will be freed. It's very funny stuff, considered as satire.

No David, it's not a satire so I can't pretend it is. I know you wish it was because then the conflict of real time vision vs. delayed vision would be gone, and everything would be honkey dorey!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, not because of the "advances" in neuroscience, but because I think the whole concept of "free will" is meaningless and obsolete outside of theistic apologia. We can't choose against our own mind because our mind is what makes the choice. There is no soul separate from the mind, there is no outside "decider", the will cannot be separated from the decision making process...it's all our mind. Though it might very well be true that we always choose what we think is best for ourselves given the circumstances, that does not mean we MUST choose that way, nor can that element of necessary (ie MUST) be proven in any way.

You are absolutely wrong LadyShea. You have not understood the proof whatsoever. This is the crux of the problem; you think your analysis of what he's written is accurate, and it's far from accurate. That's why I say you are arrogant. You aren't asking questions at all; you are confronting me without even understanding why our choices are not free. The fact that you say we MUST choose that way before the choice is made, shows me how confused you are.

But I want people to understand his reasoning, which is important to understanding the two-sided equation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His reasoning wasn't difficult to understand, it was just circular and fallacious

According to you, correct? Einstein didn't need your approval, and neither did Lessans. Just remember the following because it seems you are using certain standards that you believe can determine whether Lessans is right or wrong, and you have concluded that he is wrong. Just remember that this knowledge is not an opinion. Just maybe you will have the decency to stop acting as if you know he is wrong (because you don't), and give him the benefit of the doubt before throwing this knowledge into a scrap heap which you will eventually do if you keep on this path.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Then show me where she said, alluded to, made reference to or implied that the professionals posting here were "some of the best". If you can't show me where Lady Shea wrote that, then have the decency to admit that you made it up.

How am I supposed to find it in the midst of this jungle of a thread? Ask LadyShea. I wouldn't lie, at least not intentionally.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wouldn't lie, at least not intentionally.

Do you really think anyone here still views you as honest? The above is only true in the sense that you are too far gone to still be capable of recognizing your own pathological dishonesty, and so out of touch with reality that you may be capable of actually believing even the most transparent of falsehoods, at least at the time you post them. Plus your memory is so impaired that you likely do not remember how many times you've been caught out saying things that no cognitively functional person in your situation could possibly consider true. (Not that any sane person could ever be in your situation.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really think anyone here still views you as honest? The above is only true in the sense that you are too far gone to still be capable of recognizing your own pathological dishonesty, and so out of touch with reality that you may be capable of actually believing even the most transparent of falsehoods, at least at the time you post them. Plus your memory is so impaired that you likely do not remember how many times you've been caught out saying things that no cognitively functional person in your situation could possibly consider true. (Not that any sane person could ever be in your situation.)

If that's what you've gotten from these forums, then it's time for you to say goodbye. You have already committed yourself to the idea that Lessans is wrong, and I'm a nut, so please leave Spacemonkey. I know you believe your input is significant and more valid than Lessans. It is not. As a result, you may believe that any answer other than the one you want to hear means that I'm delusional. I am not. You may continue this analysis of me which compels you to believe I'm a fundie, which then becomes the focus, not the discovery. I am not a fundie. So go Spacemonkey, and have a good life. I'm really urging you to let this whole discussion go, because it's doing both of us no good. I hold nothing against you, but I don't think this relationship is good for either of us, even if you are one of the people I would have chosen to examine this work. Oh well, it wasn't meant to be.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's what you've gotten from these forums, then it's time for you to say goodbye. You have already committed yourself to the idea that Lessans is wrong, and I'm a nut, so please leave Spacemonkey. I know you believe your input is significant and more valid than Lessans. It is not. As a result, you may believe that any answer other than the one you want to hear means that I'm delusional. I am not. You may continue this analysis of me which compels you to believe I'm a fundie, which then becomes the focus, not the discovery. I am not a fundie. So go Spacemonkey, and have a good life. I'm really am urging you to let this whole thing go, just like you are urging me to give up on this discovery. I hold nothing against you, but I don't think this relationship is good for either of us, even if you are one of the people I would have chosen to examine this work. Oh well, it wasn't meant to be.

No, I'm not leaving. If you won't answer any of my questions, then I'll just stay and present you with the evidence of your own mental dysfunction. If you don't like that, then too bad. If everyone left here who thinks you're certifiably nuts, then you'd be left here alone with no-one at all to talk to. And if engaging in unhealthy behavior by staying is enough reason to leave, then you should be the first to go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm not leaving. If you won't answer any of my questions, then I'll just stay and present you with the evidence of your own mental dysfunction. If you don't like that, then too bad. If everyone left here who thinks you're certifiably nuts, then you'd be left here alone with no-one at all to talk to. And if engaging in unhealthy behavior by staying is enough reason to leave, then you should be the first to go.

Oh my god, don't you have a clue as to what you're doing? NA's constant badgering has really gotten to you. I now put you in a category of someone who is so off the mark that I refuse to talk to you, unless, you change your attitude. I am not here to be attacked, degraded, and made to feel that I am mentally ill for believing very strongly that Lessans was right. When he is proven right, what will you have to say then Spacemonkey? And don't tell me this can't happen because you know he's wrong.

[LadyShea]

You are absolutely wrong LadyShea. You have not understood the proof whatsoever. This is the crux of the problem; you think your analysis of what he's written is accurate, and it's far from accurate. That's why I say you are arrogant. You aren't asking questions at all; you are confronting me without even understanding why our choices are not free. The fact that you say we MUST choose that way before the choice is made, shows me how confused you are.

You have always been confused about the difference between necessary truths and actual truths. When you say people are compelled to choose, and when you say they had to have chosen the way they do, you are introducing the must ahead of time.

The most you can say is that people did choose the way the did and that you believe, think, or of the opinion that the choice was in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Here's a question from long ago

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One cannot empirically observe human nature. One can observe humans behaving. One can observe humans acting. One can observe human spoken or written words.

So, what humans did he observe doing what behaviors, actions, or words?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, don't you have a clue as to what you're doing?

I know exactly what I'm doing. I'm presenting a delusional woman with evidence of her own illness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NA's constant badgering has really gotten to you.

How has NA gotten to me or influenced me in any way?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I now put you in a category of someone who is so off the mark that I refuse to talk to you, unless, you change your attitude.

You said that a few pages and several replies ago. Another few hours and you will have forgotten saying it here as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not here to be attacked, degraded, and made to feel that I am mentally ill for believing very strongly that Lessans was right.

You clearly are delusional for believing that Lessans was right about things that have been disproved to the point where you refuse to even discuss them anymore. And you are mentally ill for continuing posting in an environment where everyone thinks you are insane, and for spending a decade at an activity which you have acknowledged for years to be the wrong way of doing things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When he is proven right, what will you have to say then Spacemonkey? And don't tell me this can't happen because you know he's wrong.

We do know that he's wrong. He cannot be proven right.

[Spacemonkey]

Evidence of mental illness:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk to you any further...

After posting the above, you go on to reply to a single later post of mine three separate times...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you continue to put your foot in your mouth, which will get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not me. This is your doing brother. Do you see how easy it is to blame me? Of course not, because that would make you have to take responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here you go again talking about my mental status. I'm not interested.

...and not once do you even manage to answer the question asked.

[LadyShea]

When he is proven right, what will you have to say then Spacemonkey?

Dunno about Spacemoneky, but if that happens in my lifetime I will get on the TV or YouTube or whatever and say "I am a codfish"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have always been confused about the difference between necessary truths and actual truths. When you say people are compelled to choose, and when you say they had to have chosen the way they do, you are introducing the must ahead of time.

This is the antithesis of what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The most you can say is that people did choose the way the did and that you believe, think, or of the opinion that the choice was in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Here's a question from long ago

It's true that people can only observe humans acting, but they can find a thread in their actions that prove something true. You can't even entertain the possibility that Lessans is right (for whatever reason), which feeds into the way you respond. I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong. That's what is happening, without one shred of proof, and it's ironic because this brings into question who is really blind.