A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I repeat myself all the time. What's it to you? What does it mean in the scheme of things in regard to the accuracy of this knowledge? How are you trying to use this as a reason to dismiss these claims? You are so off the mark I can't even talk to you. It's really sad.

peacegirl, do you openly talk to yourself frequently?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not being ingenuous, that's all I need to know.

It doesn't matter. This whole discussion has nothing to do with the book or its value, so I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Okay, you are making progress. If this thread is no longer about the book then what do you think it is about? Could it be that you are well aware you are mentally ill but you are afraid to get help, and this forum, such as it is, is helping you in some way?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, as everyone here has been trying to tell you, if your model doesn't or can't work without changing the known properties of light (these are facts, not theories or hypotheses) then your model is wrong.

Light is independent of its source. This is fact. Light always travels. This is fact. Because it is independent and travels it can be said to always have a location. Fact. When light physically encounters matter it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected (selectively by wavelength), those are the ONLY ways it interacts with matter. Absorbed light is transformed to some other type of energy, reflected or transmitted light continues to travel and have locations.

Either your model accounts for light or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it is not a working model and simply wrong. Period.

Transmitted is the problem because it is assumed that this light continues forever. It does not. Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this, so let it go for now, okay?

[peacegirl]

It's funny because the more I get people to actually hear me out, NA gets louder and louder. I have no idea what he's saying because I have no interest, but it just makes me laugh that he thinks his responses actually mean something. Of course, he has to continue on because he has committed himself to Lessans being wrong. I am afraid to think how he will feel when Lessans is proved right. I will personally forgive him for his nasty comments. He just didn't know any better.

[LadyShea]

I will personally forgive him for his nasty comments. He just didn't know any better.

Get down off the cross, there, not-Jesus

And he can't get "louder" in this venue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Transmitted is the problem because it is assumed that this light continues forever. It does not. Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this, so let it go for now, okay?

Do you know what transmitted even means? How is it "the problem"?

Light always travels. This is a fact. Deal with the facts or admit you are wrong. I will not let it go because this is of interest to me about Lessans book.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's funny because the more I get people to actually hear me out, NA gets louder and louder. I have no idea what he's saying because I have no interest, but it just makes me laugh that he thinks his responses actually mean something. Of course, he has to continue on because he has committed himself to Lessans being wrong. I am afraid to think how he will feel when Lessans is proved right. I will personally forgive him for his nasty comments. He just didn't know any better.

Who's "hearing you out"? No one who posts to this thread considers Lessans' ideas correct. That you think you're getting traction with anyone who posts here is a sign that you are not perceiving reality correctly.

Lessans will never be proven correct, in your lifetime, or anyone's lifetime. They are wrong, and will continue to be wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously Spacemonkey, if you don't let go of the mental health shit, I promise you, you are on borrowed time.

Really peacegirl, you yourself are aware this thread is no longer about the book. Surely you must have realized its now about your illness.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Get down off the cross, there, not-Jesus

And he can't get "louder" in this venue.

I'm getting (P) louder, just like I'm on (P) ignore.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Who's "hearing you out"? No one who posts to this thread considers Lessans' ideas correct. That you think you're getting traction with anyone who posts here is a sign that you are not perceiving reality correctly.

Lessans will never be proven correct, in your lifetime, or anyone's lifetime. They are wrong, and will continue to be wrong.

If Lessans is ever right it will be a coincidence. Just like all the "coincidences" that clearly show Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Get down off the cross, there, not-Jesus

And he can't get "louder" in this venue.

But he can and he does. He gets louder by the sheer number of posts he scribbles at one time, as if he's saying something important.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he can and he does. He gets louder by the sheer number of posts he scribbles at one time, as if he's saying something important.

It's important enough for you to complain about it. You've painted yourself into a corner. A person with your illnesses can't ignore anything. Even if it's something you are desperately trying to ignore, your mental illness.

[LadyShea]

Sheer

[LadyShea]

Number of posts

[LadyShea]

Does not increase

[LadyShea]

Loudness

[LadyShea]

You are histrionic

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's your opinion. I have found the criticisms not only valid, but expected of a work such as this.

That's exactly why you think he is wrong and as a result your attempt to understand anything he writes will fail.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These criticisms are way premature and I can't get to first base because of how quickly you are in your rush to judgment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, your perception of prematurity and rushing is based on your deep belief in the truth of the work and your growing up with these ideas your whole life....you have a strong bias because you knew and loved Lessans.

I did love him but that's not the whole story. You are actually blaming me for being his daughter and using this fact against me as if I don't have a mind of my own. You're wrong, that's all I can say. I realize that his claim regarding the senses have put a dark cloud over the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The mistakes and leaps of logic and poor scholarship and terrible writing are immediately apparent to a reader without your background and bias.

He wasn't trained to write in accordance with a certain protocol. That doesn't mean his claims were wrong. You need to open your mind to allow for the possibility that a person could have important information and not do things in the customary way. You are being way too harsh.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can engage on our terms, or you can disengage, or you can just copy and paste, or you can get the fuck out or keep weaseling and whining or whatever.

If I engage on your terms, it's a done deal. This thread is over. Your confrontational attitude (if that's what you mean by engagement) will never allow me to get through the most important chapters.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My terms have always been nothing more than requiring you to mount a strong defense of the work and to answer questions and criticisms adequately and effectively as it is of anybody presenting a work of scholarship.

I've done the best I can in defense of this work, but I haven't been able to make any progress. Unfortunately, you place form before content, and that's a huge stumbling block to overcome. I agree that he could have done more in the way of writing down what led him to his conclusions, but that doesn't mean the book is not valid.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That you expect conditional acceptance and agreement in order to move on is simply not the way non-crackpots present new ideas.

That's because he wasn't a crackpot and neither am I.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you just listen before saying anything. You have all the time in the world to reject this book, after, not before, it's thoroughly gone over.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not the way it works with skeptics and people who think, as you've found over and over again at various philosophy forums.

I'm glad you think, why do you think I came to these type forums to begin with? But to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which is what you're doing, is a big mistake. One day you'll see this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you want it to be like a lecture series and hold questions/discussion to the end then do it as a lecture series not as an open discussion.

I wish I could do it that way, but people say this is not the right venue for that. If I had known what I know now, I wouldn't have started this online.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't expect people to respond in a way that I want. I just want them to grasp the principles before criticizing. I understand why this whole thing was a joke in the beginning, but you should know by now that this isn't a joke, and you should have the patience to let me explain things my way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The principles are presented in a sloppy manner and the mistakes and leaps of logic are too glaringly obvious right off the bat for that to happen in an open discussion venue. You couldn't even adequately support the very first foundational premise.

He explained in detail his observations and his inferences, but you keep on insisting that his proof is a modal fallacy, and it is not. You can't admit that you could be wrong. Your mind is shut closed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for explaining things "your way" that's what websites and blogs and YouTube and lectures are for, that's not how open discussions amongst adults work.

Thank you! You're absolutely right. That's why it doesn't pay to continue on.

[davidm]

LadyShea is now practicing Burma Shave-sign posting.

peacegirl continues to practice shit posting.

[LadyShea]

I think he did support it, but you keep on insisting that it's a modal fallacy, and it is not.

I have asked you to demonstrate how it does not commit the modal fallacy and you have refused. Asserting "no it's not" is not a demonstration or adequate defense of the soundness of the premise.

[davidm]

Oops! It looks like she's back in "I'm leaving, goodbye!" mode.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are histrionic

I'm histrionic? Yes, I admit I have lost my composure at times, but to have people consistently and methodically make nasty comments about me over and over again, is very hard to take. You don't realize how this affects the overall atmosphere. That's why they do it.

[LadyShea]

I wish I could do it that way, but people say this is not the right venue for that.

No, Internet discussion forums are not the right venue for that. I meant a real lecture series. Like hold public readings in a library or hotel meeting room or whatever...a live audience venue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have asked you to demonstrate how it does not commit the modal fallacy and you have refused. Asserting "no it's not" is not a demonstration or adequate defense of the soundness of the premise.

I posted his detailed explanation as to why we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and somewhere along the line you assumed that anything one chooses will end up satisfying this premise, therefore it's circular. Yes, it will satisfy the premise, but that doesn't mean it's circular. That's what you're not getting.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, you place form before content...

As usual, you are a sniveling, simpering little liar. It's precisely the CONTENT of the buffoon's claims that we have addressed, and have proved to be wrong in hundreds of different ways.

That we have addressed the idiocy of his FORM is a separate issue; I've pointed out how hilarious it is, for example, that the buffoon adopted the form of lecturing scientists, but that would be OK, provided he then opened his mouth and said something true. But everything he said was bullshit (that is content, in case you are confused.) So the lack of content makes the form of his pronouncements even more absurd.