A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, if we're back to that LadyShea, I have no desire to continue.

I thought you wanted to discuss the first discovery? Of course we're "back to that" because you never supported it to begin with!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what words you use LadyShea, it doesn't matter. If you want to say it was actual, and not necessary, that's fine with me. The point is, once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise, for we are compelled to choose [what we believe to be] the most preferable alternative given our particular circumstances.

But words have meaning, and these words are the key to Lessans proof! Without the element of necessity, as differentiated from actuality, there can be no basis for concluding compulsion, and his argument falls apart.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess not. I really think you love to argue with me for argument's sake.

peacegirl, I think you're right about that. It sure isn't because anything LadyShea posts will change your mind one bit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought you wanted to discuss the first discovery? Of course we're "back to that" because you never supported it to begin with!

But words have meaning, and these words are the key to Lessans proof! Without the element of necessity, as differentiated from actuality, there can be no basis for concluding compulsion, and his argument falls apart.

Absolutely false. You obviously missed the proof. Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise. Given a choice, a person cannot pick the option that is the least preferable, because that goes against his very nature, therefore the choice in any comparison must be in the direction of greater satisfaction for that is the direction that our desire is forced to take, which is why our will is not free.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely false. You obviously missed the proof. Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise. Given a choice, a person cannot pick the option that is the least preferable, because that goes against his nature, therefore the choice in any comparison is the compulsion that desire is forced to take in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This is an odd point if view coming from someone who says there is no past.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise. Given a choice, a person cannot pick the option that is the least preferable, because that goes against his very nature, therefore the choice in any comparison must be in the direction of greater satisfaction for that is the direction that our desire is forced to take, which is why our will is not free.

Nonsense, making a choice does not lock it in that it could not have been otherwise, Lessans had no proof, only a lot on mish-mash that started nowhere and went nowhere. Greater satisfaction is in no way proven, Lessans proof was self-ful-filling self-defining that proved nothing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether there are any pertinent questions to entertain or not, one thing is certain. You will not be part of the conversation. Your lack of intellectual capacity to even see what Lessans is saying disqualifies you. Sorry.

Oops, there's that demeaning attitude of yours again. Sorry, but there's no conversation left to be a part of. All you are capable of doing is weaseling and evading.

Where were those red photons again? And where did Lessans support his listed presuppositions?

You don't know. You have no idea at all. Time to weasel then!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to discuss his first discovery with YOU Spacemonkey. Did you forget that quickly?

LOL, no Peacegirl. You refused to further discuss his first non-discovery with ANYONE here. I won't ask if you've forgotten saying that because I already know that you have. You've also forgotten this before and made the same mistake before, claiming it was only me you refused to discuss it with, only to be corrected when I provided the quote of what you actually said. So not only have you forgotten what you said, you've forgotten having previously forgotten and been reminded of it as well.

Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment, Peacegirl?

And are you presently in institutional care of any sort, or have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Where were those red photons again?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it wasn't for him dropping out in 7th grade, he would have never had the presence of mind to study on his own..

Fact not in evidence.

A lot of people, even some college graduates, continue to study and learn on their own even after they have completed their formal education.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which turned out to be a better education than anything he could have gotten in school.

Yet another fact not in evidence.

Since he did not continue his formal education you have no basis for comparing the education he did get with the education he might have gotten had he continued his formal education.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Fact not in evidence.

A lot of people, even some college graduates, continue to study and learn on their own even after they have completed their formal education.

True that those who persue education will contue to do so after the conclusion of formal education, however is is also often true that those who fail to complete the normal amount of formal education do so because they do not place much value on formal education. Lessans, in his book, made it quite clear that he held formal education in low regard, and therefore probably did not place much value on any form of education. It is often true that those who persue learning on their own after completing the usual program and beyond, do so in much more depth, and with much more enthusiasm, and are better organized in that quest. Those who do not complete a formal education usually do not have the skills to persue their learning in an organized manner thus what they acquire is muddeled and confused, especially if they have no-one else to confide in or look to for guidance. Lessans book clearly illustrates the result of disorganized study and confused thinking.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Fact not in evidence.

A lot of people, even some college graduates, continue to study and learn on their own even after they have completed their formal education.

Yet another fact not in evidence.

Since he did not continue his formal education you have no basis for comparing the education he did get with the education he might have gotten had he continued his formal education.

But we know Lessans self education was very poor based on the book he wrote. It is not the product of even a mediocre education.

[Angakuk]

We know that his efforts as an autodidact were inadequate to the task he attempted. We do not know whether the results would have been better or worse had he completed his formal education.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Fact not in evidence.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

A lot of people, even some college graduates, continue to study and learn on their own even after they have completed their formal education.

He told me that if he had gone the usual route, he would have never made this discovery because he would not have read the books he read, or thought beyond the scope of what he was taught in school. Instead, he went far beyond what he could have learned from a formal education.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which turned out to be a better education than anything he could have gotten in school.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yet another fact not in evidence.

Since he did not continue his formal education you have no basis for comparing the education he did get with the education he might have gotten had he continued his formal education.

All I can say is that he told me that had he gone to college, he would not have moved in the direction he did, which ultimately allowed him to make this discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We know that his efforts as an autodidact were inadequate to the task he attempted. We do not know whether the results would have been better or worse had he completed his formal education.

You don't know that his efforts were inadequate to the task Angakuk. You don't know if he is right or wrong. You think you know. Assuming for a moment that his discovery, once it is confirmed valid, will change the world for the better by delivering us from all evil, I can honestly say I don't know how much more he could have achieved had he completed a formal education. That's like saying someone who never went to school but became a billionaire through his own creativity and hard work might still have done better had he gone to school. That is such lousy reasoning Angakuk, I'm disappointed in you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He told me that if he had gone the usual route, he would have never made this discovery because he would not have read the books he read, or thought beyond the scope of what he was taught in school. Instead, he went far beyond what he could have learned from a formal education.

Just as you can't know what the results would have been had he taken a different course, so he couldn't know that either, because he didn't take it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can say is that he told me that had he gone to college, he would not have moved in the direction he did, which ultimately allowed him to make this discovery.

Again, he couldn't have known what direction he would have moved had he gone to college, for the simple reason that that is not what he did.

Your claims about what the results would have been had he chosen differently are clearly based on what he told you he believed would have been different. His beliefs about how things might have turned out otherwise are entirely speculative. The most that can reliably be said is that the results would almost certainly have been different if he had taken a different path. Whether those results would have been better or worse is something that no one, not even Lessans himself, can ever know for certain.

The Road Not Taken
By Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know that his efforts were inadequate to the task Angakuk.

Actually, I do know. The book itself, with all its factual errors, faulty reasoning and awful writing style, is sufficient evidence that his efforts at self-education proved inadequate for the task that he set himself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assuming for a moment that his discovery, once it is confirmed valid, will change the world for the better by delivering us from all evil, I can honestly say I don't know how much more he could have achieved had he completed a formal education. That's like saying someone who never went to school but became a billionaire through his own creativity and hard work might still have done better had he gone to school. That is such lousy reasoning Angakuk, I'm disappointed in you.

Lacking any evidence for the value of his alleged discovery that is an assumption that I am not prepared to make, even for a moment. The book could certainly have been done better. Whether he could have done it better, even with more formal education, is something we will never know. He could hardly have done worse.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He told me that if he had gone the usual route, he would have never made this discovery because he would not have read the books he read, or thought beyond the scope of what he was taught in school. Instead, he went far beyond what he could have learned from a formal education.

All I can say is that he told me that had he gone to college, he would not have moved in the direction he did, which ultimately allowed him to make this discovery.

This is laughable at best. First of all with having completed only a part of the formal education he had no idea what he might have learned there, he had no basis for comparison with what he thought he had learned. Most people only go beyond what they have learned, they cannot go beyond what they have not learned. There is no evidence that he would have been able to go beyond High School if he had been able to finish even that, his confused thinking, as demonstrated in the book, could have prevented him from being successful that far. As far as his discoveries, if he had gotten more education he may have seen the folley of the wild ideas he did come up with and saved himself the embaresment of having his name attatched to a book of this nature, and you the pain of trying to present and defend nonsense. If he actually told you these things it only demonstrates his confused thinking, especially in regards to education.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The Road Not Taken
By Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Reminds me of my own road not taken, as I'm sure everyone has several during their lifetime. I was accepted at 2 colleges, one for Math and the other for Industrial Arts. I.A. had almost a guaranteed placement, Math was not so good, I might not have been a teacher. I.A. got me into several other jobs later, I'm not sure that there are as many jobs for math majors from a teachers college. I guess I took a road a bit less traveled. I do remember during orentation there was an announcement that anyone considering a History Major, Please consider another major, apparently there were few jobs for history majors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He told me that if he had gone the usual route, he would have never made this discovery because he would not have read the books he read, or thought beyond the scope of what he was taught in school. Instead, he went far beyond what he could have learned from a formal education.

Just as you can't know what the results would have been had he taken a different course, so he couldn't know that either, because he didn't take it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can say is that he told me that had he gone to college, he would not have moved in the direction he did, which ultimately allowed him to make this discovery.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Again, he couldn't have known what direction he would have moved had he gone to college, for the simple reason that that is not what he did.

Your claims about what the results would have been had he chosen differently are clearly based on what he told you he believed would have been different. His beliefs about how things might have turned out otherwise are entirely speculative. The most that can reliably be said is that the results would almost certainly have been different if he had taken a different path. Whether those results would have been better or worse is something that no one, not even Lessans himself, can ever know for certain.

The Road Not Taken
By Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

You missed the entire point I was making. No one knows what could have been if one had not gone a particular route. What I am saying is that the route he took allowed him to make a discovery that he otherwise might not have. So it turns out that the direction he took was a good thing. Making a discovery does not require one to go to college. It could actually put a lid on what one desires to learn because a person could be satisfied with what he was taught, and never think outside of the box. On the other hand, going to college doesn't preclude someone from making a discovery. How one achieves knowledge is not dependent on any one method. In other words, it's not how something is achieved; it's what is achieved that matters. It just so happened that Lessans took the road less traveled, and that has made all the difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, I do know. The book itself, with all its factual errors, faulty reasoning and awful writing style, is sufficient evidence that his efforts at self-education proved inadequate for the task that he set himself.

The factual errors you are talking about have absolutely nothing to do with the discovery he made. You are looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. He did not in any way, shape, or form prove inadequate to the task. Ironically, he did not set out to do anything. He had no presuppositions. It was his voracious reading, along with his capacity to see certain relations as a whole, that proved adequate to the task. And for the last time, stop bringing in his writing style, as if this means anything. You are being extremely superficial Angakuk. A book can be wonderfully written and have nothing to say, and a book can have some grammatical errors, or not be written up to snuff, in some people's eyes, but have very important content. You disappoint me once again by your superficiality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assuming for a moment that his discovery, once it is confirmed valid, will change the world for the better by delivering us from all evil, I can honestly say I don't know how much more he could have achieved had he completed a formal education. That's like saying someone who never went to school but became a billionaire through his own creativity and hard work might still have done better had he gone to school. That is such lousy reasoning Angakuk, I'm disappointed in you.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lacking any evidence for the value of his alleged discovery that is an assumption that I am not prepared to make, even for a moment. The book could certainly have been done better. Whether he could have done it better, even with more formal education, is something we will never know. He could hardly have done worse.

I'm sorry that you can't assume for a moment that his discovery is valid. It is just going to delay the very life we all want if everybody takes this view. I can only offer what he discovered and hope that there will be scientists who actually see the relations and recognize the book's validity, even if it requires more empirical testing. Do you actually think you've given this work a fair chance? I don't. If you think you've done a good job assessing a 600 page book in a fair give and take, then you can move on knowing you did justice to this work. I know you did not do this work justice just by the things you say. That's why I cannot continue on in this thread. Do you think LadyShea actually proved him wrong by calling his proof a modal fallacy, and leaving it at that? I can't accept the ignorance in here that is pretending to be knowledge. Lessans knew the problem he was faced with, which is why he wrote the following:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Foreword i

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be studied
thoroughly before any other reading is done not only because it is
a key that will unlock a door to the greatest treasure in the history
of mankind, but also because the rest of the book, though much
easier, will not make any sense otherwise, a table of contents has
been omitted to preclude as much as possible someone opening the
book at random or reading in a desultory manner. Should you
jump ahead and read other chapters this work could appear like a
fairy tale, otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction
will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you
are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you
find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because
what follows will help you understand it much better the second
time around. To make these concepts as reader friendly as
possible, this book was written in a dialogue format. There is also
some repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and
extending the principles in a more cohesive fashion, but despite all
efforts to make this work easier to understand it is still deep and
will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading many things over
and over again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You missed the entire point I was making. No one knows what could have been if one had not gone a particular route. What I am saying is that the route he took allowed him to make a discovery that he otherwise might not have. So it turns out that the direction he took was a good thing. Making a discovery does not require one to go to college. It could actually put a lid on what one desires to learn because a person could be satisfied with what he was taught, and never think outside of the box. On the other hand, going to college doesn't preclude someone from making a discovery. How one achieves knowledge is not dependent on any one method. In other words, it's not how something is achieved; it's what is achieved that matters. It just so happened that Lessans took the road less traveled, and that has made all the difference.

If your father had actually made any discoveries then you might nearly have a point. But he didn't.


Where were those red photons at the film just a moment before the object turned red and the photograph was taken?

Where did Lessans support his listed presuppositions about conscience?

And are you presently in institutional care of any sort, or have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?


in 3... 2... 1...

[LadyShea]

Do you think LadyShea actually proved him wrong by calling his proof a modal fallacy, and leaving it at that?

Do you think you have proven him right by saying "It's not a modal fallacy" and leaving it at that?

I demonstrated the modal fallacy. It's quite plain.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you call this if not lying?

Yay, finally you admit that for your model to work light must have different properties than it is known to have and the laws of physics must be changed.

Why have you asserted differently this whole time when it was clear this was the case all along? Now, you know you have to have these changes and can quit weaseling about the eyes and brain being the ONLY necessary change required by efferent vision.

You've been saying for this whole debate that only the way the eyes and brain worked needed to be changed and re-defined. Why didn't you just admit before that the properties of light and laws of physics must be changed as we've been telling you?

I was working off of YOUR statements such as "does not violate physics" and "All of optics is correct except the direction in which we see", so I am not being presumptuous at all, but YOU have been misleading us about your model this whole time.

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think you have proven him right by saying "It's not a modal fallacy" and leaving it at that?

I demonstrated the modal fallacy. It's quite plain.

That is your arrogance lifting its ugly head again LadyShea. You did not demonstrate a modal fallacy. I listed two examples of modal fallacies in clear print and Lessans' proof has nothing to do with them. Why should I defend against something that he didn't commit?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "efferent perspective" is not even a factor in this contradiction and neither is mirror images or the speed of light.

The statement light does not travel through space and time and strike our retina is a statement that violates the laws of physics (which state that light travels and that light strikes our retina. Both statements you have previously agreed to!), so you cannot also state "it does not violate physics" without contradicting yourself.

If I said "It does not violate the Constitution, but it is also true that school personnel can lead prayers during school hours." That would be a contradiction...because school personnel leading prayer during school hours absolutely does violate the 1st Amendment.

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I have repeatedly said that the properties of light do not change except for the fact that light does not bounce off of objects and get reflected bringing the image of the object to distant and faraway lands even when the object is no longer visible or present. I am stopping this part of the discussion. You can believe whatever you want.