A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The sad truth is the smarter someone thinks he is, the more difficult it is to break through his hardened way of thinking. I am not surprised that you are acting this way.

The sad truth is that mental illness cannot be treated over the internet.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who is this fictional audience you keep imagining? Why do you imagine they cannot think for themselves? Why do you think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those you actually interact with?

A schizophrenic would probably never consider that it is their obvious mental illness that would cause people to completely discount their reason challenged account.

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

A schizophrenic would probably never consider that it is their obvious mental illness that would cause people to completely discount their reason challenged account.

I know this is your new pet hypothesis, but can you give a good argument for why she is schizophrenic? This looks like complete bullshit.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

I know this is your new pet hypothesis, but can you give a good argument for why she is schizophrenic? This looks like complete bullshit.

You are very predictable.

[But]

Stop weaseling and answer the question!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

Stop weaseling and answer the question!

For you, never.

[But]

Because I'm all washed up!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Because I'm all washed up!

You probably have one of those demeaning attitudes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want people to grasp this knowledge. I am not depending on anyone in particular, and no one is depending on me. I think it would be sad if people leave this forum having never understood the first thing about this book. This one guy pm'd me, and when I mentioned 'discovery', he said what discovery? He didn't have the slightest idea what the topic was about. Now that's sad.

Well, how do you expect new people to get caught up when you have removed access to the book and there are 10's of thousands of posts to wade through? There are more words in these threads than in the entire book, most of them weaseling LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW.

I asked you a simple question, why did you say "You are hurting those who are depending on you to give your objective thoughts regarding this work" when you do not think anybody is depending on anybody else? Why do you say things you don't really mean?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I disagree with number five. You are assuming that the non-absorbed light is reflected. Yes, light is light, and photons are always being replaced, so there's no violation here

I am not assuming anything. Reflection is empirically observed and can be measured, and has physical laws regarding it....you know the Laws of Reflection?

So you disagree with the laws of physics regarding reflection and transmission, and are saying that light changes its properties when it comes into contact with matter that doesn't absorb it. Since you are saying that you think the laws of physics are wrong in this regard and must be different for your model to work, then your model violates the laws of physics.

Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?
Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but there is an assumption that this pattern of light gets reflected and travels.

No, there is no assumption, anywhere by anyone that "this pattern" of light gets reflected and travels. That's your retarded strawman yet again.

Light gets reflected and travels, yes. That is a known and proven fact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those I interact with because I know that group think is a huge problem. People can be swayed to side with the loudest, in your face type individual rather than think for themselves. Most people act like sheep following the herd.

This just doesn't work, if everyone were just sheep following someone elses lead they would all be asking the same questions. But everyone here is questioning a different aspect of the proposed model, they are not just parroting what others are saying. It is Peacegirl who is following her own little herd by ignoring and weaseling out of answering all the different questions equally.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The sad truth is the smarter someone thinks he is, the more difficult it is to break through his hardened way of thinking. I am not surprised that you are acting this way.

So you are saying Lessans book and your presentation is aimed at the most stupid and ignorant members of society, There are not many in that group who are scientists, philosophers, and thinkers, who are the ones you want to validate Lessand work.

FYI, the smarter someone is, the more openminded they usually are. I have found those on the lower end of the intellictual scale are more closed minded, and they have no way of conceptualizing how someone could be smarter than they are. .

[Angakuk]

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.

I didn't miss the point at all. Your claims were that Lessans would not (not might not have) pursued his course of self-education if he had not quit school after the 7th grade and that if he had followed the usual route he would not have (not might not have) gone on to make his discovery. There was nothing provisional or tentative about your claims. Your claims to know these things were absolute and without a trace of uncertainty. That you now acknowledge that it is possible that he could have continued his formal education without that education interferring with his decision to pursue a course of additional self-education is a step in the right direction on your part. If you would apply that same sort of tentativeness to Lessans' many other extravagant claims of certain and undeniable knowledge your presentation might just gain a little bit of traction.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

At some point Lessans set himself the task of a writing a book (or books) that would effectively communicate his ideas to the world. This book, which you have now edited and made (or propose to make) available to the world, with its many factual errors, faulty arguments and execrable prose is the evidence of whether or not he was able to successfully execute that task. This is not a superficial criticism. All of the elements that make up the book, including (but not limited to) the style of writing, combine to bear witness as to whether or not he was successful in producing a work that would effectively and convincingly present his ideas to the world. This book, as your own experience promoting it in various and sundry forums demonstrates, proves that he has not acheived that goal. That, with all the effort and time he put into this work, he failed to produce a work that could achieve that goal is evidence of his inadequacy to do so. If he could have done better he would have. Therefore, he could not do better and what he did do is not good enough. The proof of the pudding, peacegirl, is in the eating of it. The taste of this pudding is bad enough to gag a maggot.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those I interact with because I know that group think is a huge problem. People can be swayed to side with the loudest, in your face type individual rather than think for themselves. I see how Angakuk took certain ideas that people espoused, such as the way the book was written, as a means to attack Lessans when the opportunity presented itself. Everything that is said, even when there's no actual proof that what is being said has any merit whatsoever, can easily be used against me at a later date, and it takes a very independent thinking person not to be influenced. Most people act like sheep following the herd.

It did not require the influence, advice or observations of other to convince me that the book is very badly written. I came to that conclusion on my own. How, you might ask, was I able to arrive at such a conclusion without the assistance of others? I answer, because I can read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, how do you expect new people to get caught up when you have removed access to the book and there are 10's of thousands of posts to wade through? There are more words in these threads than in the entire book, most of them weaseling LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW.

I asked you a simple question, why did you say "You are hurting those who are depending on you to give your objective thoughts regarding this work" when you do not think anybody is depending on anybody else? Why do you say things you don't really mean?

I answered this question. People often depend on someone else's judgment of whether a book has merit or not. If you are the main spokesperson in this thread, along with a few others, then what is likely to happen is that people will listen to you and get a bad feeling about the book. This whole thread is not putting Lessans in a good light, not because he doesn't have a discovery, but because people don't believe he does (for various reasons, one being that they don't grasp these principles).

Your reasoning that I've been online for 10 years and no one has yet to come forward and say he has something of value, is flawed. You're doing the very same thing that other people do, which is to get a false picture of the book because you are basing your conclusions on a false premise that there must be nothing to it since no one has agreed in all these years. I should have never discussed this discovery online, because it's not the right venue, as I've stated many times. There are so many gaps in understanding (we haven't gotten past page 58, excluding Chapter Four), even after thousands of pages, that it appears there is nothing more to be said. But that's far from the truth. According to you and others, there is no discovery. That's insane thinking. David thinks the angrier he gets, and the more names he calls me, it will make me leave with my tail between my legs. Whether I leave or not is not going to be because this discovery is not genuine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I didn't miss the point at all. Your claims were that Lessans would not (not might not have) pursued his course of self-education if he had not quit school after the 7th grade and that if he had followed the usual route he would not have (not might not have) gone on to make his discovery. There was nothing provisional or tentative about your claims. Your claims to know these things were absolute and without a trace of uncertainty. That you now acknowledge that it is possible that he could have continued his formal education without that education interferring with his decision to pursue a course of additional self-education is a step in the right direction on your part. If you would apply that same sort of tentativeness to Lessans' many other extravagant claims of certain and undeniable knowledge your presentation might just gain a little bit of traction.

Your thinking is so off I don't know what to say. Think about it Angakuk. If Lessans turns out to be right and his discovery, which are really God's laws recognized on a global scale, helps to bring forward the very thing we've been hoping and praying for since time immemorial, I would not change the course that Lessans took, for there is the very real possibility (I'll be tentative there), that he would not have pursued the path that would have led him to these findings.

So give it up Angakuk, you're wrong in your analysis that he could have achieved more or done better. He achieved more than many Ph.D's. There's nothing magical about getting a formal education, as if it has some special power to make someone great. On the other hand, there's nothing that would stop a person from utilizing what he's learned from a formal education. I never said that there aren't a many great contributions to our world from people who went to college, but college isn't the end all, which is what you're implying. You are missing my whole point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

At some point Lessans set himself the task of a writing a book (or books) that would effectively communicate his ideas to the world. This book, which you have now edited and made (or propose to make) available to the world, with its many factual errors, faulty arguments and execrable prose is the evidence of whether or not he was able to successfully execute that task. This is not a superficial criticism. All of the elements that make up the book, including (but not limited to) the style of writing, combine to bear witness as to whether or not he was successful in producing a work that would effectively and convincingly present his ideas to the world. This book, as your own experience promoting it in various and sundry forums demonstrates, proves that he has not acheived that goal. That, with all the effort and time he put into this work, he failed to produce a work that could achieve that goal is evidence of his inadequacy to do so. If he could have done better he would have. Therefore, he could not do better and what he did do is not good enough. The proof of the pudding, peacegirl, is in the eating of it. The taste of this pudding is bad enough to gag a maggot.

And this diatribe is coming from someone who didn't even read the book the way it was intended to be read. And don't lie Angakuk, it wouldn't be good for your image. This thread has become so familiarly biased, the irony is that the people participating think they are doing science a favor.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then what do you think happens to the photons that hit an object and are not absorbed?

I ask because you have previously agreed that they bounce off and travel away from the object. So long as they do this, then nothing is stopping them from hitting a film or retina placed in their path.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happens to it if it is not reflected? (To say that it is reflected means only that it bounces off and travels away. This is something you have agreed with.)

Where did the photons go that got replaced?

You've also previously agreed that a pattern of light gets reflected and travels. What prevents red photons from bouncing off and traveling away from the red parts of an object while blue photons bounce off and travel away from the blue parts of the object?

"Pattern", "image", "light", and "wavelength" are NOT synonyms.

Only light travels. The wavelength is a property of the light. The light can travel in a pattern. That pattern is not an image. The pattern is not anything over and above or distinct from the light itself.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning that I've been online for 10 years and no one has yet to come forward and say he has something of value, is flawed.

Actually, it's an astute and accurate observation. If after a decade of failing to convince anyone of anything but your own self-delusion, it would be obvious to any sane person that what you're peddling just isn't rationally compelling material.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, it's an astute and accurate observation. If after a decade of failing to convince anyone of anything but your own self-delusion, it would be obvious to any sane person that what you're peddling just isn't rationally compelling material.

Why am I so unsurprised by your questions, which don't even play a part in Lessans' proof. I will not cowtow to your questions which don't provide anything other than your version of truth. You are a very smug individual, which poses a serious problem in a thread like this, and makes it doubly hard to deal with the subtle prejudices you hold dear.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why am I so unsurprised by your questions, which don't even play a part in Lessans' proof. I will not cowtow to your questions which don't provide anything other than your version of truth. You are a very smug individual, which poses a serious problem in a thread like this, and makes it doubly hard to deal with the subtle prejudices you hold dear.

Yeah Spacemonkey! Stop being so subtle.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your thinking is so off I don't know what to say. Think about it Angakuk. If Lessans turns out to be right and his discovery, which are really God's laws recognized on a global scale, helps to bring forward the very thing we've been hoping and praying for since time immemorial, I would not change the course that Lessans took, for there is the very real possibility (I'll be tentative there), that he would not have pursued the path that would have led him to these findings.

So give it up Angakuk, you're wrong in your analysis that he could have achieved more or done better. He achieved more than many Ph.D's. There's nothing magical about getting a formal education, as if it has some special power to make someone great. On the other hand, there's nothing that would stop a person from utilizing what he's learned from a formal education. I never said that there aren't a many great contributions to our world from people who went to college, but college isn't the end all, which is what you're implying. You are missing my whole point.

Really Angakuk, you of all people should know the messiah of the new age of peace when you see one. And whomsoever denies the prophet of Lessans shall be sorry.