A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Your response is a non-sequitur, unless you are saying that no person has ever read the book.

Caring or not caring about a desired outcome is not evidence of anything- unless you are saying that "intuition" is actually desire for peace, and that "people" will adhere to or accept unproven principles out of this desire. That's religious thinking. You may find some people like that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your response is a non-sequitur, unless you are saying that no person has ever read the book.

Caring or not caring about a desired outcome is not evidence of anything- unless you are saying that "intuition" is actually desire for peace, and that "people" will adhere to or accept unproven principles out of this desire. That's religious thinking. You may find some people like that.

You really have no understanding at all of this book LadyShea, and it's so hard for me to listen to your comments. Caring or not caring about the desired outcome is not evidence of anything, that is true, but if you don't care, or you want to be proved right at all costs, it will have a direct impact on your understanding. This in itself has no bearing on your being checkmated once these principles become a permanent condition of the environment.

In other words, there is no way you will have a choice as to whether or not to strike a first blow. It will be impossible under the changed conditions. That's why these principles work. You CAN'T hurt others under these conditions, even if you wanted to. I will repeat: You need justification in order to hurt others whether it is a retaliatory blow or whether you know you would be blamed, if caught. When all blame is removed, you won't be able to use these excuses to justify your behavior, therefore, you will no longer be able to move in this direction as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[davidm]

Thank Zod peacegirl has no desire to continue this conversation!

Peacegirl, everything Lessan said was wrong, period. That's all you or anyone needs to know. It's not wrong because we say so. It's wrong because it is. It is all one great big Wackadoodle of Wrong; a Lolapalooza of ludicrousness. It is Fatal Fail, like sticking one's head in the path of a chain saw.

You say you want questions. How come you never answer them when they are asked? Here's one -- an Oldie but Goodie that you have ignored for hundreds of pages: If real-time seeing is true, how come NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets?

You have no answer to this question becuase there is only one answer to it, the answer that you can't face because it shatters your indoctrinated world view: The answer is that Lessans was flat wrong in what he said about light and sight. Period.

All one ever need do is raise this point, and by your own admission it blows his whole "discovery" out of the water, becaue early on you said it was necessary for him to be right on this point, for his findings to follow. Well, he was wrong. And everyone knows it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, there is no way you will have a choice as to whether or not to strike a first blow. It will be impossible under the changed conditions. That's why these principles work. You CAN'T hurt others under these conditions, even if you wanted to. I will repeat: You need justification in order to hurt others whether it is a retaliatory blow or whether you know you would be blamed, if caught. When all blame is removed, you won't be able to use these excuses to justify your behavior, therefore, you will no longer be able to move in this direction as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Finally after all this time we get a brief concise summation of the book, noteing all the important points. If this had happened everyone could have debated these points instead of wasting so much time on side issues or lying, evading and being willfully ignorant. People reading the book would have been looking to see how Lessans rationalized these ideas, instead of being diverted by Peacegirls deceptive tactics and Lessans arrogant prose. However the end results would have been the same as these are only unsupported assertions without any valid evidence to support them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really have no understanding at all of this book LadyShea, and it's so hard for me to listen to your comments. Caring or not caring about the desired outcome is not evidence of anything, that is true, but if you don't care, or you want to be proved right at all costs, it will have a direct impact on your understanding. This in itself has no bearing on your being checkmated once these principles become a permanent condition of the environment.

In other words, there is no way you will have a choice as to whether or not to strike a first blow. It will be impossible under the changed conditions. That's why these principles work. You CAN'T hurt others under these conditions, even if you wanted to. I will repeat: You need justification in order to hurt others whether it is a retaliatory blow or whether you know you would be blamed, if caught. When all blame is removed, you won't be able to use these excuses to justify your behavior, therefore, you will no longer be able to move in this direction as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

How do these baseless assertions support your claim about people seeing intuitively that these principles work? People so far do not see that principles work, intuitively or otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Thank Zod peacegirl has no desire to continue this conversation!

Peacegirl, everything Lessan said was wrong, period. That's all you or anyone needs to know. It's not wrong because we say so. It's wrong because it is. It is all one great big Wackadoodle of Wrong; a Lolapalooza of ludicrousness. It is Fatal Fail, like sticking one's head in the path of a chain saw.

You say you want questions. How come you never answer them when they are asked? Here's one -- an Oldie but Goodie that you have ignored for hundreds of pages: If real-time seeing is true, how come NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets?

You have no answer to this question becuase there is only one answer to it, the answer that you can't face because it shatters your indoctrinated world view: The answer is that Lessans was flat wrong in what he said about light and sight. Period.

All one ever need do is raise this point, and by your own admission it blows his whole "discovery" out of the water, becaue early on you said it was necessary for him to be right on this point, for his findings to follow. Well, he was wrong. And everyone knows it.

What must follow if Lessans is right (which I believe he is), is that we would be seeing the actual object or substance, not just light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Finally after all this time we get a brief concise summation of the book, noteing all the important points. If this had happened everyone could have debated these points instead of wasting so much time on side issues or lying, evading and being willfully ignorant. People reading the book would have been looking to see how Lessans rationalized these ideas, instead of being diverted by Peacegirls deceptive tactics and Lessans arrogant prose. However the end results would have been the same as these are only unsupported assertions without any valid evidence to support them.

So why are you following every move I make? You are the first to get here, and the last to leave. Ironically, you have the very least understanding (other than LadyShea) of this book. You keep saying that they are unsupported assertions without any valid evidence. If you believe that, why stay here? And don't tell me it's for entertainment. I know you secretly wish he was right; everyone who wants peace would hope that he was right. AND HE IS! I believe that even when this knowledge is confirmed valid and the new world is in transition, you will be on this forum telling me that this knowledge can't be true. Talk about denial!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do these baseless assertions support your claim about people seeing intuitively that these principles work? People so far do not see that principles work, intuitively or otherwise.

When I say intuitively I mean that a person can actually imagine such a world and realize very quickly that he could never hurt another person under these conditions. He couldn't even contemplate it, so when you talk about "making a decision" as if you have a choice whether or not to go along with this knowledge, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's out of your control. And to keep calling them "baseless assertions" only displays your ignorance LadyShea, while you think it's displaying your intelligence.

[LadyShea]

I believe that even when this knowledge is confirmed valid and the new world is in transition, you will be on this forum telling me that this knowledge can't be true. Talk about denial!

LOL, yeah talk about denial! In the future, in your imagination thedoc will be denying something that has been proven!

I believe that on your death bed you'll still be talking about how Lessans will one day be vindicated!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do these baseless assertions support your claim about people seeing intuitively that these principles work? People so far do not see that principles work, intuitively or otherwise.

When I say intuitively I mean that a person can actually imagine such a world and realize very quickly that he could never hurt another person under these conditions.

That's not what intuition means, also, that has not happened with any people so far. So, your statement "people will see intuitively that these principles work" remains disproven. When you find people who see this intuitively, let me know.

He couldn't even contemplate it, so when you talk about "making a decision" as if you have a choice whether or not to go along with this knowledge, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's out of your control. And to keep calling them "baseless assertions" only displays your ignorance LadyShea, while you think it's displaying your intelligence.

Assertion: A confident and forceful statement of fact or belief: "his assertion that his father had deserted the family".

Yep, your statements meet the definition of assertion

Baseless: Without foundation in fact.

Yep, that definition is also met

How am I ignorant when I used the phrase baseless assertion correctly and accurately?

Also, where did I say anything about "making a decision" that you used it as if it were a direct quote?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, yeah talk about denial! In the future, in your imagination thedoc will be denying something that has been proven!

You can't compare a prediction that was said half jokingly to your denial that this could be a true discovery. You're in total denial every time you assert that this is only a mere assertion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I believe that on your death bed you'll still be talking about how Lessans will one day be vindicated!

That's fair based on your limited knowledge. I don't expect anything more from you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

people will see intuitively that these principles work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This hasn't happened to date, why not? "Very few people" is still dozens across many different forums over a number of years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again, using what has happened to me through the years (which has nothing to do with the veracity of this knowledge), against me. You are one of the followers, and you don't even see it.

I used the word intuitively for a reason. Please look the definition up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know what intuitively means. Are we (those you've interacted over the years) not people? If we are people, and we have not seen intuitively that these principles work, then your statement seems to be disproven.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. It means that you never read the book to see how these principles work, and how war can actually be prevented. You could care less because you are more interested in being right at all costs, even at the cost of peace.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your response is a non-sequitur, unless you are saying that no person has ever read the book.

NOBODY HAS READ THE ENTIRE BOOK EVEN ONCE, AND IT NEEDS TO BE READ AT LEAST TWICE FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Caring or not caring about a desired outcome is not evidence of anything- unless you are saying that "intuition" is actually desire for peace, and that "people" will adhere to or accept unproven principles out of this desire. That's religious thinking. You may find some people like that.

You really have no understanding at all of this book LadyShea, and it's so hard for me to listen to your comments. Caring or not caring about the desired outcome is not evidence of anything, that is true, but if you don't care, or you want to be proved right at all costs, it will have a direct impact on your understanding. This in itself has no bearing on your being checkmated once these principles become a permanent condition of the environment.

In other words, there is no way you will have a choice as to whether or not to strike a first blow. It will be impossible under the changed conditions. That's why these principles work. You CAN'T hurt others under these conditions, even if you wanted to. I will repeat: You need justification in order to hurt others whether it is a retaliatory blow or whether you know you would be blamed, if caught. When all blame is removed, you won't be able to use these excuses to justify your behavior, therefore, you will no longer be able to move in this direction as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do these baseless assertions support your claim about people seeing intuitively that these principles work? People so far do not see that principles work, intuitively or otherwise.

Not only can you test this knowledge on yourself, but you will see how the economic system, along with the basic principle, prevents the causes that lead to war. Unless you read and understand this, you will continue to believe this is a pipe dream.

When I say intuitively I mean that a person can actually imagine such a world and realize very quickly that he could never hurt another person under these conditions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not what intuition means, also, that has not happened with any people so far. So, your statement "people will see intuitively that these principles work" remains disproven. When you find people who see this intuitively, let me know.

I think this word is applicable. People can use themselves as guinea pigs by imagining how they would feel under these new conditions, and they will see that they could not hurt others with a first blow. People can tell me that they could hurt others when knowing in advance that if they did no one in the world would ever blame them, but in reality, they could not because they could never find greater satisfaction moving in this direction, which is the direction they must travel.

He couldn't even contemplate it, so when you talk about "making a decision" as if you have a choice whether or not to go along with this knowledge, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's out of your control. And to keep calling them "baseless assertions" only displays your ignorance LadyShea, while you think it's displaying your intelligence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assertion: A confident and forceful statement of fact or belief: "his assertion that his father had deserted the family".

Yep, your statements meet the definition of assertion

Baseless: Without foundation in fact.

Yep, that definition is also met

How am I ignorant when I used the phrase baseless assertion correctly and accurately?

I didn't say you use the phrase incorrectly. I said you applied it to these claims incorrectly, because he did not make a baseless assertion. You can keep saying this until the cows come home; it doesn't make it right. And your saying that his demonstration as to why man's will is not free, is a modal fallacy, is 100% incorrect.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, where did I say anything about "making a decision" that you used it as if it were a direct quote?

You said something on the order of: "desire to adhere to these principles", which I translated as "making a decision to..."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NOBODY HAS READ THE ENTIRE BOOK EVEN ONCE, AND IT NEEDS TO BE READ AT LEAST TWICE FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING.

WOW! talk about projection, Peacegirl refuses to read anything that could contradict Lessans, but continues to accuse others, who could not ask the questions they do without reading the book, of not reading the book. Willfull ignorance and denial don't even come close to describing Peacegirls actions on this forum.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, yeah talk about denial! In the future, in your imagination thedoc will be denying something that has been proven!

What did I do now? Yes, I'm always denying something, I'm married so I'm always in trouble for something. "I didn't do it."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why do I always get picked on? I've made hardly any posts at all? And I've not been abusive, just honest?

Don't come off like some innocent victim. Yuch!!!! What you say is not only a complete misunderstanding of the concepts, but it's downright nasty. Calling my father "idiot Lessans" is in bad taste, and I'm not going to put up with it. If you don't want to be put on ignore, then you had better watch what you say and how you say it. If it doesn't bother you to be put on ignore, then keep it up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fair based on your limited knowledge. I don't expect anything more from you.

Whoa, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, but it doesn't even apply in this case. Peacegirl knows only the book, but LadyShea has a much wider educational background, whether self-taught or formal, Peacegirls knowledge is like a drop in the bucket of LadyShea's knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word "nothing" in the claim that "nothing can make us do anything against our will" is all-inclusive. It allows for no exceptions. The presence or absence of choice is irrelevant to the claim that "nothing can make us do anything against our will". If some external force or circumstance eliminates the element of choice and leads to us to do something we would not have chosen to do, had the choice been available, then that force or circumstance has caused us to do something against our will. If it is the case that something can happen to us that causes us to do something against our will, then it cannot also be the case that "nothing can make us do anything against our will". The claims are mutally contradictory.

You're absolutely wrong Angakuk. If some external force or circumstance eliminates the element of choice and leads us to do something we would not have chosen to do, had the choice been available, then that force or circumstance has led us to choose this as the lesser of two or more evils. We are still the ones doing the choosing. If another choice had been available, then you would not have had to choose what you did, as the lesser of two evils. Regardless of what options are present, you are still doing the choosing.

If someone would pry my mouth open and pour poison into it, I am not the one doing the choosing. This is external force, which has nothing to do with my will at all because it is someone else imposing his will onto me. This doesn't even enter into the definition. I suggest you carefully study this again, because it is 100% accurate.

Man either doesn’t have a choice because none is involved, as when something happens to him; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils (both considered bad for himself), the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.[/quote]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't come off like some innocent victim. Yuch!!!! What you say is not only a complete misunderstanding of the concepts, but it's downright nasty. Calling my father "idiot Lessans" is in bad taste, and I'm not going to put up with it. If you don't want to be put on ignore, then you had better watch what you say and how you say it. If it doesn't bother you to be put on ignore, then keep it up. The ball is in your court.

Sorry, but there is a very real difference between Nasty 'Name Calling' and applying a well diserved 'Honorific'. You should look it up to be sure of what you are talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are using the premise you are trying to prove to prove itself.

Not at all. I am not using any premise to prove anything. This is not a tautology. This is an accurate observation: Every movement from "here" to "there" is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Your typing is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Your getting up in the morning and going about your daily activities is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Every single thing you do is a movement away from the spot that you were just on because it was dissatisfying to stay there. Just because we have to weigh certain choices before making a decision to decide which movement is more preferable doesn't alter the direction we are compelled to go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sorry, but there is a very real difference between Nasty 'Name Calling' and applying a well diserved 'Honorific'. You should look it up to be sure of what you are talking about.

Keep justifying your actions, and you'll be back on ignore island. I don't need you to support this work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not staying for long because I am having a hard time stomaching the unnecessary comments people make.

You've said this before, yet it has turned out to be false. You have no control over how long you will post here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They think that because it's a free-for-all forum, that anything goes even if it ruins a productive conversation. I can't control what people say, but it will prevent me from desiring to continue. Even you Spacemonkey say things that are unnecessary, like his non-discovery. What's your point in saying this, when you don't really know, other than trying to make him wrong, before you even know whether this discovery is valid?

When is the last time I called it a non-discovery? Did I do so in the post you were replying to? Why do you bring this up now? And what was the answer I gave you the last time you asked why I use this term? Do you remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to use the fact that no one has embraced this book as some kind of proof that this knowledge is inaccurate. There is no other reason for bringing it up.

No, I'm not doing that. The other obvious reason for bringing it up is that you have just been claiming otherwise - by lying to us all about having non-gullible supporters backing you up. You know this is not true. You have all but conceded as much in your present post. So my point in mentioning the fact that no-one has ever embraced his book is not to show that Lessans' knowledge is inaccurate, but rather to refute your own transparent lies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not lie when I said there is someone in academia who is very interested in this book.

See how your story has changed? Your imaginary supporters have gone from plural to singular, and from backing you up to merely being interested in the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it won't happen because the principles are spot on, and people will see intuitively that these principles work.

Another faith-claim that flies in the face of all of your own experience presenting these principles to other people.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say Lessans was wrong, I said YOU are wrong.

The two are functionally equivalent for peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a reasonable sounding theory, just like it's a reasonable sounding theory that the ciliary muscle is undeveloped in infants, which is the reason their eyes can't focus well. I'm sorry if you resent him for coming to the conclusions he did based on his astute observations (not mere assertions); just because they are different from yours. This inself does not make him wrong.

You don't even realize what you've just conceded here, do you? I was using this point about prosopagnosia to address your claim that it is logical to infer efferent vision from dog's alleged yet still unevidenced inability to recognize human faces. You've just agreed that I've presented a "reasonable sounding theory", and that is all it takes to undermine your inference. I don't need to prove that this theory is correct (especially when it is being used to explain an alleged fact that no-one else believes to even be true). As long as there is at least one other reasonable sounding theory, then you cannot reliably infer that the correct explanation for your made-up fact is efferent vision. You have at least two options now, and you have no more reason to think that canine vision is efferent than to think that the reasonable sounding theory I've offered is correct.

This is the same myopic failing I diagnosed in Lessans' thinking years ago at IIDB. It runs through all three of his alleged discoveries, and you are as guilty of it as he was. You both identify one possibility, and then treat it as the obviously correct one without any skepticism or any consideration of other possible explanations. And this critically undermines the validity of the conclusions you both draw.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The defendant in a criminal proceeding is charged with rape. A jury is impaneled and trial begins. The state, which bears the burdens of production and persuasion, presents its case first. The prosecutor calls the alleged victim to the stand, who testifies that she was raped and that the defendant was the rapist. After being questioned from both sides on direct, cross, redirect and recross examination, the witness is excused and the prosecutor rests the state's case. The state has presented just one "piece of evidence," namely the alleged victim's testimony.

Defense counsel stands up and moves for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the prosecution's case is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict of guilty.

Is the defendant entitled to a judgment of acquittal?

My guess (made in the absence of any training in the lawyerly arts) is that the defendant is not entitled to a judgement of acquittal because he has not impeached the witness/victim's testimony.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it doesn't. What evidence do you have that our memory for and mental representation of faces is linguistically-based? This is quite obviously false. Facial recognition is based on mental imagery, not words, and once again your only grounds for thinking otherwise is 'My daddy said so!'. How ridiculous is that?

I am pretty sure that children who are born deaf are automatically rendered blind by their inability to acquire language. One does wonder though how some of them manage to learn sign language.