A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

People here respect you enough to be honest with you about your disturbing mental condition and consistently irrational behaviour.

You know that's not true as well as I. I don't know why people are reacting with such hostility (especially you) toward me. It definitely has to do with the group mentality, and the fact that when someone is down the group will beat him to a pulp. I became a target because of the claim regarding the eyes. Now it's just fun for people to have a scapegoat and I was chosen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is just your way to try to blame us for the fact your book makes no sense.

We have a simple solution: send it in to some professional philosophers and see what they think! If we are wrong about the book, they can explain to us how and why. If we are not, then you have fulfilled your duty and brought the book to leading scientists who can evaluate the book.

But you are not interested in that at all, now are you?

Why don't the people here help me find some open-minded philosophers who are willing to study these principles? I'm sure you all know people who are interested in this topic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do understand the implication of determinism. Being able to say, "I was caused to kill this person because my will is not free," as an excuse for someone to be released of all responsibility, is a valid concern and one of the predicaments that play out with those taking this position.

Still wrong. It is not a legitimate excuse, and reflects only a failure to understand the true implications of determinism. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. I don't think you understand what 'implication' even means, nevermind what the implications of determinism actually are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that's not true as well as I.

It's perfectly true. People respect you enough as a person to be honest with you rather than play along with your delusions of sanity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the group motivation for the way they act toward me. I believe the cause has to do with the claim regarding the eyes, which made me a target. It's just fun for people to have a scapegoat.

If you don't know then don't guess. Your own behavior is what determines how people react to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's perfectly true. People respect you enough as a person to be honest with you rather than play along with your delusions of sanity.

If you don't know then don't guess. Your own behavior is what determines how people react to you.

Just because I have a different worldview does not warrant the verbal attacks I've gotten and the outright lies about my character.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Still wrong. It is not a legitimate excuse, and reflects only a failure to understand the true implications of determinism. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. I don't think you understand what 'implication' even means, nevermind what the implications of determinism actually are.

If you're so smart, then tell me what the implications of determinism are instead of mocking me.

[Vivisectus]

I have never evaded any of your concerns, but you are using this to make people feel I did. This is wrong Vivisectus. Just because you are one of the groupies in here does not mean you're right. You have no understanding whatsoever of this knowledge if you think that your refutations disprove this knowledge.

Once again you break the rules of rational debate: you make empty claims, and you evade the point. Please go back and actually address what I said in stead of resorting to feeble attempts at emotional blackmail.

My point was that the past does indeed cause our behaviour in the present, through memory, in case you require the reminder. Of course you do not, really. You are just trying to evade it by throwing up clouds of blather and histrionics.

Remind me: why have you not submitted the first 2 chapters to the philosophy forum?

[Vivisectus]

Why don't the people here help me find some open-minded philosophers who are willing to study these principles? I'm sure you all know people who are interested in this topic.

I helped to find you impartial ones. But that is not what you want: they have to meet your criterium for being "open minded"... which means they have to agree with the book.

Tell me - if philosophers study the book and come to the conclusion that it is full of fallacies... would you accept it?

If not, then why would you value the opinion of a philosopher that agrees with the book? What does it matter when you have already made up your mind, and when there is no way you will change it no-matter what anyone says? Why bother seeking out anyone's opinion, unless you are just looking for people to pontificate at?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey has beaten into my head that there is no one here who gives a dam.

A 'Dam' is a large structure that holds back water, 'Damn' is what no-one here gives, except for concern about your mental health. Correct spelling would certainly enhance your respectability, I should know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again you break the rules of rational debate: you make empty claims, and you evade the point. Please go back and actually address what I said in stead of resorting to feeble attempts at emotional blackmail.

My point was that the past does indeed cause our behaviour in the present, through memory, in case you require the reminder. Of course you do not, really. You are just trying to evade it by throwing up clouds of blather and histrionics.

The past (what we remember) obviously has an impact on our choices in the present depending on what those experiences were and how they affected us. Everything that has happened in our lives has an effect on the choices we will make. But it was critical that Lessans explained this distinction. If you can't even agree on the two principles that lead into Chapter Two, there is no hope that you will ever understand this discovery. I am not making any empty claims Vivisectus. You are falsely accusing me of doing things I am innocent of. You call that fair play?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Remind me: why have you not submitted the first 2 chapters to the philosophy forum?

No one in here would give this discovery a fair analysis. I wouldn't even attempt it. I want to find philosophers that are objective and can study the book carefully without taking parts out of context. You cannot be objective at this point, there's no way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I helped to find you impartial ones. But that is not what you want: they have to meet your criterium for being "open minded"... which means they have to agree with the book.

Tell me - if philosophers study the book and come to the conclusion that it is full of fallacies... would you accept it?

I would accept it. I will not attempt to discuss with any philosopher the claim about the eyes. Only empirical testing will prove one way or another whether Lessans was right, and that's what I will be waiting for.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If not, then why would you value the opinion of a philosopher that agrees with the book? What does it matter when you have already made up your mind, and when there is no way you will change it no-matter what anyone says? Why bother seeking out anyone's opinion, unless you are just looking for people to pontificate at?

You are assuming that all philosophers will find this knowledge lacking. In fact, you'd probably bet your life on it. But what if I find philosophers that agree with Lessans, what would you say then? Would you finally admit that there might be something to this discovery afterall? Would you question the way you treated me? Would you look back and maybe think to yourself that you were wrong this whole time?

[peacegirl]

You might find this interesting:

See Videos: Psychotropic Drugs—the story

[Spacemonkey]

I thought you were leaving? Or was that just another empty claim?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I thought you were leaving? Or was that just another empty claim?

How do you know whether someone hasn't pm'd me and told me to stay? I thought you were going to explain to me the implications of determinism? Guess not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know whether someone hasn't pm'd me and told me to stay?

Has anyone PM'd you and told you to stay? If not, then why are you still here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you were going to explain to me the implications of determinism?

I don't recall offering to do that. All you need you know is that being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one in here would give this discovery a fair analysis. I wouldn't even attempt it. I want to find philosophers that are objective and can study the book carefully without taking parts out of context. You cannot be objective at this point, there's no way.

What do you mean "in here"? Vivisectus gave you a link to a totally different forum full of philosophers, and you said you wouldn't go there. In fact you said any philosophers you contacted would have to buy the book...which is a very strange way of having a work academically reviewed. Did you contact any of them as you said were going to?

Speaking of which, what happened with the academic you said you were talking to?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You might find this interesting:

See Videos: Psychotropic Drugs—the story

lol

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is a Scientology front group which campaigns against psychiatry and psychiatrists.

. . .

CCHR also blames psychiatry for school shootings, the 9/11 attacks on America, the German Holocaust, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Jonestown massacre.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Speaking of which, what happened with the academic you said you were talking to?

Oh, that. Turns out that was a big fat lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Has anyone PM'd you and told you to stay? If not, then why are you still here?

I don't recall offering to do that. All you need you know is that being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires.

No, I didn't say being caused to do something implies that one was compelled to do it against his will. I said that the use of the word "cause" as it is defined in the standard definition could allow someone to use this as an excuse for his actions by saying that he really didn't want to do what he did, but he was caused to do it. That has dangerous implications for those who are concerned about moral responsibility because the argument follows that if man's will is not free, one is not to blame. According to present day thinking, a world without blame would make matters worse, decreasing responsibility and giving man the perfect opportunity to take advantage of others without having to worry about consequences. You don't have to respond because I am not interested in discussing this with you anymore.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Stephen Maturin;1088606]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You might find this interesting:

See Videos: Psychotropic Drugs—the story

lol

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is a Scientology front group which campaigns against psychiatry and psychiatrists.

. . .

CCHR also blames psychiatry for school shootings, the 9/11 attacks on America, the German Holocaust, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Jonestown massacre.

This video did not lie. The timeline of when these drugs were manufactured did not lie. The showing of the history of how these psychotropic drugs came onto the scene of Western civilization did not lie.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Speaking of which, what happened with the academic you said you were talking to?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, that. Turns out that was a big fat lie.

There you go again making up stories about me. Who is turning out to be the liar? I would never tell you who I talked to. I am not on trial.

[LadyShea]

I didn't ask who you talked to, I am wondering what he/she had to say about the book.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I didn't say being caused to do something implies that one was compelled to do it against his will.

Yes you did. That's exactly what you said. Let me quote your exact words:

"If you say something caused you to do something, it implies that you did it not because you wanted to, but because it made you do it."

Oh, and you seem to have 'skipped' over another part of my post. I asked you:

Has anyone PM'd you and told you to stay? If not, then why are you still here?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is an important distinction, which I've been repeating for days now. If you say something caused you to do something, it implies that you did it not because you wanted to, but because it made you do it. But nothing can make you do something if you don't want to. These two opposing principles are not contradictory. And they are important for the understanding of his discovery.

The obvious corollary to the claim that "nothing can make you do something if you don't want to" is that if you do something it is because you wanted to do that thing. My question for you, peacegirl, is where does the desire to do some particular thing come from? What is the source, or origin, of the desire that results in any particular act?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be used as an excuse Spacemonkey. That's all I'm saying.

If that is all you are saying, then you do not appear to be saying anything useful. The truth value of a claim is not conditional upon the desirability of the consequences attendant upon the truth of said claim. The mere fact that a particular understanding of determinism may be used (validly or invalidly) to excuse undesirable behavior has no bearing on the truth value of that particular understanding of determinism.

[Vivisectus]

The past (what we remember) obviously has an impact on our choices in the present depending on what those experiences were and how they affected us. Everything that has happened in our lives has an effect on the choices we will make.

As such, we can say that our decisions in the present are caused by the past. So why say "how can the past cause you to do something in the present as it does not exist?" I vaguely remember similar statements in the book.

But it was critical that Lessans explained this distinction.

I don't think it was either new or critical, but I would have to look up the "new" part.

If you can't even agree on the two principles that lead into Chapter Two, there is no hope that you will ever understand this discovery. I am not making any empty claims Vivisectus. You are falsely accusing me of doing things I am innocent of. You call that fair play?

Far from it: you do it all the time. I have pointed a lot of them out. It is where you simply claim something and leave it at that. Much like your father simply claims conscience works the way he says, and then moves on as if he has proven it beyond a doubt.

Another thing you do is this strange attempt at trying to coax agreement out of people by promising them further insight. Right now you say "If you cant even agree with this, there is no hope of you understanding the discovery."

That is not true. If I reject the basic principles of an idea, then there is no hope of me agreeing with it. I can understand an idea without agreeing with it.

To you, full agreement is a prerequisite for understanding. That is irrational, and I would argue against using that tactic as it is standard MO for woo-merchants and people with crackpot ideas, along with blaming all criticism on bias and closed-mindedness.

Also, calling this work a "discovery" is boastful: we are looking at it to see if it is or not. So far the consensus is that it is nothing of the sort, with a minority of 1 stating differently.

No one in here would give this discovery a fair analysis. I wouldn't even attempt it. I want to find philosophers that are objective and can study the book carefully without taking parts out of context. You cannot be objective at this point, there's no way.

I mean, of course, the philosophy forum that has a panel of 20 philosophers with the explicit purpose of answering people's questions regarding philosophy. Nothing to do with anyone in here. They are impartial (they have never heard of the book) and they are experts in the relevant field. A golden opportunity to get this book to the attention of "leading scientists of the time". Simply send them chapter 1 and 2 so they can evaluate what the rest of the book is based on, and let you know what their professional opinion is. I do not think you ever will, and that you will continue to make feeble excuses about why you will not. The real reason is simply because you are afraid of impartial evaluation: all you want is confirmation.

Your claiming of bias, by the way, is nonsensical as usual. If the book makes sense, then how people feel about it should be irrelevant. The objections that are mere expressions of bias should not be rational, and therefore easy to refute.

Look at your responses: they are often irrational and based purely on emotion, and they have been pretty comprehensively refuted. It is just that you simply refuse to see it and keep muddling on, using evasion, waffling, appeals to emotion, claims of persecution, outright denial of the obvious, and on occasion even complete gobbledygook to allow yourself to live in denial. Look at some of the contradictory and completely nonsensical things you have said about light!

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would accept it.

Then send chapters 1 and 2 to the forum I pointed out earlier, and let them explain their opinion. It has a panel of 20 or so professional philosophers. At the very least it would be instructive to see what they say?

I will not attempt to discuss with any philosopher the claim about the eyes. Only empirical testing will prove one way or another whether Lessans was right, and that's what I will be waiting for.

I see no reason to discuss that with philosophers either, unless you are trying to provide them with comic relief.

You are assuming that all philosophers will find this knowledge lacking.

Yes, I feel that the likelihood of that is comparable to the likelihood of gravity continuing to operate tomorrow. There are some very basic fallacies in there.

In fact, you'd probably bet your life on it.

If I had to bet my life on one or the other, I know where my money would be. Hey, do you want to make this interesting by wagering something on the outcome?

But what if I find philosophers that agree with Lessans, what would you say then?

I would be mazed and wildered, I would be flabbered ghast, I would be founded dumb! I would also need to have a brief Q and A to clear up some points. It would be quite interesting in fact.

Would you finally admit that there might be something to this discovery afterall?

Sure - if said philosopher could explain it in a way that made sense. I would enjoy that very much.

Would you question the way you treated me?

No - that you deserved for the dishonest way in which you argue. Right or wrong, your approach is intellectually dishonest and irrational, and for that you deserve to be challenged, and since you continue to fail to mend your ways, derided.

Would you look back and maybe think to yourself that you were wrong this whole time?

Absolutely - if said philosopher would be able to make a coherent argument out of this muddle that matches what your father said, I would happily admit I was dead wrong.

What about you? If this is rejected by an impartial panel of professional philosophers, would you admit that the book is deluded nonsense?