A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that if you carefully studied the book you would see that the "greater satisfaction" principle and its corollary (that nothing can make man do anything against his will) is absolutely undeniable and are the foundational principles on which the two-sided equation is based. He saw patterns in human behavior that other people missed, and these are universal principles. He did not sample a few people and then generalized like so many people are suggesting. Many people I have talked to don't refute, or have a problem, with the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction which renders only one choice possible at each and every moment of time. They just didn't understand the importance of this fact.

I believe if you carefully studied Ang's posts, you'd see his astute observations are correct. He sees things other people miss. You just haven't studied his posts hard enough.

Anyway, as usual you weasled out of answering a straightforward question: how do we tell whose "astute observations" are correct?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that if you carefully studied the book you would see that the "greater satisfaction" principle and its corollary (that nothing can make man do anything against his will) is absolutely undeniable and are the foundational principles on which the two-sided equation is based. He saw patterns in human behavior that other people missed, and these are universal principles. He did not sample a few people and then generalized like so many people are suggesting. Many people I have talked to don't refute, or have a problem, with the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction which renders only one choice possible at each and every moment of time. They just didn't understand the importance of this fact.

But if you study Angakuk's post, you find it is undeniable in a mathematical way, and is a foundational principle on which other bits of his statement is based. He clearly stated that what he said was undeniable.

He has seen patterns in human behaviour that some other people were aware of too but never put together in that particular fashion. On top of that he has some actual credentials, which puts him one step ahead of Lessans in the credibility scale.

The way I see it we have the same amount of reasons to believe Anga is right as we have for Lessans, plus one more: Anga would actually have had to acquire at least a smidgen of philosophy in godbothering-school or wherever he went.

[Dragar]

I think Ang went to a people-bothering-school, but whatever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I can't put out an inferior product.

Too late!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many people I have talked to don't refute, or have a problem, with the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction which renders only one choice possible at each and every moment of time.
.

We may move in the direction of 'greater satisfaction' but that does not restrict us to only one choice of many. It could be that the act of choosing makes that choice the one of 'greater satisfaction', and not any condition before the choice was made. But then this is what Lessans tried to say in the book. And then it is true that our 'will is free' and we could make any of several choices.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I think Ang went to a people-bothering-school, but whatever.

Well if it wasn't part of his majors curriculum He certainly earned a masters degree post-graduate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I believe if you carefully studied Ang's posts, you'd see his astute observations are correct. He sees things other people miss. You just haven't studied his posts hard enough.

Anyway, as usual you weasled out of answering a straightforward question: how do we tell whose "astute observations" are correct?

All I can tell you is to study the book and wait for empirical testing to prove whether he is right or wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But if you study Angakuk's post, you find it is undeniable in a mathematical way, and is a foundational principle on which other bits of his statement is based. He clearly stated that what he said was undeniable.

He has seen patterns in human behaviour that some other people were aware of too but never put together in that particular fashion. On top of that he has some actual credentials, which puts him one step ahead of Lessans in the credibility scale.

The way I see it we have the same amount of reasons to believe Anga is right as we have for Lessans, plus one more: Anga would actually have had to acquire at least a smidgen of philosophy in godbothering-school or wherever he went.

You can believe anything you want Vivisectus. The ultimate test will be empirical testing which will prove, one way or another, who was right.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He clearly stated that what he said was undeniable.

That right there is the key. I know Angakuk to be an honest and humble man. If he were ever wrong about anything, he'd say so. To the best of my knowledge, Ang has never said he was wrong in declaring the statements at issue undeniable. Ergo, de jure, ipso facto, the declaration was correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you know that this is just a ruse to get me back here. You aren't interested in how I work things out. So now you're using NA's tactics as if he is showing concern for me when he is spewing hatred. Thanks David for defending me because very few people would even try. That being said, I'm sure David will have another one of his spoofs to counteract all the good he did on my behalf.

That is such a worn out excuse. Stop copying NA, people can see your insincerity. He isn't interested in my mental health, and neither are you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Obviously it is easier for you to tell yourself that our legitimate concern for your mental health is insincere, than to face up to the reality that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people that you are unwell. I do not want you to stay here. I want you to leave and get the help you need. This is not a ruse. It is not an excuse.

You are such a good talker that even I would be convinced to buy an igloo from an eskimo if you were the salesman.

You are a total contradiction, and I don't trust what you're saying about your desire for my well-being with a ten foot pole, and neither should anyone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This response is what I call wasted time. If you don't a sincere question, then please leave this thread, or you are the one that will look foolish.

I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you for again proving my point. Two intelligent questions which you are completely incapable of honestly and directly answering.

I will try to answer questions related to the book. I will not get off track and answer questions that have absolutely no relevance. You are not going to corner me with junk responses to try to weedle your way out of taking responsibility for your own mistaken conclusions regardling compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say I haven't answered questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And with good reason. See above. You are compelled to stay here to discuss his book, with people who are convinced that you are nuts, demanding intelligent questions which you lack the capacity to rationally address.

As I have asked you many times, if you believe that I'm nuts, why are you here? You cannot give a rational answer which makes me think that you are the one that's nuts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that why I spent an hour and a half answering your last question regarding moral responsibility, and all you could to was tell me I'm not sane. Is that a normal answer in a serious debate? You didn't answer the post, you just skirted the whole thing. Could it be that you couldn't come up with an adequate answer?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You never answered post #20215. And your answers to the post you did address were, as usual, so ridiculous as to not be worth responding to. There's really no point continuing discussion, as you lack the capacity to comprehend what you are replying to, along with the ability to think in any terms other than complete concordance with your father's claims, and continued debate only feeds your delusion. You want to continue discussion, and manage to convince yourself that you're doing well, even when in reality you can't go more than a post without directly contradicting your own words, misreading what you are replying to, or even arguing with your own previous words. 'Debate' with you is a joke. You need help.

It is YOU who is contradicting yourself when you tell me that we can have free will and no free will at the same time. You think this is perfect reasoning because there are people who have legitimized this theory, and they are considered the cream of the crop. This is so misconstrued that I can't even begin to understand how someone who has a smigeon of intelligence would not question the validity of this position.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That right there is the key. I know Angakuk to be an honest and humble man. If he were ever wrong about anything, he'd say so. To the best of my knowledge, Ang has never said he was wrong in declaring the statements at issue undeniable. Ergo, de jure, ipso facto, the declaration was correct.

Maybe Angakuk is an honest and humble man, but you're not one who would know what that looks like considering how the opposite of these characteristics you display. Anything you say, therefore, should be taken with utmost skepticism and looked at for your underlying, and dishonest, motive.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ultimate test will be empirical testing which will prove, one way or another, who was right.

Like ... firing space probes at planets' calculated positions (as opposed to where we see them) to see if they miss -- as they would, if we see in "real time"? Those kinds of empirical tests?


Or testing the hypothesis that the neutrinos from a distant supernova explosion arrive here on Earth long after we see the explosion -- as would be the case if we saw in "real time"? Maybe that is the kind of empirical testing you're thinking of?

[Stephen Maturin]

Don't be silly, TLR. She's not talking about THOSE kinds of empirical tests; she talking about the kinds of empirical tests that will prove Lessans correct.

Why do you hate whirled peas?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Like ... firing space probes at planets' calculated positions (as opposed to where we see them) to see if they miss -- as they would, if we see in "real time"? Those kinds of empirical tests?


Or testing the hypothesis that the neutrinos from a distant supernova explosion arrive here on Earth long after we see the explosion -- as would be the case if we saw in "real time"? Maybe that is the kind of empirical testing you're thinking of?

Let's see what happens when other variables are carefully added Lone Ranger. This is exactly why you have tuned me out which is really unfortunate considering that if all scientists are just like you, it might just take another 3000 years for this knowledge to be validated and world peace to become a reality. Hopefully, by that time an atomic bomb won't wipe all civilizaton out.

[The Lone Ranger]

Oh! Oh! I know!

How about we design an experiment with a rapidly-spinning, slitted plate, in order to test whether or not we can see in real time? Is that the sort of test you're talking about?

[thedoc]

Nah, that's way too complicated, Peacegirl is thinking more like an experiment where you are in a dark room and turn on a flashlight, and with your wrist watch you time how long it takes till you can see the spot of light on the wall. That would be very simple, direct, and much more reliable because it would seem to confirm Lessans ideas. Oh, and the speed of light has probably been calculated wrong, and it's irrevelant.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's see what happens when other variables are carefully added Lone Ranger. This is exactly why you have tuned me out which is really unfortunate considering that if all scientists are just like you, it might just take another 3000 years for this knowledge to be validated and world peace to become a reality.

You're exactly 180 degrees off there. Your problem is precisely that I haven't tuned out, and I have given your claims and ideas serious consideration. You just don't like the results. After all, your claims and ideas have been tested -- many, many, many times, and in many, many different ways. Reality is a bitch, as they say.


But do feel free to complain about how the entire Universe is one big conspiracy to disguise the fact that Lessans was correct.

[thedoc]

I Eat My Peas with Honey

By Anonymous Anonymous

"I eat my peas with honey;
I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny,
But it keeps them on the knife."

[Vivisectus]

You can believe anything you want Vivisectus. The ultimate test will be empirical testing which will prove, one way or another, who was right.

Yes indeed. One day we will fire a probe at far-away planet and... oh wait that already happened.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh! Oh! I know!

How about we design an experiment with a rapidly-spinning, slitted plate, in order to test whether or not we can see in real time? Is that the sort of test you're talking about?

I never ever said that this experiment didn't work. I never ever said that we can't measure the speed of light through various means, but what does this have to do with seeing images of material objects (that no longer exist) in that same light?

[The Lone Ranger]

Um, because of the fact that the entire point of the experiment is that someone actually looks through the rotating slit to determine through direct observation whether or not we see in real time?

It's not complicated. If we saw in "real time," no matter how fast the plate was spun, the observer would always be able to see the reflected image in "real time," and the calculated speed of light would be "infinite."

That's most-definitely not what happens. When you do the actual experiment, it demonstrates quite clearly that there is a measureable delay in seeing, imposed by the limited speed of light. We can and do measure the time-delay between something happening and our seeing it here on Earth. Astronomical observations are just icing on the cake, because the great distances involved mean that the delays are much longer, and therefore more consequential.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're exactly 180 degrees off there. Your problem is precisely that I haven't tuned out, and I have given your claims and ideas serious consideration. You just don't like the results. After all, your claims and ideas have been tested -- many, many, many times, and in many, many different ways. Reality is a bitch, as they say.

Reality is not a bitch as long as it's reality, but when we think something is reality when it's not, it is more than a real bitch, it actually sets us back because we wouldn't know the truth if it was staring us in the face.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But do feel free to complain about how the entire Universe is one big conspiracy to disguise the fact that Lessans was correct.

This is not about a conspiracy against Lessans. I know that all the tests seem to support the idea that we don't see in real time, but you need consider the possibility that this claim might be valid or you will not be living up to the name "scientist". Isn't a scientist supposed to be open minded? Are you telling me that there is absolutely no possibility that he could be right about this? If you are, then you have closed your mind off. You obviously don't want him to be right because you somehow think this would change the world as we know it. It does no such thing. We still keep GPS systems; we still keep fiber optics; we still keep all the technologies that work due to light. And, by the way, our world would not burn up and the sky would not be all white. So the conception that seeing in real time would make our world unlivable is absolutely wrong.

[thedoc]

Stephen Maturin, just for you,

Andy Griffith - Amazing Grace - YouTube

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reality is not a bitch as long as it's reality, but when we think something is reality when it's not, it is more than a real bitch, it actually sets us back because we wouldn't know the truth if it was staring us in the face.

This is not about a conspiracy against Lessans. I know that all the tests seem to support the idea that we don't see in real time, but you need consider the possibility that this claim might be valid or you will not be living up to the name "scientist". Isn't a scientist supposed to be open minded? Are you telling me that there is absolutely no possibility that he could be right about this? If you are, then you have closed your mind off. You obviously don't want him to be right because you somehow think this would change the world as we know it. It does no such thing. We still keep GPS systems; we still keep fiber optics; we still keep all the technologies that work due to light. And, by the way, our world would not burn up and the sky would not be all white. So the conception that seeing in real time would make our world unlivable is absolutely wrong.

Classic woo-woo defense, "scientists need to have an open mind" even though all the evidence points to the fact that Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Um, because of the fact that the entire point of the experiment is that someone actually looks through the rotating slit to determine through direct observation whether or not we see in real time?

It's not complicated. If we saw in "real time," no matter how fast the plate was spun, the observer would always be able to see the reflected image in "real time," and the calculated speed of light would be "infinite."

That's most-definitely not what happens. When you do the actual experiment, it demonstrates quite clearly that there is a measureable delay in seeing, imposed by the limited speed of light. We can and do measure the time-delay between something happening and our seeing it here on Earth. Astronomical observations are just icing on the cake, because the great distances involved mean that the delays are much longer, and therefore more consequential.

That makes sense. You can't see light if it hasn't gotten here yet, or if it's being blocked because of it's finite speed. But again this has nothing to do with seeing images of past objects in the light itself. In other words, I would never ever see an image of Columbus discovery America even if I was in the right place at the estimated right time because there is no image of this person traveling through space and time.