A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

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

Don't you see what you're doing? You're automatically putting me in the category of "woo" just because these people are using the same phraseology as I am. But if Lessans is right, then by calling me a "woo" is actually preventing this knowledge from being taken seriously. I know that this group's skepticism has already done its damage. You've all made up your minds. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone actually reads the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone actually reads the book.

Without too much fear of contradiction, I would say we (on this forum, posting on this thread) have read the book, why would we want to read it again?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see what you're doing? You're automatically putting me in the category of "woo" just because these people are using the same phraseology as I am. But if Lessans is right, then by calling me a "woo" is actually preventing this knowledge from being taken seriously. I know that this group's skepticism has already done its damage. You've all made up your minds. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone actually reads the book.

I'm putting you in the category of "woo" because the things you believe in are not supported by the evidence. In that sense, you're just as bad as a Creationist, or a flat-Earther.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm putting you in the category of "woo" because the things you believe in are not supported by the evidence. In that sense, you're just as bad as a Creationist, or a flat-Earther.

I know there's nothing that will change your mind, so believe what you want. Just know that you have no idea what his discovery is, let alone understand why it's not a tautology when he says man's will is not free.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I've never contradicted myself here, whereas you do so in virtually every post you make. Like I said, 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.

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 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.

I just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. You proved yet again that you will not try to answer such questions, but will instead weasel, evade, and ignore such questions because you know you have no rational answers. You haven't demonstrated any mistaken conclusions on my part regarding compatibilism. You still don't seem to understand it at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There's your memory impairment playing up again. I've told you repeatedly why I am here. YOU are the one with no rational answer to that question. As I said, 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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I've never once told you that we can have free will and no free will at the same time. That is your own retarded strawman, which I have repeatedly corrected. You are asking me to question a position you don't even understand, and insulting me by suggesting that I have accepted it only because it has been validated by other philosophers. Like I said, 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.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Hurray! We are back on the really, really idiotic stuff! And I see already we have images travelling (lol) and apparently we see light the normal way, but we see images directly!

Which is amazing, as this means that we should see the light reflecting off the moons of Jupiter somewhere different from where we see Jupiter itself. After all, the light needs quite some time to get here, but the image of Jupiter's moon does not. It should have moved on quite a bit before the reflected light reaches us.

Quick empirical test: does this happen? Result: Of course not.

The light reaches us at the same time as the image every time. Almost as if... images do not travel, but are merely light received by a suitable receptor and interpreted as an image!

Oh dear. And it is empirical and everything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Well actually the light (Provided it wasn't clouded over that day) from Columbus landing in America is still traveling out through space, and if you were out far enough and had a large enough lens or mirror you could focus an image of Columbus setting foot on the 'New World'. So in a sense the image is in the light, but the light needs to be collected and focused to reveal that image, and you would still find light that would be of a particular wavelength of a corrosponding color, only a little of it would be white.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, in peacegirl's mind, the mark of a good scientist is that (s)he disregards all experimental evidence which does not conform to his/her preconceived notions of what the results of those experiments "should be."

[thedoc]

Peacegirl saying that an image does not travel in the light is very misleading, it seems that she thinks that each photon is a little picture of the whole image. In truth each photon is of a particular color (frequency) and is in a particular position in relation to all the other photons so that it forms one very tiny pixel of the overall image. Just like a TV or computer screen. Did you ever look clocely at a picture in a News Paper, they use relatively large screen so the dots can easily be seen, naked eye or with a little magnification. Each dot can be thought of as a pixel that makes up the whole picture. In a color photo you will see 4 little dots (Magenta, Cyan, Yellow, Black) of different colors that make up the picture. A more in depth look here,

Color printing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, my wife worked in a printing shop where they did this, and I taught printing in JR, HS.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, in peacegirl's mind, the mark of a good scientist is that (s)he disregards all experimental evidence which does not conform to his/her preconceived notions of what the results of those experiments "should be."

This is not news, really, if you are just now comeing to that conclusion, you are really slow on the uptake.

[The Lone Ranger]

No, I just like pointing that out once in awhile. She needs to be reminded from time to time of her hypocrisy, and that no one is buying her bs.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has not been determined by mathematical certainty. Blame and punishment are based, whether consciously or unconsciously, that this person could have done differently. The minute you say, "Why did you do that," you're blaming. If you knew that a person could not have chosen otherwise, could you really blame him for what he had no choice in doing? Would you blame someone for having a broken arm? We know that if someone wants something badly enough all the threats of punishment in the world will never stop someone who wants something badly enough, even at the risk of prison or the death penalty. So as far as being a deterrent, yes, threats of punishment can, in some cases, change a person's actions, but it usually takes more than this. It takes understanding and nurturing for a person to change his heart.

You're talking about an emotional issue, not a legal one. There are many reasons why people need to have this control but you can't separate out the mental processes going on until we raise children in a world where they are not hurt. By the time someone gets to this point, there's no telling the kinds of abuses he has had to deal with on a daily basis. That goes for all kinds of unfair treatment at home and in society at large.

We're talking about two different things. You are assuming people express savagery for no reason, but children are not born savages. They may go through the "me" stage, or even be mischievous as children often are, but they are not born bad seeds.

Your astute observation is not valid where Lessans' observation is. All observations are not equal, sorry. The purpose of conscience is to either allow a person to follow through with actions that could hurt someone, or not to allow a person to follow through with what he knows could be a hurt to someone. What determines whether their conscience allows him to hurt others is whether he has already been hurt which justifies what he is about to do. What also allows conscience to permit hurting others is the belief behind the action. If I believe a group of people are responsible for the world's problems --- even if it's not true but it's what I was taught --- I will feel justified in retaliating, and conscience will permit me to do any number of things to get back.

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.

Peacegirl, if you can't even give me the benefit of the doubt and agree that my observations are spot on and that I am able to see patterns and relations that others have missed, then there is no way that you are ever going to be able to understand my arguments and we won't be able to move on from here. The thing is I know you have the intellect to understand this but you won't even try because you are blinded by your desire for me to be wrong. It is really quite sad because you won't be the only loser. You will end up ruining it for everyone else if they blindly follow your lead. It is all very frustrating.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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

It didn't have to go to school for that. I have a natural talent.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That's two more for the list.

No matter how hard she tries she just can't see the trees for the forest.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Perhaps we can hook her up with one of the presidential debate coaches.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, if you can't even give me the benefit of the doubt and agree that my observations are spot on and that I am able to see patterns and relations that others have missed, then there is no way that you are ever going to be able to understand my arguments and we won't be able to move on from here. The thing is I know you have the intellect to understand this but you won't even try because you are blinded by your desire for me to be wrong. It is really quite sad because you won't be the only loser. You will end up ruining it for everyone else if they blindly follow your lead. It is all very frustrating.

Frustrating indeed. Looks like we've gotta go back to Square One.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No matter how hard she tries she just can't see the trees for the forest pudding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Square One.

Interesting TV show, I had most of the Mathnet episodes on tape. I especially liked Kate Monday on the one episode where she was wearing tight jeans.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

So once again you admit there's no reason to believe Lessans, or believe anything he says will ever be shown correct.

And you have no response to the mountains of evidence disproving Lessans.

So why are you trying to sell this stuff when there is no more reason to believe it than any other whoo? And plenty of good reason to say it is wrong? You're peddling crackpottery, and you are lying when you deny it.

I had a lot more sympathy for you before you started to have a financial motive.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know there's nothing that will change your mind, so believe what you want. Just know that you have no idea what his discovery is, let alone understand why it's not a tautology when he says man's will is not free.

Oh, I pretty firmly believe that man's will is not free. I just don't accept Lessans book as valid proof of the concept, or find Lessans other ideas very useful.

My mind is pretty flexible when it comes to accepting new ideas that are based in facts and evidence.

[LadyShea]

Don't you see what you're doing? You're automatically putting Scientology in the category of "cult" just because it's adherents are using the same phraseology as other cults. But if L Ron Hubbard is right, then by calling it a "cult" is actually preventing his knowledge from being taken seriously. Your skepticism has already done its damage.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I had a lot more sympathy for you before you started to have a financial motive.

She told us a while ago that she spent all of her savings on previous editing/formatting etc. This is another round of paid for stuff. She hopes to recoup her losses...which to me indicates she is chasing sunk costs and so will be more determined than ever to not let facts get in the way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Spacemonkey

I've never contradicted myself here, whereas you do so in virtually every post you make.

You have definitely 100% contradicted yourself Spacemonkey. Please don't hide behind the label of "compatibilism" to support your conclusions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Like I said, 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.

You are a joke, okay? I'm not even talking to you if this is the kind of junk you're spewing. Get off your high dam horse Spacmeonkey and face the facts that you have no idea what this discovery is about.

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 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 Spacemonkey

I just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. You proved yet again that you will not try to answer such questions, but will instead weasel, evade, and ignore such questions because you know you have no rational answers. You haven't demonstrated any mistaken conclusions on my part regarding compatibilism. You still don't seem to understand it at all.

No, you're wrong again, no surprise. Of course I have not demonstrated why compatibilism, although well-intentioned, is totally wrong. You won't give me a dam CHANCE. You attack me every chance you get. How can I ever explain his knowledge with the kind of venom that you are spewing Spacemonkey, just because I'm showing you that your worldview needs adjustment. I have answered all questions. I evade nothing. I have made a concerted effort to try to explain what this knowledge is about but I am pushed back by lies about myself and Lessans.

to be cont....

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, I just like pointing that out once in awhile. She needs to be reminded from time to time of her hypocrisy, and that no one is buying her bs.

Your advice, 'droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.'
Unfortunately in this case Peacegirl is a duck and the water of advice just rolls off her back, and she, by not taking, is not blest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Don't you see what you're doing? You're automatically putting Scientology in the category of "cult" just because it's adherents are using the same phraseology as other cults. But if L Ron Hubbard is right, then by calling it a "cult" is actually preventing his knowledge from being taken seriously. Your skepticism has already done its damage.

These conclusions that bring about such distorted views are not surprising given the vulnerability of those who are destitute and suffering, to your advantage. You cannot put the perception of what Lessans saw (whether you believe it off the bat or not), in the same category. You can't Ladyshea. I'm hoping that you will let your guard down enough to study this work IN EARNEST. You are so skeptical (which is understandable but nevertheless is a HUGE stumbling block to bringing this knowledge to light), that I don't know how to break through this sound barrier of total ignorance and denial. You will continue to believe you're right; never read the book with the intention of giving him the benefit of the doubt, and therefore you will conclude that he was no different than all of the new agers who also accused the scientific community of the same thing. Do you not see the problem I am faced with?

[Vivisectus]

I think it is rather the lack of evidence that keeps people from being convinced. The book just does not make a very strong case for it's ideas... or any case at all. Why should we believe conscience works the way the book says it does?

It is central to the entire system that it does. Don't you think it would be rather important to include some evidence, or at least some sort of case for believing it to work like that? In the book, there is merely the claim THAT it works that way.

Why do you expect people to believe something that you have no evidence for, or even a case for?