A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Or perhaps the batteies have died?

Perhaps, but it could also be a very dim bulb.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Perhaps, but it could also be a very dim bulb.

Well, with Peacegirl, that's a given.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well, with Peacegirl, that's a given.

According to peacegirl, she sees efferently without a problem. It is the rest of the world that has the dim bulbs.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know not only will you not do this, but you give Lessans one ounce of credit because it will destroy your worldview, and that is something people cannot do without going nuts. They would have no identity.

This is precisely why you cannot admit that Lessans made errors. Doing that would destroy your worldview and cause you to go nuts.

Alternatively, you do realize that Lessans made errors and that realization has destroyed your worldview and has already caused you to go nuts.

[LadyShea]

Medical imaging means he can read cat scans. He doesn't have to determine how the brain works in relation to the eyes. No opthamologist knows this, so why would he be expected to. Anyway, this is out of his realm of expertise. This was grandfather's expertise, not his.

CAT scans use Xrays to create images, which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum (aka light)...in other words photons. Radiology relies on optics (the physics of light).

So yes, he does have expertise in some of the areas we have been covering...yet you've never asked him about Lessans ideas of vision and their plausibility. Noted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is precisely why you cannot admit that Lessans made errors. Doing that would destroy your worldview and cause you to go nuts.

Alternatively, you do realize that Lessans made errors and that realization has destroyed your worldview and has already caused you to go nuts.

Angakuk, instead of just coming back with the same old retort, why don't you ask some relevant questions which you have not done in quite awhile. What errors are you talking about, and how can you be so sure he is wrong? You don't know that; you're just spouting off what everyone else is saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

CAT scans use Xrays to create images, which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum (aka light)...in other words photons. Radiology relies on optics (the physics of light).

So yes, he does have expertise in some of the areas we have been covering...yet you've never asked him about Lessans ideas of vision and their plausibility. Noted.

We've talked about the book, and we've actually discussed the eyes. But this has nothing to do with his field of expertise. He is trying to understand what his grandfather discovered along with the rest of you. He can't wait to get his hands on the book that I have compiled. He will have a much better understanding of this knowledge just like you would, but you refuse.

CAT scans relies on optics, and where am I in disagreement with this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never told people not to question. Why do you think I'm here? It's about how one expresses himself, which lately is just filled with knocks and put downs. Half of this thread is filled with this vitriol. If I have a hard time responding to these posts, it's because of your arrogant tone. You then have the nerve to imply that it is me with small-minded religious mind? Boringgggggg

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But every time someone disagrees, they have not understood. Continuing to disagree means you are a) dumb b) Biased or c) malicious. It is not possible, according to you, to disagree with the book and be correct, even when he says things like "There are no afferent nerve-endings in the eye" which is obviously incorrect.

It is not obviously incorrect Vivisectus. And because you are so cock sure of yourself, you are making a joke out of this major work. This is a tragedy because it offers a way out of a crime, poverty stricken world. This world needs help and the knowledge is already here to offer that help. All we need to do is reach out our hands and take the help instead of self-righteously pooh poohing it. What ashame if we just passed it by because of our lack of belief that there is anything that has the power to cause this kind of paradigm shift.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You need to think I have some other motive to disagree with the book: it keeps you from having to actually face the fact that your father was a well-meaning but rather dim person who made himself look rather silly by blowing his own trumpet far to much in his deeply confused book.

Would you please stop saying that? At the very least, could you admit that you may be wrong regarding this man, after I told you repeatedly that this is a false portrayal? That would at least be the beginning of a more honest discussion and a more respectful one to boot.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The reason I enjoy this discussion is because he was such a pompous ass (please note I am speaking of him as a writer only) and that you are so dishonest in your defence of him. The both of you are so disdainful of anyone else's opinion despite being ludicrously ill-informed that it becomes incredibly funny to have this discussion.

So what you're saying is that if I don't agree with your opinion, I must be arrogant. You are so off base, it's really funny to me because you seem to be the one who believes your reasoning is beyond reproach. Why do you think I'm being dishonest in my defense of him? I am doing no such thing so stop accusing me of something I am not doing. That's called willful ignorance. And for the last time, do not call him names whether it's him personally or his writing. I will pass over your posts. Don't test me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Take, for instance, the marvellous sight debacle. I have already provided you a means to slightly alter the book, remove all the idiocy, and yet retain all the elements that are required to make the point your father was trying to make. There is no need to reinvent sight just to account for the fact that beauty is a cultural norm rather than a real, tangible thing. These are all very well-established ideas. Nor is it required to get the point across that the future and the past have no tangible existence, which I think you said is required for his case for reincarnation.

Oh my god, this just shows me how very ignorant you are in your understanding of anything in this book. Yes, we do need to understand why the eyes are not a sense organ not only to prove that we are all equal intrinsically, but that we are born again and again and again. Without the understanding that all we have is the present, he could not have made this discovery. And, btw, how many times do I have to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with reincarnation.

p. 481 However, that of which
it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the
average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no
one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in
death because we will be born again and again and again. This does
not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and
are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your
consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of
reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of
the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you
are this moment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I guess that once you start thinking like that, the floodgates open and you start to realize that he never even noticed the enormous holes in his idea.

I notice that in all this time, you have not once responded to the elephant in the room:

He said the work was a step-by-step logical process where each step was as undeniable as 1 + 1 = 2.

But then he did not include any evidence, any reason to believe, that conscience works the way he said.

Was he lying, or did he just not notice?

He absolutely explained how conscience works, and there is no doubt that he was right. So keep on believing he has nothing to offer, and you'll miss out. Vivisectus is not going to stop this new world from coming into existence. This is God's will, or for atheists, these are the laws of the universe that are pushing us in this direction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk... why don't you ask some relevant questions...[?]

What for? So that you can ignore and evade them? I've asked you relevant questions. You still haven't even tried to answer them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He absolutely explained how conscience works, and there is no doubt that he was right.

You mean YOU have no doubt that he was right. He certainly made claims about how conscience works, but he never bothered to support those claims.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We've talked about the book, and we've actually discussed the eyes. But this has nothing to do with his field of expertise. He is trying to understand what his grandfather discovered along with the rest of you. He can't wait to get his hands on the book that I have compiled. He will have a much better understanding of this knowledge just like you would, but you refuse.

CAT scans relies on optics, and where am I in disagreement with this?

LOL, why hasn't he grown up with this knowledge?

[LadyShea]

It is not obviously incorrect Vivisectus. And because you are so cock sure of yourself, you are making a joke out of this major work. This is a tragedy because it offers a way out of a crime, poverty stricken world. This world needs help and the knowledge is already here to offer that help. All we need to do is reach out our hands and take the help instead of self-righteously pooh poohing it. What ashame if we just passed it by because of our lack of belief that there is anything that has the power to cause this kind of paradigm shift.

Argument from adverse consequences.

There are afferent nerve endings in the eye. That is a fact. Lessans said there was not. That is obviously an incorrect statement since it is counterfactual.

[Vivisectus]

It is not obviously incorrect Vivisectus. And because you are so cock sure of yourself, you are making a joke out of this major work. This is a tragedy because it offers a way out of a crime, poverty stricken world. This world needs help and the knowledge is already here to offer that help. All we need to do is reach out our hands and take the help instead of self-righteously pooh poohing it. What ashame if we just passed it by because of our lack of belief that there is anything that has the power to cause this kind of change.

So even when the book is plain wrong, it is still right, because to think the book is a lot of claptrap is to hate world peace.

And it IS obviously incorrect: the eyes are crammed with afferent nerves.

Would you please stop saying that? At the very least, could you admit that you may be wrong regarding this man, after I told you repeatedly that this is a false portrayal. That would be a beginning.

All I have to go by is what he wrote, and his writing portrays him just like that. I know you feel differently, but since you cannot even admit the man made a mistake if he is so clearly incorrect as in the example above, I take your testimony with a grain of salt. Or two.

So what you're saying is that if I don't agree with your opinion, I must be arrogant. You are so off base, it's really funny to me because you seem to be the one who believes his reasoning is beyond reproach. Why do you think I'm being dishonest in my defense of him. I am doing no such thing so stop accusing me of something I am not doing. And for the last time, do not call him names whether it's him personally or his writing. I will pass over your posts. Don't test me.

Not at all! Disagree with my opinion withou explaining how or why, THAT is arrogant. Disagree and simply blame it all on bias, or malice, THAT is arrogant. Equating all disagreement with lack of understanding, THAT is arrogant. And you do that rather a lot.

You are dishonest because you waffle and evade, move the goalposts, and are generally incapable of admitting even the most glaringly obvious mistakes.

Oh my god, this just shows me how very ignorant you are in your understanding of anything in this book. Yes, we do need to understand why the eyes are not a sense organ not only to prove that we are all equal intrinsically, but that we are born again and agani and again. Without the understanding that all we have is the present, he could not have made this discovery. And, btw, how many times do I have to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with reincarnation.

Whatever - your particular version of reincarnation it is then.

He absolutely explained how conscience works, and there is no doubt that he was right. So keep on believing he has nothing to offer, and you'll miss out. Vivisectus is not going to stop this new world from coming into existence. This is God's will, or for atheists, these are the laws of the universe that are pushing us in this direction.

This is what I mean by dishonesty. You are trying to pretend I said he did not explain how he thought conscience works. What I am saying (obviously) is that neither he nor you can offer any reason to believe it is true.

He never included any reason to assume he was correct: he merely claimed conscience works that way. So was he lying about the whole book being a logical, undeniable step-by-step progression or did he just not notice he had failed to support the most important part of the book? One that the entire system depends on?

[peacegirl]

Love this!

WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT?

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10). Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".

Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.

For example, agriculture changed early primitive society. The primitive Indians existed for centuries roaming the earth constantly hunting and gathering for seasonal foods and water. However, by 2000 B.C., Middle America was a landscape of very small villages, each surrounded by patchy fields of corn and other vegetables.

Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Ptolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating "a new gestalt" (p. 112).

Likewise, the printing press, the making of books and the use of vernacular language inevitable changed the culture of a people and had a direct affect on the scientific revolution. Johann Gutenberg's invention in the 1440's of movable type was an agent of change. Books became readily available, smaller and easier to handle and cheap to purchase. Masses of people acquired direct access to the scriputures. Attitudes began to change as people were relieved from church domination.

Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. Newspaper publishing has been reshaped into Web sites, blogging, and web feeds. The Internet has enabled or accelerated the creation of new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking sites. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant.

In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference: Kuhn, Thomas, S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


WE ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS
HAVING A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE
WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS
HAVING A HUMAN EXPERIENCE

Paradigm Shift - Defined

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not quite right. The structure of the eye is different than the structure of the ear and nose. It is a much more complicated organ.

Wanna bet?


Here's a clue for you: by pretty much any measure, the ear is a much more complex and "complicated" organ than is the eye.


Like your father, you have the habit of saying ridiculously ignorant things when 30 seconds' worth of investigation would have saved you from looking like an idiot.

[The Lone Ranger]

You should try actually reading Kuhn, and what he has to say about "scientific revolutions." [Hint: It's not what you seem to think.]

You might learn something. But I doubt it. Frankly, I don't think you have the capacity.

[ceptimus]

Frog plays cell phone game - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

I would like to see the kind of croaking and hopping that indicates recognition, myself.

[thedoc]

I would be looking for tail wagging and barking. At least they didn't bias the results with levers or buttons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What for? So that you can ignore and evade them? I've asked you relevant questions. You still haven't even tried to answer them.

I have answered your questions. You may not like my answers, but that's a different story.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He absolutely explained how conscience works, and there is no doubt that he was right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean YOU have no doubt that he was right. He certainly made claims about how conscience works, but he never bothered to support those claims.

Absolutely not true. He has supported his claims, even if you don't think so because he didn't write his observations down on paper. He has described exactly how conscience works to a T.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Frog plays cell phone game - YouTube

Awww, I feel so bad for the frog. He was probably hungry and didn't know why he couldn't catch the bug. Ceptimus, I never said that animals can't see movement. That was definite proof that the frog saw the bug and was trying to eat it. But I am talking about facial recognition, not movement or gait, which I mentioned early in this thread. I even said that my dog saw animals running on t.v. and ran up to the t.v. trying to see what was there. But when she got there, and there was nothing she could smell to identify what she saw, she just went back and layed down.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wanna bet?

I'm sure they are complicated in their own ways, especially if the eyes turn out not to be a sense organ. That would be a shocker.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's a clue for you: by pretty much any measure, the ear is a much more complex and "complicated" organ than is the eye.


Like your father, you have the habit of saying ridiculously ignorant things when 30 seconds' worth of investigation would have saved you from looking like an idiot.

Don't bring my father into this Lone Ranger. Attack me, not him. He's not here to defend himself.

[The Lone Ranger]

Like you, your father had a habit of making ignorant, idiotic statements. Apparently, because he was too arrogant to think that anything he believed could possibly be mistaken. He could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment if he'd done just 5 minutes' worth of research before making some of his claims.

Apparently, the thought that any of his ideas could possibly have been mistaken never occurred to him. Apparently, if it seemed to make sense to him, he figured that it must be true.

And so, he said truly astonishingly ignorant -- indeed, idiotic things (like how the eye contains no afferent nerve endings) -- when just 5 minute's research would have shown him that the claim isn't just false, it's downright idiotic.



The least that can be said about someone who makes sweeping claims about things on which they're completely ignorant is that (s)he is incredibly arrogant.


I keep saying "apparently" because the most charitable interpretation of his propensity for making idiotic statements is that he was too arrogant to think that he might be mistaken. A less charitable possibility is that he didn't care.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I responded to this already, and I'm not doing it again.

Would you please stop saying that? At the very least, could you admit that you may be wrong regarding this man, after I told you repeatedly that this is a false portrayal. That would be a beginning.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All I have to go by is what he wrote, and his writing portrays him just like that.

No it does not. That is your perception.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you feel differently, but since you cannot even admit the man made a mistake if he is so clearly incorrect as in the example above, I take your testimony with a grain of salt. Or two.

And if he turns out to be right, what will you say then?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The reason I enjoy this discussion is because he was such a pompous ass (please note I am speaking of him as a writer only) and that you are so dishonest in your defence of him. The both of you are so disdainful of anyone else's opinion despite being ludicrously ill-informed that it becomes incredibly funny to have this discussion.

So what you're saying is that if I don't agree with your opinion, I must be arrogant. You are so off base, it's really funny to me because you seem to be the one who believes his reasoning is beyond reproach. Why do you think I'm being dishonest in my defense of him. I am doing no such thing so stop accusing me of something I am not doing. And for the last time, do not call him names whether it's him personally or his writing. I will pass over your posts. Don't test me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not at all! Disagree with my opinion withou explaining how or why, THAT is arrogant. Disagree and simply blame it all on bias, or malice, THAT is arrogant. Equating all disagreement with lack of understanding, THAT is arrogant. And you do that rather a lot.

If you saw it from my vantage point, it is YOU that is arrogant, not me. I have explained his observations, and you throw them out like dirt. How can I not equate all disagreement with lack of understanding when I know for a fact that you don't understand, you don't even come close. And to tell me that I am wrong when you are clueless is ARROGANCE!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are dishonest because you waffle and evade, move the goalposts, and are generally incapable of admitting even the most glaringly obvious mistakes.

You believe they are glaring mistakes, but the verdict is not in.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Take, for instance, the marvellous sight debacle. I have already provided you a means to slightly alter the book, remove all the idiocy, and yet retain all the elements that are required to make the point your father was trying to make. There is no need to reinvent sight just to account for the fact that beauty is a cultural norm rather than a real, tangible thing. These are all very well-established ideas. Nor is it required to get the point across that the future and the past have no tangible existence, which I think you said is required for his case for reincarnation.

Oh my god, this just shows me how very ignorant you are in your understanding of anything in this book. Yes, we do need to understand why the eyes are not a sense organ not only to prove that we are all equal intrinsically, but that we are born again and agani and again. Without the understanding that all we have is the present, he could not have made this discovery. And, btw, how many times do I have to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with reincarnation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whatever - your particular version of reincarnation it is then.

Don't slough this off like you tend to do. This is not reincarnation or any version of it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I guess that once you start thinking like that, the floodgates open and you start to realize that he never even noticed the enormous holes in his idea.

I notice that in all this time, you have not once responded to the elephant in the room:

He said the work was a step-by-step logical process where each step was as undeniable as 1 + 1 = 2.

But then he did not include any evidence, any reason to believe, that conscience works the way he said.

Was he lying, or did he just not notice?

He absolutely explained how conscience works, and there is no doubt that he was right. So keep on believing he has nothing to offer, and you'll miss out. Vivisectus is not going to stop this new world from coming into existence. This is God's will, or for atheists, these are the laws of the universe that are pushing us in this direction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is what I mean by dishonesty. You are trying to pretend I said he did not explain how he thought conscience works. What I am saying (obviously) is that neither he nor you can offer any reason to believe it is true.

He never included any reason to assume he was correct: he merely claimed conscience works that way. So was he lying about the whole book being a logical, undeniable step-by-step progression or did he just not notice he had failed to support the most important part of the book? One that the entire system depends on?

He did not miss a trick. He did not fail to explain exactly how conscience works. If you don't believe that he supported this, you're just going to have to have faith until the evidence proves it. This is getting ridiculous. Our world is suffering and all you do is put Lessans down. Even if there exists the smallest possibility this is the answer to world peace, why not contain your skepticism so that this knowledge can be thoroughly studied and confirmed before you make these baseless accusations?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Like you, your father had a habit of making ignorant, idiotic statements. Apparently, because he was too arrogant to think that anything he believed could possibly be mistaken. He could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment if he'd done just 5 minutes' worth of research before making some of his claims.

Apparently, the thought that any of his ideas could possibly have been mistaken never occurred to him. Apparently, if it seemed to make sense to him, he figured that it must be true.

And so, he said truly astonishingly ignorant -- indeed, idiotic things (like how the eye contains no afferent nerve endings) -- when just 5 minute's research would have shown him that the claim isn't just false, it's downright idiotic.

He didn't say that Lone Ranger. This is what he said and I stand by it.

The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The least that can be said about someone who makes sweeping claims about things on which they're completely ignorant is that (s)he is incredibly arrogant.

And what if he turns out to be right; what names will you call him then? Will you take back what you said about him?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I keep saying "apparently" because the most charitable interpretation of his propensity for making idiotic statements is that he was too arrogant to think that he might be mistaken. A less charitable possibility is that he didn't care.

He cared very much. You haven't read the book. You also are clueless, I'm sorry to say. You're all starting to sound alike.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say that Lone Ranger. This is what he said and I stand by it.

The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

Which, as has been repeatedly explained, is not just wrong, it's idiotic. This is not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of direct observation. And it was very well-known by Lessans' time, so you can't say that couldn't have known he was wrong. He could have discovered for himself how ludicrously mistaken the claim was if he'd bothered to learn anything at all of the relevant anatomy of the eye. But apparently, he was too arrogant to accept that he could possibly have been mistaken about something so simple and so fundamental.

Or he didn't care.

You haven't read the book.

Liar.


You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you have no intention of educating yourself on the matter.