A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Laugh if you must, but at grave risk to my own personal intergety and mental health, I am going to attempt to think like Peacegirl, and explain why these two bolded statements are not a contradiction. First there are inconsistencies in NASA useing 'delayed time seeing' in flagrant violation of Lessans claims that we see in real time. Second there are no inconsistancies in Lessans claim that we see in real time and therefore there are other errors that cancel out the original error of not useing real time seeing. Now if that doesn't clear things up, you just need to go back and read the book again, till it becomes clear. After all Peacegirl understands it perfectly, but then this is the only book she has ever read.

................................

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

................................

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That shouldn't prevent you from offering rational support for whatever aspect is being discussed, rather than your weaseling evasions and appeals to future evidence we have no reason to believe is forthcoming.

It hasn't prevented me from offering rational support for whatever aspect is being discussed, but there is no way you can really get the full picture of this knowledge without reading the book in its entirety. You just can't LadyShea. Any serious work requires a detailed study of it. I have done an injustice to the book by thinking I could explain it in little pieces.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why should anyone believe Lessans ideas about conscience are correct?

Do you even know what his observations were regarding conscience, and how it functions? Do you know the three situations that would give someone justification to do harm to others? It is so obvious to me that he is right, but for some reason you won't even try to understand what his observations were, and why they were sound. You just cannot believe that this man made a major discovery.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It hasn't prevented me from offering rational support for whatever aspect is being discussed...

So then what has prevented you from offering rational support for the aspects being discussed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you know what he wrote about conscience?

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you know the three situations that give someone justification to do harm to others?

Do you have any grounds for believing that a justification will always be required?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so obvious that he is right, but for some reason you won't even try to understand what his observations were, and why they were sound.

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that his 'observations' concerning conscience were sound?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just cannot believe that this man made a major discovery.

Can you give us any reason to believe that he made a major discovery?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, as a matter of fact that is not the case. We skim off planets in exactly the right spot, and at exactly the right angle. When we land probes, we can pinpoint where it will land down to an area of a few hundred meters these days.

It is not difficult to calculate the margin by which we should miss planets if there was no delay in sight. In the case of Mars, which is not even a particularly distant planet, the amount by which we would miss if sight was not delayed by exactly the speed of light is several times larger than the diameter of the planet we are aiming at. The difference is far greater for more distant planets.

What inconsistencies are these?

I didn't say it was inconsistent, but I will say (take it for what it's worth) that this looks like absolute proof that we see the world in delayed time. If I tell you I don't buy it; that there is more to it, you will call me a fundie. Sorry, but the only way to prove that Lessans is wrong is to do more testing. And btw, tonight I came in my house from the backyard. My dog was very cautious. I opened the door and she stared at me growling. Then she slowly came toward me and as soon as she smelled me, she got all excited. But, of course, this doesn't mean anything because it wasn't a controlled experiment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then what the reasons you believe Lessans? Because earlier, you told me there were none. And you even acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is wrong. But still, you believe Lessans, for no reason.

Saying time will tell is the only way I can get people to stop attacking him. This is not a concession that he is wrong or that there is no reason to believe him. But if you feel there isn't any real evidence (he said his observations could be tested), and you believe these are mere assertions, I am asking you to wait as the only option, before throwing out his claim.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say it was inconsistent, but I will say (take it for what it's worth) that this looks like absolute proof that we see the world in delayed time. If I tell you I don't buy it; that there is more to it, you will call me a fundie. Sorry, but the only way to prove that Lessans is wrong is to do more testing.

Why? If we already have what in all respects appears to be 'absolute proof' (your words, not ours) that we see in delayed time, then how much more testing needs to be done before we can conclude that he was wrong? Are you saying we should never stop testing until the evidence supports him?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying time will tell is the only way I can get people to stop attacking him. This is not a concession that he is wrong or that there is no evidence to believe him. But if you all don't feel there is enough evidence by the way he describes what is going on with the eyes and brain, I am asking you to wait as the only option, before throwing out his claim.

Saying time will tell is just another weasel. Time has told. Why are you not conceding that there is no evidence to believe him? Do you have any evidence? Future evidence doesn't count. Waiting is not the only option. Everyone but you is free to reject his silly claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then what has prevented you from offering rational support for the aspects being discussed?

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct?

Do you have any grounds for believing that a justification will always be required?

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that his 'observations' concerning conscience were sound?

Can you give us any reason to believe that he made a major discovery?

Yes, every single question you have is answered clearly in the book. I have strong grounds for knowing, not believing, that without justification (and you need to understand that there are a lot of ways conscience can rationalize in a free will environment), man cannot move in the direction of hurting others as a preferable choice. I am offering rational support. It's your turn to listen for a change, instead of condemn me before all the facts are in.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, every single question you have is answered clearly in the book.

Prove it. Quote me an answer from the book to each of my questions. I bet you can't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have strong grounds for knowing, not believing, that without justification (and you need to understand that there are a lot of ways conscience can rationalize in a free will environment), man cannot move in the direction of hurting others as a preferable choice.

What are these 'strong grounds' you speak of?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am offering rational support.

Where?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's your turn to listen for a change, instead of condemn me before all the facts are in.

I'm listening. Show me these answers and strong grounds you speak of.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say it was inconsistent

So what did you mean when you said because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It hasn't prevented me from offering rational support for whatever aspect is being discussed, but there is no way you can really get the full picture of this knowledge without reading the book in its entirety. You just can't LadyShea. Any serious work requires a detailed study of it. I have done an injustice to the book by thinking I could explain it in little pieces.

Do you even know what his observations were regarding conscience, and how it functions? Do you know the three situations that would give someone justification to do harm to others?

He didn't tell us his observations, he gave us his beliefs about conscience.

It is so obvious to me that he is right, but for some reason you won't even try to understand what his observations were, and why they were sound.

LOL, it's so obvious to you, is it? Well yay for those with faith! I am asking you WHY it is obvious to you and what part makes it so obvious. He never shared any observations, only conclusions.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying time will tell is the only way I can get people to stop attacking him.

So, how's that working out for you?

[Vivisectus]

I didn't say it was inconsistent, but I will say (take it for what it's worth) that this looks like absolute proof that we see the world in delayed time. If I tell you I don't buy it; that there is more to it, you will call me a fundie. Sorry, but the only way to prove that Lessans is wrong is to do more testing. And btw, tonight I came in my house from the backyard. My dog was very cautious. I opened the door and she stared at me growling. Then she slowly came toward me and as soon as she smelled me, she got all excited. But, of course, this doesn't mean anything because it wasn't a controlled experiment.

Actually, you did say there were inconsistencies, you just seem to be unable to produce them.

And yes, it sure does look like absolute proof. And I will only call you a fundy if you claim there is more to it without even being able to point out what more there might be to it.

What would be the point of any further test? You would simply not believe it if it disproved the book any further, just like you dismiss this on the sole ground that you do not like it.

You are absolutely correct about your experience with the dog. Look what is going on:

I opened the door and she stared at me growling.

An observation, but a single one, and not one where all factors are controlled. Did the dog just wake up? What age is she? Were the lights just turned on? Etc. Etc. Etc. There are too many variables, making it hard to actually tell what is going on.

Then she slowly came toward me and as soon as she smelled me, she got all excited.

Part 2 of the reason why controlled experiments are necessary: bias. You have no way of knowing that her behaviour changed the moment she smelt you, but because of your expectations, this is the conclusion you jumped to.

Did you ever hear the story of the german amateur researcher who had discovered horses could do simple math?

But, of course, this doesn't mean anything because it wasn't a controlled experiment.

Actually it is an excellent example of why this is the case, yes.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying time will tell is the only way I can get people to stop attacking him.

So you lied in order to move a debate in your favour, and there actually are reasons to believe Lessans. The Lone Ranger is entirely correct about you. You have no qualms about misleading people if it furthers your goals.

Besides which, time won't show anything different to the facts we know - Lessans is wrong. We can land spaceships on planets when according to him we shouldn't. That is not going to change: Lessans is wrong.

[Vivisectus]

By the way, I am still waiting for you to make your case in favour of believing that the book is right about conscience because of special knowledge that the author had. It is the only reason to assume he was right about conscience that has been offered so far, so we should evaluate just how believable the claim is.

Do we have a list of books he studied? Examples of patterns that he spotted? Anything about his methods?

Or anything else you can tell us that would make it more likely that he could do this?

[ceptimus]

Would My Dog Recognize Me in a Picture?: Dog Guide: Animal Planet

In a study published in the Journal of Vision, 12 pure-bred beagles and 12 domestic cats were given individual handlers who worked with them two hours a day for six months. Then they were given a visual test to recognize the face of their handler versus a non-handler. The result? The dogs chose the face of their handlers 88.2 percent of the time, while the cats chose their handlers 54.5 percent of the time.

[ceptimus]

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Would My Dog Recognize Me in a Picture?: Dog Guide: Animal Planet

That test was disqualified by the Peacegirl Test Quality Standards Board, on account of levers. Levers are only allowed in tests if they test an animals ability to push a lever, and nothing else, it seems.

[LadyShea]

The abstract says "The animals were trained to work in a two-alternative forced choice testing apparatus". I mentioned levers as one of several possible type of methods to indicate choice, and she ran with it.

We've no idea if there were levers or not.

Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, DOI 10.1007/s10071-009-0303-3).

The authors of the study used a technique called Visual Paired Comparison. In this technique, an animal is shown two images projected on screens, one to the right of the animal and the other to the left. Experimenters measure the amount of time that the animal spends looking at each image. If the animal has no preference, she would spend an equal amount of time looking at either image. However, if the animal has a distinct preference for one image over another, she would spend more time looking at that image.

In the dog face study, the experimenters showed 7 adult dogs (1 miniature Dachshund, 2 Lurchers, and 4 mixed-breeds) paired pictures of an unfamiliar dog face and a familiar one.

The dogs spent significantly more time looking at the familiar dog face. This means that dogs not only recognize individual dog faces, but also prefer to look at familiar faces rather than strange ones.
http://www.dogbehaviorblog.com/2010/...ther-dogs.html

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The abstract says "The animals were trained to work in a two-alternative forced choice testing apparatus". I mentioned levers as one of several possible type of methods to indicate choice, and she ran with it.

We've no idea if there were levers or not.

Here's the content of a post I made to Peacegirl in 2008:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey at IIDB

I'll ask you again, Janis:

Either back up your claim that the experiment was flawed by actually identifying a flaw or loophole in the experiment I gave you - by identifying some specific thing that either the experiment should have done but failed to do, or that it did do but shouldn't have done - or admit that you are refusing to accept the evidence based on nothing more than your faith in Lessans' unsupported assertions.

I mean, seriously, Janis. Take a look at what you just typed in your last reply. You admitted that you don't even know whether or not this experiment has been repeated by other researchers, and you then go on to assert that the experiment is flawed because it "doesn't back itself up"! You also assert that the experiment doesn't have the controls needed without having the faintest idea what controls were actually used, and without stating what specific controls should have been present. (If you want to claim that the necessary controls were not present, then you have to state what specific controls would have been sufficient AND then show that these controls were not in fact present in the experiment.) And you again complain about the dogs hitting a lever without having even established that there was a lever being struck to begin with! You are destroying your own credibility (and that of Lessans) with every post.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That test was disqualified by the Peacegirl Test Quality Standards Board, on account of levers. Levers are only allowed in tests if they test an animals ability to push a lever, and nothing else, it seems.

No, levers are fine if they are used in the kind of empirical testing that will prove Lessans right. They can be very misleading if they are used to draw premature conclusions. Remember, world peace is at stake here.

[LadyShea]

I guess she really hates levers! I'd no idea that went back to IIDB.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1093124]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say it was inconsistent, but I will say (take it for what it's worth) that this looks like absolute proof that we see the world in delayed time. If I tell you I don't buy it; that there is more to it, you will call me a fundie. Sorry, but the only way to prove that Lessans is wrong is to do more testing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? If we already have what in all respects appears to be 'absolute proof' (your words, not ours) that we see in delayed time, then how much more testing needs to be done before we can conclude that he was wrong? Are you saying we should never stop testing until the evidence supports him?

No, it's not about testing until the evidence supports him Spacemonkey. Why couldn't I say the same thing about you trying to get support for your beliefs. This is not about beliefs. There is evidence but you resent him because he did not write his results down. Are you going to give up on his observations because he didn't do it your way? How crazy is that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying time will tell is the only way I can get people to stop attacking him. This is not a concession that he is wrong or that there is no evidence to believe him. But if you all don't feel there is enough evidence by the way he describes what is going on with the eyes and brain, I am asking you to wait as the only option, before throwing out his claim.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Saying time will tell is just another weasel. Time has told. Why are you not conceding that there is no evidence to believe him? Do you have any evidence? Future evidence doesn't count. Waiting is not the only option. Everyone but you is free to reject his silly claims.

Spacemonkey, he was so attuned to what is going on in this world that you are going to have to let go of your guard and hear him. I don't know if that's possible for you, but I hope you can, because you would be one of the people who could really make a dent in spreading this knowledge forward. I'm not counting on you, but you could be instrumental in this important mission. That's all I'm saying.

[Vivisectus]

There is evidence but you resent him because he did not write his results down.

Ah so there is evidence! Ok, lets have it then?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? If we already have what in all respects appears to be 'absolute proof' (your words, not ours) that we see in delayed time, then how much more testing needs to be done before we can conclude that he was wrong? Are you saying we should never stop testing until the evidence supports him?

No, I'm just saying be fair. It's so easy for scientists to make the results appear flawless, because they have their reputation to preserve. After all, they have claimed the eyes are a sense organ for centuries. Can you imagine if the tests did not confirm this? Do you think they could even admit this unless they were pressured to?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying time will tell is the only way I can get people to stop attacking him. This is not a concession that he is wrong or that there is no evidence to believe him. But if you all don't feel there is enough evidence by the way he describes what is going on with the eyes and brain, I am asking you to wait as the only option, before throwing out his claim.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Saying time will tell is just another weasel. Time has told. Why are you not conceding that there is no evidence to believe him? Do you have any evidence? Future evidence doesn't count. Waiting is not the only option. Everyone but you is free to reject his silly claims.

Time has not told Spacemonkey. I'm not sure why you are so angered by this claim, but I am not going to back down due to your intimidation.