A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, there should not be any addendum. His point is perfectly clear as it stands.

But as a student, if I haven't done my part in studying what it is that I'm confused about, then it wouldn't be fair of me to blame the teacher or the writer for not understanding the text. That's all I'm saying. Of course you would never agree with me because you would be giving me a point.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But as a student, if I haven't done my part in studying what it is that I'm confused about, then it wouldn't be fair of me to blame the teacher or the writer for not understanding the text. That's all I'm saying. Of course you would never agree with me because you would be giving me a point.

No addendum is needed. What part of "conscientious reader" did you not understand (or not read)?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I read both quotes carefully and they express exactly what was intended, and they both mean the same thing.

No, they don't. He said that only light can get a reaction from a baby's eyes, and that absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Your edited passage instead says that only light impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Those are two completely different and incompatible meanings. One says that light impinges on the optic nerve, while the other does not.

Everything that Lessans himself ever wrote indicates that he had no idea that light travels or that the eyes contain receptors which light can hit and interact with, and instead indicates that he thought light hung around stationary in clouds of molecules like a gas, illuminating things so that they could be seen from a distance by brains looking out through their receptor-less non-sense-organ eyes. When it came to light and vision, he clearly had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're lying, weaseling, and evading just as you always do.

Another weasel. Did you answer the question? Did you give me any reason to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct? No. You did not. (And I know exactly what his three justifications were. I've known this for years now.)

So show me your grounds for thinking that a justification will always be required. Stop weaseling and evading, and answer the question!

You still haven't given me any reason to think that his 'observations' concerning conscience were correct. All you've done is repeat your claims. At no point have you done anything whatsoever to support them.

Don't just tell me where your grounds are. Present them! Why will a justification always be required? I know what his three justifications were. They doesn't help at all in explaining why he thought a justification will always be required.

It does not become a contradiction. It only contradicts your ridiculous ideas. It is not internally inconsistent in any way. And you can't possibly know that compatibilism is wrong before you even know what it is or actually says.

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

He did not mean that you can get a reaction without light impinging on the optic nerve.

He did say exactly that elsewhere though - remember the whole "if the sun was turned on" idiocy?

That means no light is required to be at the retina to see.

Although obviously it is silly to pretend he made sense at all. He himself did not know what he was talking about. He was just too semi-literate to notice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, they don't. He said that only light can get a reaction from a baby's eyes, and that absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Your edited passage instead says that only light impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Those are two completely different and incompatible meanings.

That is not what he meant. He meant that the object was not getting a reaction, only light was, which means that light was striking the optic nerve but nothing was being relayed to the brain to indicate sight. The word "nothing" refers back to the word "object".

In fact, it can be demonstrated
at the birth of a child that the eyes are not a sense organ when it
can be seen that no object, other than light, is capable of getting a
reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic
nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches
or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are
being struck by something external.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Everything that Lessans himself ever wrote indicates that he had no idea that light travels or that the eyes contain receptors which light can hit and interact with, and instead indicates that he thought light hung around stationary in clouds of molecules like a gas, illuminating things so that they could be seen from a distance by brains looking out through their receptor-less non-sense-organ eyes. When it came to light and vision, he clearly had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

No no no. None of what you just said is true. He stated in the first part of the chapter that light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

[Vivisectus]

By the way - where is that proof? He said "Now we will prove that the eyes are not a sense organ" and he just waffled on about his half-baked idea. He never presented nay proof... or evidence... or a plausible idea... or even any reason to believe it was the case! Where is the proof?

So was he lying about the proof being there, or did he not notice he had forgotten to provide any?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're lying, weaseling, and evading just as you always do.

Another weasel. Did you answer the question? Did you give me any reason to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct? No. You did not. (And I know exactly what his three justifications were. I've known this for years now.)

So show me your grounds for thinking that a justification will always be required. Stop weaseling and evading, and answer the question!

I'm giving you what I know to be true. I believe there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he is right when it comes to how conscience functions.

Don't just tell me where your grounds are. Present them! Why will a justification always be required? I know what his three justifications were. They doesn't help at all in explaining why he thought a justification will always be required.

So what are the three justifications Spacemonkey? These were his observations whether you see it or not. These observations are spot on because he was extremely perceptive and was able to see the common theme running through many historical accounts. He saw that people need a justification and he showed what happens when there is none. This knowledge is falsifiable, but you'll have to wait until it can be confirmed empirically. If that's not good enough, there's nothing I can do about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The minute you say that part of the compatibilist view is that we have free will, this becomes a contradiction. I'm not interested in researching their view because I know it's wrong. I will discuss it with you, and you can tell me where you think I'm wrong, but I'm not going out of my way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It does not become a contradiction. It only contradicts your ridiculous ideas. It is not internally inconsistent in any way. And you can't possibly know that compatibilism is wrong before you even know what it is or actually says.

Show me where it's consistent. I asked you this before and you never answered.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he meant. He meant that the object was not getting a reaction, only light was, which means that light was striking the optic nerve but nothing was being relayed to the brain to indicate sight. The word "nothing" refers back to the word "object".

You don't know what he meant. He never said that light was getting a reaction by impinging on the optic nerve, and he never indicated that by saying "nothing" impinges on the optic nerve that he was making any exception for light. You are just trying to reinterpret his words to justify your botched editing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No no no. None of what you just said is true. He stated in the first part of the chapter that light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Unless this is another of your famous forgotten editorial editions, this is true. He did indicate that he thought light travels at a high rate of speed, at least whenever it isn't hanging around in a cloud of molecules illuminating things. But he never said that light impinges on the optic nerve. You made him say that by adding words to his text and changing his meaning.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm giving you what I know to be true. I believe there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he is right when it comes to how conscience functions.

You haven't given me squat. It is possible that you really are so delusional that you think there is "a tremendous amount of evidence" supporting Lessans' claims about conscience. But this doesn't change the fact that neither you nor he have ever presented any whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are the three justifications Spacemonkey?

Retaliation, self-preservation, and responsibility-shifting due to blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These were his observations whether you see it or not. These observations are spot on because he was extremely perceptive and was able to see the common theme running through many historical accounts. He saw that people need a justification and he showed what happens when there is none. This knowledge is falsifiable, but you'll have to wait until it can be confirmed empirically. If that's not good enough, there's nothing I can do about it.

You're right, it's not good enough and there isn't anything you can do about it. And that is why his non-discovery will continue to be rejected by everyone. No-one has any reason to believe that he was extremely perceptive, or able to see common themes, so no-one has any reason to believe that his 'observations' were spot on. Claiming that he just 'saw' that people need a justification does not in any way support his claims.

All one can ever observe is the actual occurrence of specific events. No-one can directly observe either modal claims (justifications are always necessary) or universal claims (that all justifications are of three types). These can only be inferred from observation, and Lessans never provides any direct observations, and does nothing at all to support his claims about conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where it's consistent. I asked you this before and you never answered.

I told you I had already done that, but would do so again if you retracted your false charge that I had contradicted myself. You refused. Compatibilism is consistent because it doesn't say that we both have and do not have free will. It says only that having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is all that is needed for one to be morally responsible for one's actions. It says that contra-causal free will is not the only kind of free will, and that it is not the kind needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. If you see some kind of contradiction here, then the burden is upon you to identify it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way - where is that proof? He said "Now we will prove that the eyes are not a sense organ" and he just waffled on about his half-baked idea. He never presented nay proof... or evidence... or a plausible idea... or even any reason to believe it was the case! Where is the proof?

So was he lying about the proof being there, or did he not notice he had forgotten to provide any?

Lessans thought that what he wrote constituted proof. peacegirl is utterly confused about what actual proof is.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But as a student, if I haven't done my part in studying what it is that I'm confused about, then it wouldn't be fair of me to blame the teacher or the writer for not understanding the text. That's all I'm saying. Of course you would never agree with me because you would be giving me a point.

But peacegirl, that is all you ever do is blame everyone when you refuse to do your part and study that which you do not understand. It doesn't appear to dawn on you that the world is full of teachers. Some, like Lessans, are not well respected, and others, whom you choose to ignore, are much better informed and respected.

peacegirl, I know you are batshit insane, but it is rather amazing that it has not dawned on you that the only person on earth who thinks Lessans had anything to teach worth learning, is you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you missed the entire point he was making.

I didn't. His point was very clear and I've interpreted it correctly.

You are just trying to correct his misconception now, because it is so glaring.

So? His whole argument was that the eyes are not a sense organ because sense organs use specialized receptors to receive stimuli from the external world.

The eyes sense light using specialized receptors. That makes the eyes a sense organ by the very definition of sense organ Lessans used.

You are such a weasel, trying to twist what he said.

You are adding concepts he made no mention of at all. You are twisting what he said. If he meant all that convoluted crap you are reading into his plainly stated words, why didn't he say that?

The addition of "other than light" in that particular place, completely changed the meaning of the sentence and negated the point he was making.

I know exactly what I am talking about. You got caught trying to correct his misconception and you made it worse because now it looks internally contradictory.

He was wrong, but consistent before you added the words "other than light".

Why you bringing wavelengths into it? He said nothing about that.

And, you're wrong anyway, we have machines that can detect and measure the wavelengths of light as they are reflected or absorbed by objects.

You evaded it. You never answered it. Do you admit it was an incorrect statement...yes or no?

So you are convinced that there are no photoreceptors (which are afferent neurons) in the eyes?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, Lessans seems to agree with the dictionary definition of sense, and then goes on to state that this definition does not apply to the eyes....
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

He clearly thought that the eyes were different anatomically and functionally. He seemed to think the eyes did not contain receptors. They do. He seemed to think NOTHING from the external world entered the eye. When you added (except for light) you made it make even less sense, because you negated the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses.

He said nothing about receptors. He was talking about the optic nerve. He was right when he said nothing, other than light, strikes the optic nerve. That means that light does not bounce off of objects and travel through space/time where it would be received and interpreted by the brain as an image.

Lessans said nothing (you added "other than light"), and he made no mention at all of reflection. What you are doing is reinterpreting what he said to make it fit the facts you have since become aware of.

You think it's okay to just make shit up that he didn't even say. Your explanation doesn't even make sense in the context of the passage being reviewed.

You are so dishonest....just like a fundie in every way.

You think there are no photoreceptors in the eyes? You think photoreceptors are not afferent? Exactly what part of that statement do you think is right and how is it right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His book says, other than light, so why are you accusing him of not putting this in his book? What is your problem LadyShea? You're no Sherlock Holmes

[/QUOTE]
You missed those words in the book for at least 3 years. You quoted the passage in 2003 and again in 2006 WITHOUT the words "other than light" in that sentence.

You are so full of shit. You suddenly at some point found these three words you missed, but you can't find today in which book they were? Is that passage in his recordings? Did he use "other than light" then? Was it in his published books some of which are available for purchase?

Because you did it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't play these games with me. You know full well that scientists believe that if we were far enough away and in the right location, we would see a past event as far back as Columbus discovering America.

Which has nothing to do with images traveling.

Light travels. Light detectors form images from light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means light, according to their logic, is traveling with the frequency and wavelength that would turn up as a past image in the brain, a mirror, or on film.

Light is traveling with a wavelength because traveling and wavelength are both immutable properties of light. If it wasn't traveling, or didn't have a wavelength, it wouldn't be light.

Light detectors, like cameras and eyes, can detect light. And yes, images can be created from light as can be demonstrated with a photograph, perhaps you've seen one?

Still nothing about traveling images.

No response to this, huh? You never evade though.

You did it.

[thedoc]

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will
verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing
unbelievable changes in human relations in the next 25 years. By
discovering the invariable laws of the solar system we were able to
predict an eclipse and land men on the moon. By discovering the
invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for the
very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never before
possible — our deliverance from evil.

Hey, I can now cut and paste from the book version 2011.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I missed it somehow. It was difficult combining these books. Actually, I did find one passage in a book that I didn't use that often. It was written in 1969 entitled "View From the Mountain Top" in honor of Martin Luther King.

p. 41 It can be easily demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from them because absolutely nothing is impinging on the optic nerve, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction because the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Well this does not corospond to my PDF copy of the book, which version were you refering to?

"the marbles back and start again. The chance of the white coming out
is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first
twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred times one
hundred).
Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out
three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one
in a million. Try another time or two and the figures become
astronomical. The results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the
fact that two plus two equals four.
In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was
dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third
and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so
on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one
would believe the cards had not been arranged.
The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably
never did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was
invented. But there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose
the possibility does exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert
chess player to beat him at chess in thirty-four moves and the child
makes every move by pure chance exactly right to meet every twist and
turn the expert attempts and does beat him in thirty-four moves. The
expert would certainly think it was a dream or that he was out of his
mind. But there are those who think the possibility of this happening
by chance does exist. And I agree, it could happen, however small the
possibility. My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out
clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on
earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements
of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the
thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of
carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his
survival all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to
the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these
could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a
billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur. When the
facts are so overwhelming and when we recognize as we must the
attributes of our minds which are not material, is it possible to flaunt

41"

[LadyShea]

Lessans wrote like 7 books. The book you have is a compilation

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans wrote like 7 books. The book you have is a compilation

Understood, I'm just playing with my computer, with the old one I couldn't copy and paste from the PDF. It's like a kid with a new toy, humor me?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DO NOT LIE LADYSHEA.

You're an admitted liar, remember?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The addition of "other than light" in that particular place, completely changed the meaning of the sentence and negated the point he was making.

In peacegirl's mind, the addition of "other than light" was necessary to save her father from making an idiot of himself. Seymouron quite clearly believed that nothing whatsoever, light included, had to enter the eye for vision to occur. In the Hypothetical of Idiocy, Lessans gibbered that if God turned on the sun we would see it right away, but we would not see anything here on earth until the light arrived 8+ minutes later.

Thus, according to Lessans, we could see the sun without any light having reached us. When ol' Seymouron wrote that light was a "condition of sight," he evidently meant only that whatever we're looking at must be either luminous or illuminated before before our brains, looking out efferently through the window of the eyes, can see it.

That is, of course, moronic. The many discussions of cameras she's had across many different discussion boards apparently made some limited impression on her. She understands, in an infantile sort of way, that cameras are mere light detectors; absent light making actual, physical contact with a camera, it can't work. Since peacegirl wants/needs cameras to mimic the mechanics of human vision, cameras must be "efferent" just light vision. Thus, if cameras are efferent and require the entry of light to work, so must eyes. The "reasoning" fails on every conceivable level, but it has become "undeniable" within the bonds of her itsy bitsy brain.

Thus did a theological crisis arise. Seymouron believed that nothing need enter the eye for vision to occur, and said so in the Sacred Text. peacegirl concluded that was wrong and thus had to deal with an error in her scripture. Being fundamentally dishonest, she simply plugged in the words "other than light" in what she though was an appropriate spot.

Trouble is, she's left a vast paper trail during ten years of Internet gibber-jabber. Thanks to that documentation, she got busted. Now she's concocted a big fat lie about how Lessans wrote in a different book that light enters the eye. Disgraceful.

And the truly sad/funny part is that adding "other than light" did nothing to make Lessans appear even one iota less stupid or wrong. In fact, as you and V have pointed out, she only made matters worse.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will
verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing
unbelievable changes in human relations in the next 25 years. By
discovering the invariable laws of the solar system we were able to
predict an eclipse and land men on the moon. By discovering the
invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for the
very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never before
possible — our deliverance from evil.

Hey, I can now cut and paste from the book version 2011.

Too bad this kind of bullshit historicism was exploded by Popper 6 years before Lessans' silly Mountain Top book was even written.

Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Too bad this kind of bullshit historicism was exploded by Popper 6 years before Lessans' silly Mountain Top book was even written.

Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hey, gimmie a break, I was just trying out if I could cut and paste from my PDF. It was the first thing I came to. I can't help if it was nonsense.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl could never bring herself to edit the holey text. Except for when she does. And then forgets about it. Then gets reminded. And then lies about it. But on the above note, here's a relevant comment from Popper - a lesson which neither Lessans nor his daughter appear to have learned:

"I also learned never to defend anything I had written against the accusation that it is not clear enough. If a conscientious reader finds a passage unclear, it has to be rewritten."

Of course, as we know quite well, there are no conscientious readers in this thread. There are just a bunch of narrow minded meanies who are determined to prove Lessans wrong because they can't stand the idea that he might be right.

[Vivisectus]

I love that type of reasoning. "The earth is just right for terrestrial life!!! There for there is a Plan, a Design, a God!"

But that is ass-backwards. Terrestrial life is the way it is because of the conditions it had to develop in. Oceans were not designed so fish would have something to use those fins for, fins evolved because there are oceans. Do we think the moon was put there, just at the right distance from the earth, so a certain type of rock can be there? If not, why not? Why do we assume we are so incredibly special? We are quite special to ourselves but that is no reason to assume the entire universe was built for us. You could just as well argue that the universe is designed for the colony of bacteria that live under the rim of your toilet bowl - how else can we explain the incredibly unlikely set of circumstances that led to the small, sheltered spot, not too big and not too small, where the temperature is just right and the toilet-duck just cannot reach, with a daily deposit of fresh nutrients?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love that type of reasoning. "The earth is just right for terrestrial life!!! There for there is a Plan, a Design, a God!"

But that is ass-backwards. Terrestrial life is the way it is because of the conditions it had to develop in. Oceans were not designed so fish would have something to use those fins for, fins evolved because there are oceans. Do we think the moon was put there, just at the right distance from the earth, so a certain type of rock can be there? If not, why not? Why do we assume we are so incredibly special? We are quite special to ourselves but that is no reason to assume the entire universe was built for us. You could just as well argue that the universe is designed for the colony of bacteria that live under the rim of your toilet bowl - how else can we explain the incredibly unlikely set of circumstances that led to the small, sheltered spot, not too big and not too small, where the temperature is just right and the toilet-duck just cannot reach, with a daily deposit of fresh nutrients?

You can take this ever further if you realize that the Universe had to have just the right physics for matter, energy, and light to be the way they are, but then there is a theory that there were other Universes before ours in a successiion of Big Bangs and Big Crunches in an endless cycle and if each Universe is slightly different, eventually one woud come into existance that was just right. There is also the ides that there are millions of parallel Universes and each one is slightly different, and there is some experimental evidence that suggests this might be the case. The Earth is just right for life because there are millions of millions of planets in the Universe, and If each one is just a little different, one would be just right for life. The Drake equation predicts that there should be many other planets with life and some of them should have intelligent life. It would be nice to see what a planet with intelligent life looks like? The Earth is just right for 'Terrestrial life' because the definition of 'Terrestrial life' is 'Life that exists on Earth'. That life can exist here is proof of nothing about God, just as making a choice does not prove that we are compelled to make 'that particular' choice.

[ceptimus]

From the point of view of parasites, bugs or infectious diseases specific to humans, then the reason we are here is to provide them with a home.

A loving god would not have created tapeworms or syphilis bacteria without providing them with warm comfy places to live in.

[Dragar]

Personally I think it's quite obvious the laws of physics were perfectly designed to provide the conditions where rocks could exist. Stuff that grows on the rocks is a sort of weird by-product.