A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not. That's what is being debated. I cannot believe after all this time, and after my clear explanation as to why will is not free, you resort to saying we are free because we can choose.

No, you goose. What I am saying is that you are putting it wrong. I am not arguing either for or against free will. If a person has a choice whether or not to act on their desires, then will is free.

If I'm hungry, I'm not choosing my desire to want to eat something. If I'm bored, I'm not choosing my desire to want to do something that will be stimulating. If I'm missing my kids, I'm not choosing my desire to want to go visit them? How can we choose what we desire? It is true that we don't have to act on a desire if it's something we don't want to feel. I have a desire for ice cream. I have no control over that (that desire is in my brain right now; chocolate mint chip from Baskin Robbins, yummy), but I don't have to act on that desire and go buy it. In terms of this discovery, how does anything you just said disprove what Lessans has demonstrated?

I know what your point of view is. I am just saying that you were expressing it in a way that is self-contradictory in your original post.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not for me. Maybe for these flat-earthers. They can continue to believe what they want to believe, but you can't compare this to my father's discovery which, if confirmed valid, has major implications for our world.

Really? But you invoke the potential good consequences of your idea as a reason to believe your book on a regular basis. And you recently confirmed this by saying that a lack of good consequences was a reason not to believe in a flat earth.

You seem to apply different standards to your book than the ones you apply to other ideas.

That's the only thing I can resort to with this group. It does not mean his observations are unclear and need further proof, if you can follow his reasoning. This is not just an assertion.

Ah so you are asking people to wait for the empirical evidence to show up. So am I, but you seem unwilling to do so. Incidentally, this does not mean that the case for a flat earth is unclear and need further proof, if you actually read the evidence and follow the reasoning behind it. This is not just an assertion.

I'm not sure; I never delved into it. I'm not ruining it for anyone. If they believe this, then they need to show me the money. If I'm not convinced, I will not go along with it. It's obvious that we lean toward what we believe makes the most sense.

The evidence is in the astute observations of the flat earthers, which are spot on and are undeniably true. If you do not agree, then that means you have just not studied it enough. In dismissing it the way you have been, you are ruining it for everyone: you are making them dismiss it too, and like you, they dismiss it simply because it upsets their world-view, not based on it's merits. They all jump on your band-wagon, and this is not because the idea is breath-takingly imbecilic: it is just because people won't give it a chance, or because of an emotional reaction, or because they are afraid that giving credence to it will hurt their academic career, or because there are big business interests working against the idea's acceptance.

I notice that you once again apply a different standard to the flat earth theory as you apply to the book.

It's true because in this case I took for granted that science had it right. I don't go around arguing with established theories just for the fun of it. I happened to be Lessans' daughter, but that's not why I'm espousing these principles. I see the validity of these principles for myself. I'm not just a puppet on a string.

And this means that you are biased, and that a flat earth is entirely plausible. It is just that you are not giving it a chance: you just assume the established consensus is correct.

Not really. I don't have to understand their ideas on conscience or the nature of sight to know that my father's observations on these issues were spot on. And I don't need to know all of the theories on freedom of the will, determinism and compatibilism to know that his understanding of determinism is spot on, and therefore the most useful.

I think you are losing the plot a little here. I am saying they offer more evidence for a flat earth than you offer for conscience working as you believe, or for sight working as you believe.

But I am glad to see you admit that you do not feel the need to know anything about a subject in order to make absolute statements about it. You just look at it, and decide if it is "spot on" or not, without any reference to outside reality. It is a bit like saying that you do not need to know anything about medicine in order to diagnose and treat a brain tumor.

You're right. I haven't read the books so I don't have the right to argue the points they have made.

Progress! Now I put it to you that this prohibits you from holding any opinion at all about a wide range of subjects. A notable example is your opinion about scientific medicine, a subject about which you have not even begun to read the slimmest volume.

I never said you have to believe him completely if you don't see the relations for yourself. I said you'll have to wait, that's all

.

That is untrue once again. You have repeatedly asked just that: you have required us to ignore the evidence against efferent sight, on the basis that an explanation could possibly surface later that explains it in a way that is compatible with efferent sight. That is not asking someone to wait: that is asking someone to ignore evidence because of the possibility of future evidence to the contrary.

I don't understand how the earth being flat would make us more environmentally conscious, or would give us spare money. If it was true, then we probably would find other discoveries based on this knowledge, but so far it seems that we were able to get to the moon after learning that the earth was round, so I'm not sure how they overcome this.

That is just because you do not perceive the underlying relations. You should probably go and read the books. And I do not see how reaching the moon (if it ever happened, opinions are divided on this in the flat-earth community) has anything to do with the price of fish. The moon exists: it is just smaller and closer than we think, and does not circle the earth, but hovers above it.

As for how it would give us spare money, you are either being obtuse or dishonest. I have already explained that we could use the NASA budget and all the money wasted on astronomy.

Nope, this particular idea doesn't necessarily get equal treatment just because science doesn't deal in certainties. It depends on what they bring to the table. If it refutes what we know mathematically to be true (Nasa deals in mathematics), then it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will rightfully belong in the woo category.

Where to start? Your responses are such a muddle lately that it is hard to disentangle them properly so I can respond to them.

1: Mathematics is not what you seem to think it is. It just isn't. Stop using that word in that way as it makes you look positively unhinged.

2: What they bring to the table is considerably more than what you bring to the table regarding sight and conscience. They actually offer a reason to assume the earth is flat on occasion: you supply no reason at all to assume sight and conscience work as you believe. You keep saying that such reasons exist, but you have never been able to supply them. If you feel I am wrong about this, go ahead and supply the reasons. If not, have the decency to admit it.

3: We have held your ideas about sight up to scrutiny, and they do not hold up. I remind you of the moons of jupiter, of the time it takes to see the dot of a laser appear when one is fired at the moon, of the fact that we can launch probes at distant planets and hit them even though we fire them at where we do not see them, the fact that the light from a star and the position in the sky where we see that star coincide... the list is endless. However, you do not see that as evidence that suggests your ideas are wrong: in stead you maintain that since it is not 100% impossible that "something else is going on", this means we should not dismiss the idea. However, this means that by the same token, you cannot dismiss the notion that the earth is flat: the same applies.

So again, I notice that you are applying different standards to the flat earth theory as you apply to your book.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The round earth theory doesn't have any opponents other than the flat-earthers whose evidence isn't convincing. Their belief regarding the shape of the earth does nothing to improve on what we already know. You can't compare their arguments for a flat earth with what my father is offering, which cannot be denied, if understood, because we're dealing with undeniable observations that are not easily perceived, but true nevertheless.

The afferent theory of sight doesn't have any opponents other than you and Lessans. Your belief regarding efferent vision does nothing to improve on what we already know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand how the earth being flat would make us more environmentally conscious, or would give us spare money. If it was true, then we probably would find other discoveries based on this knowledge, but so far it seems that we were able to get to the moon after learning that the earth was round, so I'm not sure how they overcome this.

It is not at all clear how efferent vision and instant sight make anything better or benefit the world in any way. If they were true, then we would probably find other discoveries based on this knowledge, but so far it seems that we were able to to get to the moon after we learned that sight is delayed by the time it takes for light to travel from the object to the eyes, and it remains unclear how you and Lessans overcome this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, this particular idea doesn't necessarily get equal treatment just because science doesn't deal in certainties. It depends on what they bring to the table. If it refutes what we know mathematically to be true (Nasa deals in mathematics), then it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will rightfully belong in the woo category.

Efferent vision and instantaneous sight don't get equal treatment just because science doesn't deal in certainties. It depends on what you and Lessans bring to the table. It it contradicts what we know mathematically to be true (NASA deals in mathematics), then it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will rightfully belong in the woo category.

So much for not being able to compare Lessans and the flat-earthers. It appears to be something that is ridiculously easy to do.

[Vivisectus]

Funny you should say that, Anga. I too have discovered that the number of words you need to change in order to turn any of Peacegirls statements into arguments in favour of a flat earth is astonishingly low. Sometimes you can leave whole paragraphs intact and just change a single word, and often you only need to change 3 words for an entire post.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So again, I notice that you are applying different standards to the flat earth theory as you apply to your book.

That is a very astute observation right there.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Funny you should say that, Anga. I too have discovered that the number of words you need to change in order to turn any of Peacegirls statements into arguments in favour of a flat earth is astonishingly low. Sometimes you can leave whole paragraphs intact and just change a single word, and often you only need to change 3 words for an entire post.

To quote an aphorism that peacegirl hasn't yet abused, she has been hoisted on her own petard.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the reason you blew it Spacemonkey. You blew it because you are disrespectful to my father's work.

I am reneging because it makes no sense for me send the book to you. You're not interested in reading it because you think it's a non-discovery, remember? I don't need you to help me. I have enough universities here without spending $50 to send the book to you in New Zealand when it will probably collect dust since whomever you give it to will know what you think about it, and be turned off before he even starts.

Nope, because I feel justified. If you have no intention of reading the book, I have no reason to send it to you.

You still don't understand why you hurt me so deeply, do you?

I told you why. If you had said to me "Of course I want to read the book; you're going out of your way to send it to me, that's the least I could do before I ship it off to some university to get a 'biased' review from the same compatibilist philosophers that hold my position," I would at least know that you were going to give it your undivided attention and read the book in the way that it should have been read from the very beginning. And you know what I meant when I said deleted. It was off the cuff. I meant ignore.

So you are still reneging on our deal and breaking your word? And for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the original offer you agreed to?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not. That's what is being debated. I cannot believe after all this time, and after my clear explanation as to why will is not free, you resort to saying we are free because we can choose.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you goose. What I am saying is that you are putting it wrong. I am not arguing either for or against free will. If a person has a choice whether or not to act on their desires, then will is free.

You just said you weren't arguing either for or against free will, but you are obviously arguing for free will. You are so mixed up Vivisectus. And don't call me a goose or you're on ignore again, and this time it will be longer.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazingly you are once again unable to express your own point of view. Your point of view, if we assume for a moment that the confused muddle that you like to come here and dribble all over people justifies that name, is that we can choose according to what we desire: it is just that we cannot choose what those desires are. Your fabulous talent for self-contradiction makes me wonder if perhaps the book originally made some sense, until you got to it.

If I'm hungry, I'm not choosing my desire to want to eat something. If I'm bored, I'm not choosing my desire to want to do something that will be stimulating. If I'm missing my kids, I'm not choosing my desire to want to go visit them? How can we choose what we desire? It is true that we don't have to act on a desire if it's something we don't want to feel. I have a desire for ice cream. I have no control over that (that desire is in my brain right now; chocolate mint chip from Baskin Robbins, yummy), but I don't have to act on that desire and go buy it. In terms of this discovery, how does anything you just said disprove what Lessans has demonstrated?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know what your point of view is. I am just saying that you were expressing it in a way that is self-contradictory in your original post.

Where is it contradictory? You don't understand this knowledge at all. That's why you say the things you say.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

just because you can choose how and whether to act on your desires does not mean your will is free.

Being able to choose to act or not to act on a desire is the definition of free will. Vivisectus was pointing this out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

While looking into Flat Earth theory, I came across an awesome resource: the Encyclopedia of the American Loon. Guess who was the very, VERY first entry?

Mighty Mike!

I will inform the person who runs this enclyclopedia that he is missing a very important entry under the L section.

You know why he's the first one on the list? Because the medical industry is threatened by him. If people listen to what he has to say, they may not buy the drugs that are advertised on t.v., which bring in big bucks. As we become better consumers, not just passive recipients of whatever doctors tell us, we will see more and more attacks on people like Mike Adams. Thank goodness we're entitled to express ourselves in a free society.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Being able to choose to act or not to act on a desire is the definition of free will. Vivisectus was pointing this out.

But that is what this entire discussion is about. Lessans shows that just because we can choose to act on a desire does not make will free. After all this time, people are still not getting it because they never took this knowledge seriously. Now we're back to square one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I seem to remember that when she got her copies of this edition the margins weren't quite perfect, so I can understand that she doesn't want to send you an imperfect copy of a perfect book. Perhaps when she sells both copies of this edition, she'll send you a copy from the next edition, but that could be awhile, maybe months?

No, I'm getting my first order of books shortly. I wouldn't care if it was just the margins, but I changed some of the writing as well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you can choose whether to act on your desires, then will is free. Amazingly you are once again unable to express your own point of view. Your point of view, if we assume for a moment that the confused muddle that you like to come here and dribble all over people justifies that name, is that we can choose according to what we desire: it is just that we cannot choose what those desires are. Your fabulous talent for self-contradiction makes me wonder if perhaps the book originally made some sense, until you got to it.

Added for emphasis: You seem to have no understanding of why being able to choose does not mean will is free. It is a superficial definition at best. This is exactly what Lessans is refuting. You better had read this again because it hasn't penetrated.

p. 43 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a person offer an excuse for what he did [which hurt another] when he's already excused and no one is questioning his conduct?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Maybe because he is questioning his own conduct. Some people, when they feel guilty over having engaged in some thought or action, will offer excuses for that thought or action even though no one else is blaming them, holding them responsible or are even aware of the thought or action in question. Why do they offer excuses when no one is blaming then? Probably because they feel guilty and feel the need to excuse themselves to themselves. In other words, offering an excuse, even when no one expects it of them, is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Yes, people offer excuses to justify their actions, but if they are already excused because we know they couldn't help themselves, they have no way to justify their actions to themselves. You're not understanding why conscience cannot accept actions that cannot be justified. If we take away their ability to rationalize their behavior, because they're already excused, they are left with an uncomfortable feeling since their rationalizations are not being given a chance to satisfy what their conscience knows is wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is what this entire discussion is about. Lessans shows that just because we can choose to act on a desire does not make will free. After all this time, people are still not getting it because they never took this knowledge seriously. Now we're back to square one.

Lessans didn't show that, he asserted it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know why he's the first one on the list? Because the medical industry is threatened by him. If people listen to what he has to say, they may not buy the drugs that are advertised on t.v., which bring in big bucks. As we become better consumers, not just passive recipients of whatever doctors tell us, we will see more and more attacks on people like Mike Adams. Thank goodness we're entitled to express ourselves in a free society.

LOL, threatened? You don't evaluate claims at all do you? You just go along with whomever says things you already agree with.

That's called confirmation bias.

[LadyShea]

Even other woos find him of concern Special Report: The Legend of Mike Adams and the Reality

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not understanding why conscience cannot accept actions that cannot be justified.

Because you're not supporting your claim that this is the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't show that, he asserted it.

No he did not LadyShea. You keep repeating this as if your statement is correct. It is not correct. It is you who doesn't understand the reasoning behind what he's demonstrating, which I know you don't want to hear. You think your critical thinking abilities can catch someone who has made a mistake. Unfortunately, it is you that has made a mistake. Own it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you're not supporting your claim that this is the case.

It is very much supported. As long as a person's conscience is intact, this principle works perfectly. You are trying to defend your compatibilist position, which puts you in a very uncomfortable space. It won't allow you to read what he is saying without some sort of retort. This has become your personal bias. I can't help that Spacemonkey. It's up to you to recognize your prejudices and remove them so you can see reality for what it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even other woos find him of concern Special Report: The Legend of Mike Adams and the Reality

I am so not interested in your findings LadyShea. You're out for one reason which is to defend the indefensible. How can you defend an industry that gives approval for an unsafe drug that has killed thousands? You can't accept the fact that empirical evidence is often wrong, especially in the medical field when there is a reason to make the results look impressive. Knowing that 100,000 people die a year from a drug that is prescribed for you, wouldn't you think twice? Answer the question without giving me your brand of bullshit. Yes or no.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Encyclopedia of American Loons

Entry: Peacegirl

Peacegirl is a tragically deranged Internet troll and malignant mushwit who has spent the last ten years of her sad-sack life chained to a computer, promoting the whakco writings of her brain-damaged father on Internet message boards.

Her father would be included among the American loons, except that he is dead, so peacegirl stands in for him.

Her father, Seymour Lessans, was a seventh-grade dropout, pool hustler and aluminum-siding salesman who devoted his life to reading the writings of Will Durant and the dictionary, which he purportedly read at least seven times over, with little to show for it, evidently. He may also have read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or some other shit like that.

Um, you're digging a big hole for yourself. I think Edward Gibbons, and those that love his writings, would be offended by your summarizing his work as being called "shit like that."

Originally Posted by davidm

After thirty years of "research" and "astute observations," Lessans wrote a book, in which he bloviated that if the sun were turned on at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see the people standing next to them for about eight minutes while waiting for the photons to arrive. This was his so-called "second discovery."

That is true, and you have no idea what he's even talking about, so go blather on and on and make a ridiculous jerk of yourself. This is expected coming from someone who is so trapped in his delusions that he can't bear to hear a different point of view without going utterly ballistic and self implode.

Originally Posted by davidm

In addition to being empirically false, and known to be false for hundreds of years, this claim is conceptually incoherent and so face-palmingly, gob-smackingly dumb that it beggars belief that anyone could claim it. It's as dumb as asserting that a triangle has four sides. It can be proven wrong in about three seconds, but the loon peacegirl sticks to it because her dimwit Daddy wrote it. "Lessans' book is my bible," she stated in a message board post.

No it cannot be proven wrong in 3 seconds unless you don't understand the claim. You are so damned threatened that you can't stand that Lessans may be right, so you call him names, call me names, and try to defend yourself in ways that are not acceptable by scientific standards.

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl also pushes Lessans' "first discovery," which is that "we are compelled of our own free will" to do stuff, never once noticing the idiotic contradiction in the claim. Lessans wrote that he called Will Durant on the phone to hector him on this point, but Durant hung up on him.

He did not hang up on him. You're so muddled in your effort to discredit him that you're getting all the dialogues mixed up. No surprise.

Originally Posted by davidm

Later Lessans sued President Carter for not giving him an audience to discuss his "discoveries." Much of his 600-page book is devoted to whining about how his intellectual betters refused to take him seriously.

Intellectual betters? I beg to differ.

Originally Posted by davidm

However, the book does contain amusing bits about having sex on the dinner table, translucent sex robes and the vital importance of perfectly prepared spaghetti and meatballs by wives (genitals, according to Lessans) who make a proper study of cooking and don't expect their husbands to share the same beds with them.

Keep making this a laughing matter. The joke will eventually be on you and you will run away like a little coward that you are.

Originally Posted by davidm

The loon peacegirl understandably doesn't like to talk about the loon Lessans' "third discovery," which is that all Jews who were killed by Hitler should not be mad at him, because all those Jews are still alive even though they are dead.

What the fuck are you talking about. Lessans was a Jew. I'm a Jew. I have feelings about what happened in the Holocaust. You're totally nuts.

Originally Posted by davidm

Diagnosis: Harmless but extremely ignorant and arrogant fuck head. A know-nothing, graceless little freak who lies like a rug and repeatedly insults her intellectual and moral betters. Harmless, though, because she and her dim-bulb daddy have not found a single convert to their idiocy. Peacegirl is so loony that she cannot even find a support group of like-minded loons, which makes her, thankfully, an incompetent loon. It also gives some fleeting hope that the American public isn't as dumb as it actually seems to be. Some things, it would seem, are too dumb for anyone (other than peacegirl) to accept, too dumb to accept even for the useless dumb asses who constitute the majority of the populace of the U.S.

You are acting like this because you don't like his discovery that we see in real time. Face up to the music David. You're a liar and a sneak. People will see through you easily if they have any objectivity left.

Originally Posted by davidm

In her never-ending and wholly futile Internet tour, it is recommended that she next take her nonsense to the ludicrously misnamed "Talk Rational" message board. Apart from the life sciences forum, it is a sewer infested by vicious know-nothing morons and administered by half-witted jackasses, a place where even the moderators are trolls. No, she won't get a more positive reception there -- in fact she will be called a child molester and receive death threats, and her home address, phone number and other personal info will be relentlessly hunted down and posted, in keeping with the high intellectual and ethical content that the mouth-breathing grotequeries who run the forum like to cultivate. But that will be amusing for lurkers.

I would never be subjected to the idiocy that I have experienced on these forums. So don't hold your breath David. I'm never going to waste my time on these type people again. You can take that to the bank.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added for emphasis: You seem to have no understanding of why being able to choose does not mean will is free. It is a superficial definition at best. This is exactly what Lessans is refuting. You better had read this again because it hasn't penetrated.

p. 43 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

*sigh* we will add the meaning of the word "whether" to the long list of things you do not understand.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know why he's the first one on the list? Because the medical industry is threatened by him. If people listen to what he has to say, they may not buy the drugs that are advertised on t.v., which bring in big bucks. As we become better consumers, not just passive recipients of whatever doctors tell us, we will see more and more attacks on people like Mike Adams. Thank goodness we're entitled to express ourselves in a free society.

If you replace his name with the flat earth society, and the medical industry with NASA, you pretty much get their point of view.

So let me get this straight - people think Mike is a loon because of some medical industry mind-control device?

[Vivisectus]

You just said you weren't arguing either for or against free will, but you are obviously arguing for free will. You are so mixed up Vivisectus. And don't call me a goose or you're on ignore again, and this time it will be longer.

*sigh* I am not arguing either way. I am saying that if you say "We can choose whether or not we act on our desires" then there is free will. If in stead you say "We can choose according to our desires, but we cannot choose what those desires are" then you can argue that there is no free will, because we do not have any control over what we desire.

I am not making any statement about which is true. I am merely showing that if you put it the way you do, you contradict yourself.

Where is it contradictory? You don't understand this knowledge at all. That's why you say the things you say.

Please see above