A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Intelligence can only be ascribed to beings, not to mathematical concepts. Is it a being or not?

The laws are the intelligence. I don't know what exists beyond that but I am fine calling these laws God as a metaphor.

[peacegirl]

Nor is there proof that sight is efferent, or that conscience works as he says it does. The latter is especially important: practically the whole rest of the book is based on it. That is why the comparison works so well.

He did not state that from observation: it is like saying red mountains are not blue. If you define consciousness as that through which we experience things, which he clearly does, then you can indeed say that we only experience things through the thing through which we experience things, and not through that through which other people experience things. But that is already something inherent in the concept.

That is not something you observe. It is something inherent in the word "consciousness". It does not refer to an outside reality, but only says something about the words used.

There is a difference between saying "red mountains are not blue" and saying "Conscience works a certain way". The first already has all the information in the sentence, and refers only to concepts. the second one does not, refers to outside reality, and needs evidence to make it reasonable to believe. The same applies to his claims about sight.

Indeed: in order to agree, I must become utterly uncritical and simply agree. Then I too will experience the truthiness!

Efferent sight has not been proven to exist, and conscience has not been proven to work as described, which puts the book squarely in the same "basket" as other people who claims things are true for which they have no evidence.

Eventually, you will see that the book is nothing but a bunch of empty claims and common fallacies. Some of his "observations" have been tested, in fact for the most past they were tested hundreds of years before he was even born, but he seems to have been ignorant of all of that. If only he had taken the trouble to take a high-school level physics course!

Think what you want Vivisectus. I'm tired of your responses because they are truly ignorant. You know nothing about this knowledge. You have no conception of why man's will is not free; you have no understanding as to why conscience works in a predictable way, you have no idea what the two-sided equation is, and you have no idea why this knowledge, when applied, will alter the antecedent conditions giving rise to a new set of behaviors. You haven't a clue as to how the new economic system is going to impact our world. And by the way, if I die, my consciousnes dies with me. I cannot see this world through anybody's consciousness but my own. That doesn't mean other people aren't conscious of the world. It only means I cannot see this world through their consciousness. This is not an inherent concept that is circular; this is an observation and a correct one at that. Lastly, the length of time a theory has been in existence does not necessarily mean it's correct. Look how long the belief in free will has existed?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is completely refuted by the existence of the Hubble deep field images.

No one is forgetting that you and lessans have claimed that 'the object must be present to be seen', but we are also not forgetting that the claim has been refuted and the idea disproved many times with many examples. Just because Lessans claims it, does not mean that the claim has been established as true, and in this case the claim has been demonstrated to be false.

The moons of Jupiter have been refered to many times, but I wonder if anyone has access to Occultations that have been observed, and recorded with the times when the object is known to have disapeared as compaired to the times when the object has been observed to disapear? I'm sure that if the records could be accessed and presented there would be a mountain of evidence that an object does not need to be in the field of view to be seen. Whining that the test needs to be done on earth to be valid is just not practical given the speed of light. That a beam of light (if it could be induced to orbit the Earth) would make almost 8 orbits in one second, there is hardly enough time to remove the object before the light arrives at the camera or eye, and this is why an earth bound demonstration is very difficult but astronomical observations are much easier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Descriptions of observations either are or are not good evidence and/or proof, peacegirl. You can't have it both ways based on what you already believe to be true. That's dishonest. You are elevating Lessans, and asking us to elevate Lessans, to a higher level of reliability than other people.

Eyewitness descriptions of the Loch Ness Monster

"Proof" of the existence of Yeti

Eyewitness description of observed UFO and alien beings

So :lolno:

I get that, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he is right. You have to leave room for the fact that he is describing reality accurately. You are not containing your skepticism which he asked people to do. You refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. You don't want to. This will be your downfall as far as this knowledge goes. I know you don't care, so please don't reply. And don't tell me that Einstein and Edison had discoveries that could be tested empirically. I've heard this already and I don't have to hear it again.

p. 2 Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison
when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right.
Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive
and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that
they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four. Just
bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by scientific
discoveries which should make you desire to contain your skepticism
enough to investigate what this is all about.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the way, if I die, my consciousnes dies with me. I cannot see this world through anybody's consciousness but my own. That doesn't mean other people aren't conscious of the world. It only means I cannot see this world through their consciousness.

I know some will think I'm being unecessarily harsh.

But if you die, will the book die with you?

How are you feeling?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he is right. You have to leave room for the fact that he is describing reality accurately. You are not containing your skepticism which he asked people to do. You refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. You don't want to. This will be your downfall as far as this knowledge goes. I know you don't care, so please don't reply. And don't tell me that Einstein and Edison had discoveries that could be tested empirically. I've heard this already and I don't have to hear it again.

p. 2 Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison
when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right.
Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive
and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that
they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four. Just
bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by scientific
discoveries which should make you desire to contain your skepticism
enough to investigate what this is all about.

Well I'm glad that has been settled, Lessans non-demonstrations have not proven him right, then he must be wrong. I guess that's it for Peacegirl, I'm going to miss the entertainment.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never mind Vivisectus. You have a one track mind. I wasn't even referring to the eyes when I wrote that. I know you think this discovery can't be for real, which is why you keep bringing up the flat earthers. You think this is a big joke.

We have actually established that if you take the standards for what constitutes evidence and plausability that are required to make your ideas seem halfway reasonable and apply them to other ideas, then there are almost no ideas that you can reject as implausible or irrational. As it turns out, the belief that the earth is flat has slightly better evidence in favor of it.

In order to believe both ideas you have to ignore evidence: photographs from space for flat-earthers, all the evidence against efferent sight for your ideas. Both ideas rely on either faulty evidence (the flat earthers) or no evidence at all (your ideas).

Both ideas tend to work backwards: they assume they are correct first, and then go looking for anything that seems to be compatible with the idea, and then pretend that constitutes evidence. You, for instance, bring up how people behave when accused of a crime, something that does not require conscience to work as you think it does, and your claim that dogs cannot recognize faces, which people who actually research dog sight disagree with, but which would not consitute evidence anyway, even if they were wrong! The flat earthers like to bring up the fact that when you look at the earth, it does not look round, even when you are on a really high mountain.

Both ideas like to claim that the only reason people think it is rubbish is because people are either biased, Stupid or Malicious. They both like to say that the only reason people do not embrace it is because they are so used to thinking a certain way, and that this new idea challenges their world-view. This is especially arrogant: it does not include that all-important possibility that any honest person should always at least consider: the possibility that you are dead wrong.

Finally, both require a special standard for what constitutes evidence: the flat earthers need the Bible to be an absolute source of truth, you have your "Astute Observations", your descriptions or demonstrations that are proof of their own correctness, your appeals to possible future evidence.

It seems to me that they two are a pretty close match - and I am not just claiming that, I can point to your own words for corroberation.

And the funny thing is that you dismiss the flat earth theory out of hand, but you think the book is gospel truth... even though it is actually more likely to be true, if you actually applied those standards to all ideas equally. But you don't: you have one standard for the book, and another for everything else.

You believe in this book for emotional reasons, not rational ones. It is a kind of faith.

[Vivisectus]

I get that, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he is right.

Neither has it been ruled out that Bigfoot and Fairies exist. Does this mean we should believe in them? No? Then why should we believe your book is correct?

Should we give the flat earth theory the benefit of the doubt, ignore the evidence against it, and wait for evidence that proves the earth is flat? No? Then why should we do exactly that with Lessans and his ideas about sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the *$@*& cares what language he used. We also change our wording when talking to children so that they will understand what we're saying in terms of their present knowledge. So what does this mean as far Lessans is concerned? .

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It means he did try to win cred with both scientists and at the same time describe God in personal terms for the comfort of Judeo-Christians, despite your denial that this was the case as quoted below

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who in the world doesn't tailor his presentation to the individual or group he is addressing, but this doesn't change the message. The things you come up with are so ridiculous, as if his addressing people using the word God because they are religious negates the truth of his knowledge. You're grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not the one that denied that Lessans did this, you denied that he did. Then you got mad when I stated that this is a normal thing to have done, because you still denied that he did it.

He used their language, that's all. He did not try to win credo. He tried to explain that this discovery will bring about the fulfillment of their prayers. You're making it sound like he was being unobjective, using persuasion by changing his tactics. That is not right LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now you are admitting he did do so. So which statement of yours is the one you actually want to defend? Why are you being so contradictory? Why can't you just admit that Maturin was right when he stated that Lessans presented God two different ways to appeal to two different sets of people?

He did do that. I never denied that he used God metaphorically with religious folks, and the laws of our nature with scientific folks. Why are you trying to catch me in lies all the time? I feel I'm on trial, and there is nothing that Lessans has done that discredits his knowledge. Is that your goal; to find things that make people suspicious so they will throw everything out? You have nitpicked and split hairs from day one. You have torn apart trivial things in the book as if this disqualifies him from being someone who could make such a discovery. IT DOES NOT.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You start this kind of dispute every time you know. You say something then when your statements are shown to be false or contradictory or a complete flip flop of your previous statements, you move the goal posts or use weasel words to pretend you weren't wrong in the first damn place.

I am not saying, nor have I said, that this ambiguous and contradictory use of language to appeal to different people negates his message, I am simply saying that he did actually do it. You denied this was the case. You were incorrect in that denial.

I said that he did change his wording depending on who he talked to. I wouldn't talk to a child the same way I talk to an adult. I wouldn't talk to someone who is religious the same way I talk to someone who isn't. I would try to get through to them using their own language or way of thinking so they would be able to see my point, otherwise there would be no opening or basis for communication. The use of the word God as a metaphor is perfectly fine.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maturin pointed out that he tried to win credit with readers both scientific and religious with his use of language, which he absolutely did, and which I gave examples of.

He may have tried to meet people where they're at, but this doesn't mean he was underhanded at all. You are making a false accusation LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I use the word underhanded in reference to Lessans? He did it. You denied it....you're the one with the honesty problem. I am calling YOU out on your weaseling bullshit.

That's what you love to do, isn't it? Find all kinds of fake flaws (talk about weaseling) that have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of this discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My accusation is that YOU incorrectly denied that Lessans used the concept of God in different ways to appeal to different people, and that accusation is not all false as I have proven with the quotes above.

What is your point? Do you want me to give you a gold star? You are trying to find ways to discredit me, and you know it. I know how you work LadyShea, and it's very sneaky and underhanded.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using the term God, even metaphorically, wouldn't be at all necessary, or desirable, if the intended audience were all scientists. They don't need or want a religious euphemism to encompass all the laws of the universe. Religious people, OTOH, are made much more comfortable by the word God, and the allusions to a God that gives a shit about humans, as many distrust and fear the idea of an indifferent Universe.

That's your worldview LadyShea, and you'll defend it to the end. These laws indicate that there is design to this universe, and that's the worldview I hold. Lessans didn't want to take away their comfort level by removing the word God. Why would he do that?

It is true that there are different groups of people. Instead of being snobby, scientists are going to have to understand what he meant by God.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, he used God two very different ways, so it is impossible to discern what he actually meant.

You should have known what he meant if you had read the book. It was not like he didn't explain what he meant by God in Chapters One and Two.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And scientists are not being snobby when they expect to see science and not religion in supposedly scientific discoveries they are expected to view with an eye toward testing.

But science and religion are converging where there can be some commonality. Lessans' discovery is the intersection between the two. I'm sorry if you don't want woos or religious people involved. They are just as much entitled to hear of this discovery as the scientists are and probably will be the ones to get this knowledge investigated, not the scientists.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you want this viewed as a scientific discovery and validated by scientists, or do you want this viewed as a philosophical worldview and simply believed via faith by the religious masses? It cannot be both.

This is a discovery that deals with reality, not fairies and angels. You're right it can't be both. But there are more and more people that are opening up to a dialogue between science and religion, as I just stated. They don't have to be mutually exclusive where there's no coming together. Even though this book is not based on faith, it might be the faithful who end up helping to bring this knowledge to light. Stranger things have happened.

If they can't, they are too narrow minded to even hear what he had to say. Therefore, these particular scientists should not read the book, for his words are not meant for their ears.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you don't know anything at all about how science works, and I have no idea who you think will "confirm the knowledge as valid" if not scientists? Wayne Dyer? Mike Adams?

Laugh all you want. I really don't know but I do know that if they say "where's the proof" after he carefully described what he observed, they probably won't be the ones.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Working scientists don't go reading 600 page self published tomes filled with flip-flopping references to God, fake dialog, lawsuits, and and individual's imaginings of the future in an attempt to tease something scientific out of it to test for validity.

There you go; you just disclosed your reason for interrogating me on the word God. This was not flip-flopping at all. Scientists often uses metaphors in their papers but I truly don't know if they are the ones who are going to confirm this discovery. God is leading all of us and He will continue to guide us in the direction we are compelled to go. I can say this without feeling contradictory just because I personalized the word God. As far as fake dialog, lawsuits, and imaginings of the future, don't you see what you're doing? You're trying desperately to gather evidence against Lessans to make people doubt, but none of these things have anything to do with his core concepts.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using the words scientific and mathematical to mean undeniable was a way to try to get scientifically minded people to not categorize the whole thing as purely philosophical or religious.

No, the reason he used the words scientific and mathematical is because that's exactly what it is; scientific and mathematical. For those who don't like those words, take them out, but it doesn't change the accuracy of his observations.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it is neither scientific nor mathematical as has been demonstrated repeatedly. That is a false statement. And you are asking the reader to simply dismiss this inaccuracy iof they don't like it? Again, I ask, who is it you are hoping will read this book and then confirm it valid? Who can confirm it? Scientists aren't going to "take out" the word scientific...they are going to see it isn't scientific and dismiss the whole thing. So who does that leave you?

I am not sure. There is a new way of thinking in today's world. People are not reducing the world by using only what empiricism has to offer. Science is limited by their methodology. If they aren't the ones, I will find the ones who will be willing to read dispassionately and objectively, but will desire to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using the word God as a euphemism for the Universe was a way to make his ideas comfortable to the Judeo-Christian mind.

Of course it was. How else could he even get past square one? People have to be met where they are at as far as their philosophies, otherwise, their minds will shut down immediately. But you're trying to prove that Lessans was being underhanded in some way, which he was not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So why did you deny that he presented God in different ways to win cred with different people? Do you retract that statement?

I told you already. I don't trust you, that's why. You twist things to make it appear one way when it's not that way at all. You tried to make it appear that he was persuading people by using a different tactic when he referenced the word God two different ways, as if there's something inherently suspicious about that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And again, I am not trying to prove Lessans was underhanded, I am trying to get you to admit that you made a false and misleading statement when you denied that Lessans did this.

And I told you why. I will not be led into a trap because you want to make something appear one way when it isn't that way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's what both I and Maturin meant by "all things to all people". He used metaphors and idiosyncratic definitions tactically to gain support.

So how am I being ridiculous?

You are not getting it, that's why. You are using the fact that he changed his wording with different groups to imply that he was being deceptive. That is not true at all LadyShea, and for you to use this type of reasoning against him only shows how intent you are in wanting to win this debate. You will never be the winner no matter how hard you try to make it appear that Lessans had ulterior motives, because this knowledge is genuine.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, I am showing that you were being deceptive when you flat out denied that Lessans did this in the text. I know why Lessans did it, I don't know why you denied it.

I do. Now let this conversation end.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his description is available for anyone to see. I see that a person cannot shift his responsibility to someone or something else when he is not being questioned. I see this for myself. You don't see this at all.

You 'see it' because you have unshakeable faith that whatever your Dad wrote must be true. We don't 'see it' because you have ZERO evidence for any of his claims and we do not share your faith. Like I said, we only have his word that he made any observations or that his observations were either careful or accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you keep coming right back to the afferent perspective that light (the basket) travels with an image of the object it was reflected off of. This is the very thing Lessans disputes.

That's your strawman. I've never said that or anything like it. YOU are the one who posited light coming from somewhere it never was. That came from YOUR assumptions, not mine. Like I said, you still have no idea at all of how either eyes or cameras work, either in reality or in your and your father's efferent fantasy world. Last time you tried to explain it you had photons coming from the Sun which had never been located there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then hold onto your worldview. I won't disturb you anymore.

Lessans claimed he would absolutely prove that the eyes are not a sense organ, yet you know he did nothing of the sort. He merely gave his reasons, and those reasons not only fell far short of proof, but were all unsupported and false claims themselves, and were wholly irrelevant to the mechanism of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is innate potential perfection if a person's conscience is intact. If it is not, he may not be able to be controlled by this law in which case he would be taken off the streets just like a mad dog would be taken off the streets. There are no assumptions when he shows how conscience works under considitions that don't allow him to justify his actions, which is required by conscience itself.

The contradictory parts have been highlighted in bold for you. You deny that there are any assumptions, yet you lead your response once again with the big fat assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience - once again asserting this while knowing full well that you've been unable to support this assumption with a single shred of evidence in over a decade. So like I said, the problem is that you have absolutely ZERO evidence to show that his description of conscience (along with the assumption he makes regarding the innate potential perfection of conscience) is accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but they can be understood by those who see their accuracy. You refuse to believe that he is right regarding conscience because you don't see that his description regarding how conscience functions is exactly how it functions, just as he is right regarding his observation that we cannot see this world through anybody's consciousness but our own.

Just 'seeing' that a description is right without actually comparing it to reality in any way that would actually provide real evidence is what is known as FAITH. The reason we don't just 'see' that his descriptions and claims were right is that we don't share your faith. Evidence is what rational people use to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate descriptions. You instead rely upon faith masquerading as intuition. Without evidence no-one else is ever going to see things the way you do. You can't know a description to be correct just by reading it carefully, and descriptions are not evidence of their own accuracy.

[But]

Oh no, the monkey has escaped from space. Logic, asshole. Logic! CTL* please and BTW where is the monkey-shitting diagram in your monkey-fighting next post? I didn't read the rest of the posts in between the other ones, you know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You 'see it' because you have unshakeable faith that whatever your Dad wrote must be true. We don't 'see it' because you have ZERO evidence for any of his claims and we do not share your faith. Like I said, we only have his word that he made any observations or that his observations were either careful or accurate.

I'm sorry that I can't prove to you (or offer evidentiary support) that his observations were correct and that I have to appeal to some future date to prove that he knew whereof he spoke. That still shouldn't stop you from trying to see how this law, once it's applied, has the power to change human interactions for the better, and this requires reading the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you keep coming right back to the afferent perspective that light (the basket) travels with an image of the object it was reflected off of. This is the very thing Lessans disputes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's your strawman. I've never said that or anything like it. YOU are the one who posited light coming from somewhere it never was. That came from YOUR assumptions, not mine. Like I said, you still have no idea at all of how either eyes or cameras work, either in reality or in your and your father's efferent fantasy world. Last time you tried to explain it you had photons coming from the Sun which had never been located there.

That's your strawman Spacemonkey. I've never said that or anything like it. That came from YOUR assumptions, not mine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then hold onto your worldview. I won't disturb you anymore.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans claimed he would absolutely prove that the eyes are not a sense organ, yet you know he did nothing of the sort. He merely gave his reasons, and those reasons not only fell far short of proof, but were all unsupported and false claims themselves, and were wholly irrelevant to the mechanism of vision.

He demonstrated how it must be the case that the eyes are not a sense organ because of how we are conditioned, which we could not be if the eyes were a sense organ. He showed how words are projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. You don't seem to be interested in what I have posted. You have never asked any questions related to his observations, as if you dismiss them even before you understand what his observations are.

p. 124 As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is innate potential perfection if a person's conscience is intact. If it is not, he may not be able to be controlled by this law in which case he would be taken off the streets just like a mad dog would be taken off the streets. There are no assumptions when he shows how conscience works under considitions that don't allow him to justify his actions, which is required by conscience itself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The contradictory parts have been highlighted in bold for you. You deny that there are any assumptions, yet you lead your response once again with the big fat assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience - once again asserting this while knowing full well that you've been unable to support this assumption with a single shred of evidence in over a decade. So like I said, the problem is that you have absolutely ZERO evidence to show that his description of conscience (along with the assumption he makes regarding the innate potential perfection of conscience) is accurate.

You are so completely wrong here and I'm not going to go over it again because all you'll do is ignore his demonstration, and tell me there's zero evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but they can be understood by those who see their accuracy. You refuse to believe that he is right regarding conscience because you don't see that his description regarding how conscience functions is exactly how it functions, just as he is right regarding his observation that we cannot see this world through anybody's consciousness but our own.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just 'seeing' that a description is right without actually comparing it to reality in any way that would actually provide real evidence is what is known as FAITH. The reason we don't just 'see' that his descriptions and claims were right is that we don't share your faith.

This has nothing to do with faith. You don't see the correctness of his description (which is your failing not his), so you tell me it's only because I want him to be right which is a bunch of hogwash.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Evidence is what rational people use to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate descriptions. You instead rely upon faith masquerading as intuition. Without evidence no-one else is ever going to see things the way you do. You can't know a description to be correct just by reading it carefully, and descriptions are not evidence of their own accuracy.

Yes they are. You might be so skeptical that anything someone describes to you is not enough evidence unless they can support it empirically. This is an empirical observation by the way and it is accurate. Conscience needs a way to justify an action that hurts another and there are three main justifications. Once these are removed from the environment, conscience will not permit someone to strike a first blow because this choice will give less satisfaction, not more, which direction is impossible to move. I'm done talking about this with you because we're going in circles. You will not meet me half way by giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is a prerequisite. In all this time, we've gotten nowhere.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done talking about this with you because we're going in circles. You will not meet me half way by giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is a prerequisite. In all this time, we've gotten nowhere.

You are not done. You have only just begun. Your illness will drive you to continue with Spacemonkey and others because your condition feeds on any sort of interaction, even if you have knowling repeated it for years. Until you get help you will continue as before. And you will yet again complain that you are getting nowhere and that no one will meet you half way. Get help peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry that I can't prove to you (or offer evidentiary support) that his observations were correct and that I have to appeal to some future date to prove that he knew whereof he spoke. That still shouldn't stop you from trying to see how this law, once it's applied, has the power to change human interactions for the better, and this requires reading the book.

I have read the book. And his lack of evidence does prevent me from seeing that any of his descriptions are correct. Seeing something to be correct just by reading it is called faith, and no-one but you shares your faith. We only have his word that he made any observations or that his observations were either careful or accurate. For you, that's enough. But not for anyone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your strawman Spacemonkey. I've never said that or anything like it. That came from YOUR assumptions, not mine.

That's not true. You did indeed say that the photons at the retina on Earth at the time the Sun is first ignited came from the Sun. And you flatly rejected every possible time at which those photons could have been located at the Sun. That's what YOU said, and it came from YOUR assumptions alone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He demonstrated how it must be the case that the eyes are not a sense organ because of how we are conditioned, which we could not be if the eyes were a sense organ. He showed how words are projected onto a screen of undeniable substance.

Exactly my point. He never provided his promised proof, but only gave his reasons for believing what he believed. And those reasons, just like this gibberish about projection of words onto a screen of undeniable substance, were just further claims of his for which he had no actual evidence or support. Silly claims supported by other silly claims, with no actual reasoned link between the two, and not a scrap of actual evidence anywhere to be found.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have never asked any questions related to his observations...

That's a flat-out lie, and you know it. Why do you lie?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so completely wrong here and I'm not going to go over it again because all you'll do is ignore his demonstration, and tell me there's zero evidence.

He never demonstrates any such innate potential perfection of conscience (his reasoning presupposes this without ever once arguing for it), and there is still precisely ZERO evidence for it. That's why you are unwilling and unable to show me otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with faith. You don't see the correctness of his description (which is your failing not his), so you tell me it's only because I want him to be right which is a bunch of hogwash.

'Seeing' the correctness of a description in the complete absence of evidence to support it is indeed faith, and faith is all you have. It is not our failing that we do not believe claims or descriptions which he never bothered to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are. You might be so skeptical that anything someone describes to you is not enough evidence unless they can support it empirically. This is an empirical observation by the way and it is accurate. Conscience needs a way to justify an action that hurts another and there are three main justifications. Once these are removed from the environment, conscience will not permit someone to strike a first blow because this choice will give less satisfaction, not more, which direction is impossible to move. I'm done talking about this with you because we're going in circles. You will not meet me half way by giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is a prerequisite. In all this time, we've gotten nowhere.

Again, evidence is what rational people use to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate descriptions. You instead rely upon faith masquerading as intuition. Without evidence no-one else is ever going to see things the way you do. You can't know a description to be correct just by reading it carefully, and descriptions are not evidence of their own accuracy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry that I can't prove to you (or offer evidentiary support) that his observations were correct and that I have to appeal to some future date to prove that he knew whereof he spoke. That still shouldn't stop you from trying to see how this law, once it's applied, has the power to change human interactions for the better, and this requires reading the book.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have read the book. And his lack of evidence does prevent me from seeing that any of his descriptions are correct. Seeing something to be correct just by reading it is called faith, and no-one but you shares your faith. We only have his word that he made any observations or that his observations were either careful or accurate. For you, that's enough. But not for anyone else.

Spacemonkey, why do I not believe that you carefully read this book. Explain the economic system and how it works. You constantly use the fact that nobody but me shares this faith, as if this proves anything. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your strawman Spacemonkey. I've never said that or anything like it. That came from YOUR assumptions, not mine.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true. You did indeed say that the photons at the retina on Earth at the time the Sun is first ignited came from the Sun. And you flatly rejected every possible time at which those photons could have been located at the Sun. That's what YOU said, and it came from YOUR assumptions alone.

How could it not have been located at the Sun. That's where photons originate. I don't even get what you're saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He demonstrated how it must be the case that the eyes are not a sense organ because of how we are conditioned, which we could not be if the eyes were a sense organ. He showed how words are projected onto a screen of undeniable substance.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly my point. He never provided his promised proof, but only gave his reasons for believing what he believed. And those reasons, just like this gibberish about projection of words onto a screen of undeniable substance, were just further claims of his for which he had no actual evidence or support. Silly claims supported by other silly claims, with no actual reasoned link between the two, and not a scrap of actual evidence anywhere to be found.

No actual reasoned link between his claims? That's what you believe? Then there's no use talking anymore. After two years of this, it's really enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have never asked any questions related to his observations...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a flat-out lie, and you know it. Why do you lie?

All you do is ask me where is the supporting evidence. The one time you did give your opinion was about dogs and evolution. That's all I remember.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so completely wrong here and I'm not going to go over it again because all you'll do is ignore his demonstration, and tell me there's zero evidence.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He never demonstrates any such innate potential perfection of conscience (his reasoning presupposes this without ever once arguing for it), and there is still precisely ZERO evidence for it. That's why you are unwilling and unable to show me otherwise.

I don't know what to tell you other than it is impossible to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible. It can't be done just like you can't move in the direction of something that is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. These are factual accounts Spacemonkey. They are not logical constructs or theories.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with faith. You don't see the correctness of his description (which is your failing not his), so you tell me it's only because I want him to be right which is a bunch of hogwash.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'Seeing' the correctness of a description in the complete absence of evidence to support it is indeed faith, and faith is all you have. It is not our failing that we do not believe claims or descriptions which he never bothered to support.

Keep saying that and maybe you'll convince yourself that this is all faith based, but it's not. These are valid claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are. You might be so skeptical that anything someone describes to you is not enough evidence unless they can support it empirically. This is an empirical observation by the way and it is accurate. Conscience needs a way to justify an action that hurts another and there are three main justifications. Once these are removed from the environment, conscience will not permit someone to strike a first blow because this choice will give less satisfaction, not more, which direction is impossible to move. I'm done talking about this with you because we're going in circles. You will not meet me half way by giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is a prerequisite. In all this time, we've gotten nowhere.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, evidence is what rational people use to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate descriptions. You instead rely upon faith masquerading as intuition. Without evidence no-one else is ever going to see things the way you do. You can't know a description to be correct just by reading it carefully, and descriptions are not evidence of their own accuracy.

Thank goodness there are other types out there (call them woos if you want, I don't care) who will listen to his words and recognize their veracity. Itt is only your stubborn resistance, not anything he has omitted, that is keeping you from moving forward. This has gotten draining for me. There's really nothing more I can say to convince you that this is the real deal.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laws are the intelligence. I don't know what exists beyond that but I am fine calling these laws God as a metaphor.

How can the laws of the Universe be "an intelligence" unless you are completely redefining the terms?

Is gravity an intelligence? Electromagnetism, is that an intelligence? How about the strong and weak forces, are those intelligences? Those are the 4 Universal forces, how are they "an intelligence"?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, why do I not believe that you carefully read this book[?]

Because you hold an irrational faith-based belief that reading the book will result in agreement with its claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could it not have been located at the Sun. That's where photons originate. I don't even get what you're saying.

I know you don't. Because you've payed no attention at all to the problem. On your account the photons at the retina could not have been located at the Sun because there is no time at which they could have been located there. The photons cannot be located at the Sun at the very same time that these very same photons are also at the retina, and they cannot have been at the Sun before this time because the Sun was not ignited before then. Your claim that there will be photons instantaneously at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited is inconsistent with your claim that they came from the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No actual reasoned link between his claims? That's what you believe?

Blatantly fallacious reasoning perhaps, but nothing more.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then there's no use talking anymore. After two years of this, it's really enough.

Then leave and do something else with your time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is ask me where is the supporting evidence.

And all you do is make excuses for not being able to produce any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The one time you did give your opinion was about dogs and evolution. That's all I remember.

Then your memory is not reliable, but we know that already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what to tell you other than it is impossible to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible. It can't be done just like you can't move in the direction of something that is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. These are factual accounts Spacemonkey. They are not logical constructs or theories.

This isn't what I'm asking you to support. I was asking about the alleged innate potential perfection of conscience, and you've answered instead with the reasoning which relies upon it. I know you don't know what else to say. That's because you don't have any supporting evidence for Lessans' assumption, and lack the objectivity to recognize this assumption for what it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep saying that and maybe you'll convince yourself that this is all faith based, but it's not. These are valid claims.

That's just another faith claim. 'Seeing' the correctness of a description in the complete absence of evidence to support it is indeed faith, and faith is all you have. It is not our failing that we do not believe claims or descriptions which he never bothered to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank goodness there are other types out there (call them woos if you want, I don't care) who will listen to his words and recognize their veracity. It is only your stubborn resistance, not anything he has omitted, that is keeping you from moving forward. This has gotten draining for me. There's really nothing more I can say to convince you that this is the real deal.

You might, if you try, find someone somewhere with low enough epistemic standards to consider your father's ideas plausible. But these are not the kind of people capable of providing the authoritative scientific validation you seek which will in any way help you to convince others. I am not being stubborn for refusing to agree with claims you've failed to support or even defend, and it is indeed the complete lack of evidence which prevents me from accepting them. And if this is draining for you, just remember that you are free to leave at any time. No-one is compelling you to move in the direction of lesser satisfaction to answer my posts.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that there is no proof that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster actually exist. You are, one again, making it appear that Lessans' claims have nothing to do with a real world observation, which is not true.

That is not a difference, it is an equivalence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an accurate observation. I understand the dilemma, but you cannot put everyone's observations in the same basket because nothing that they are claiming to be true has proven to actually exist. All they have are a bunch of theories and conjectures.

Exactly like Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Appalling is a strong word, and not everyone feels the same way as you do.

Name one person, other than yourself, who does not feel the same way that TLR feels about the appalling quality of the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is innate potential perfection if a person's conscience is intact. If it is not, he may not be able to be controlled by this law in which case he would be taken off the streets just like a mad dog would be taken off the streets. There are no assumptions when he shows how conscience works under considitions that don't allow him to justify his actions, which is required by conscience itself.

He doesn't, and can't, show how conscience works under those changed conditions because those conditions don't exist. What he does is speculate about how conscience might work under those changed conditions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank goodness there are other types out there (call them woos if you want, I don't care) who will listen to his words and recognize their veracity.

Keep saying that and maybe you will convince yourself that it is true.

[Angakuk]

I have a serious question for you peacegirl. If you believe that this is a scientific discovery why did you post it in the philosophy forum? Why didn't you post it in the science forum?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have a serious question for you peacegirl. If you believe that this is a scientific discovery why did you post it in the philosophy forum? Why didn't you post it in the science forum?

Touchy.

[Angakuk]

Did you mean touché?

[Vivisectus]

Think what you want Vivisectus. I'm tired of your responses because they are truly ignorant.

I see that the double standard does not just apply to the book! But hey - if I am so ignorant, then the things I say must be easily refuted, as my arguments would be feeble and poorly thought out. You never seem to get around to actually refuting them, and resort to this kind of response in stead.

You know nothing about this knowledge. You have no conception of why man's will is not free; you have no understanding as to why conscience works in a predictable way,

Deary deary me. Remind me, why does conscience work in a predictable way? The book only ever asserts that it does.

you have no idea what the two-sided equation is, and you have no idea why this knowledge, when applied, will alter the antecedent conditions giving rise to a new set of behaviors.

Neither do you. You just believe that it is so.

You haven't a clue as to how the new economic system is going to impact our world. And by the way, if I die, my consciousnes dies with me. I cannot see this world through anybody's consciousness but my own. That doesn't mean other people aren't conscious of the world. It only means I cannot see this world through their consciousness. This is not an inherent concept that is circular; this is an observation and a correct one at that.

Also, I bet your daddy could beat up my daddy!

But in all seriousness, that last statement bears examination. You have to start by defining your terms: in this case, what do you mean by consciousness? How do you define it?

If you define it as that which allows us to be aware of ourself and the world around us, then the statement "we can only see through our own consciousness" becomes a bit of a truism: that is what we have just defined it to mean! It is like saying "There is something through which all our experience flows. If we experience anything, then that experience is ours, and it has gone through it, and not through that through which someone elses experiences flow". In short, it is like saying "red mountains are not blue".

You can also define it as the act of awareness of ourself and our surroundings. But that does not solve the problem.

Do you have a definition of consciousness that makes the statement "We can only see the world through our own consciousness and not through someone else's" not trivially true?

Lastly, the length of time a theory has been in existence does not necessarily mean it's correct. Look how long the belief in free will has existed?

When I say that it has been know for hundreds of years, I am merely explaining that the evidence that is completely incompatible with efferent sight and that has since been confirmed by our calculations of the speed of light and a plethora of other advances in physics since then, were common knowledge to anyone with even the shallowest of acquaintances with physics. Many a blunder could have been avoided had your father bothered to include, in his supposedly extensive reading, even a single physics primer at high-school level.

[Vivisectus]

Thank goodness there are other types out there (call them woos if you want, I don't care) who will listen to his words and recognize their veracity.

For proper marketing, you need to know your products strengths and weaknesses, or at least how the different qualities of your product are likely to be perceived by your prospective market.

Based on the reception so far, we can draw the conclusion that people tend to criticise the quality of the logical arguments, and point out the lack of evidence for the different claims that it bases its predictions and recommendations on. It has also been pointed out that the work does not adhere to the scientific method.

So we are looking for a group of people who are not likely to object to an idea on those grounds.

Let us have a look at the following link from the Health Rangers site:

I dont understand science, so yay alkaloids!

It is a wonderful example of the kind of article that Mike tends to have on his sites. Note that it pretends that Koch and Pasteur represent the point of view of today, and that no further research has gone into refining and improving the state of knowledge we had at that time: that is a bit like saying that the Wright brothers designed a 747. So people who read this news are unlikely to baulk at questionable logic.

Also note the claim that there are 2.2 million hospital patients suffering from Adverse Drug reactions. As it turns out, the Nutrition Institute of America is 2 people and a facebook page: their supposed report has not been peer-reviewed, or even published, as far as I can tell. So we can assume that people who read this kind of stuff do not look too deeply into claims.

At the bottom of the article there are some claims about alkaloids and the effect they have on human health which remain completely unsupported, so that is also not a major drawback for the audience of this site.

Finally, the article supports the theory of Pleomorphism – the idea that “a microbe could evolve through many forms from virus to bacterium to yeast to fungus to mold and could even de-evolve back to a pre-virus again.” I think that this statement alone means that we can safely assume that a mere quibble about the scientific method is unlikely to put these people off.

It seems not unreasonable to assume that the kind of audience that reads this kind of site regularly is going to be extremely unlikely to raise the objections to the book that have been raised in this thread.

However, there is a potential drawback, I think. It seems that a major part of the appeal that this site has for its audience is that it is highly critical of modern medical science and science in general. This is attractive for people who hold ideas that modern science rejects. They like to read about how biased, corrupt and untrustworthy science is, as science rejects a lot of beliefs that these people hold.

Because of this you may still encounter some resistance. For all its criticism of academic authority, your book is actually quite authoritarian itself and does not leave a lot of room for different points of view. It equates disagreement with misunderstanding, it claims to be undeniable, and has very specific points of view regarding the afterlife that many of the people on those sites will already have their own points of view on. I am not sure how the different shamanic counselors, chakra-healers, aura-readers and Winti-practitioners are going to feel about it, just to name a few examples.

That said, we have here a demographic that is definitely a lot more promising than the ones you have been trying to reach. You are already familiar with the ideas common to medical conspiracy-theorists, and if you point out that one of the conclusions of the book is that Psychiatry will soon be more or less obsolete, you may find a sympathetic ear in Mike. If there is one thing he loathes it is psychiatry and psychology, something he seems to have retained from his days as a scientologist. Be warned though: he is a pretty tough businessman. Don’t let him charge you a fortune in return for advertising or endorsements.

It will also be cheap and easy to find other, similar markets for your book: simply search the different skeptic, anti-quack and anti-woo websites on the internet, and look into the sites they are most critical of.

This will allow you to market your book in a targeted way, and limit your advertising spend to those areas where it is most likely to generate a return. With your knowledge of the common parlance of the medically paranoid, it should not be too hard to create some advertising content that is tailored to this particular group. Also, since these sites are far from mainstream and not likely to have the kind of audiences that could justify high-end pricing for their ad space, it might well be quite cheap to advertise there. All in all, I think it bears looking into.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Did you mean touché?

In a smart-assed sort of way.

[thedoc]

In the same way people I knew used to say "Right Arm" for 'right on', or "Farm Out" for 'Far Out' to make fun of others.

(quote Henry)