A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

nm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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"?

God is an epiphenomenon, an intelligence that we can only see through our observance of the laws of nature. To believe this universe came about by accident is so remote that it isn't even worth talking about. I am not referring to a Being LadyShea. This intelligence that is behind everything that exists is difficult to conceptualize, but it's the only way to come to terms with the magnificence of creation and all that supports it.

p. 40 This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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.

Blatantly fallacious reasoning perhaps, but nothing more.

Then leave and do something else with your time.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

You didn't answer me. Explain the economic system and prove to me you read the book in its entirety. You're a liar.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't answer me. Explain the economic system and prove to me you read the book in its entirety. You're a liar.

I have read the book in its entirety (minus the part you refuse to share), but it was several years ago now and I have no interest in changing the subject to discuss your father's moronic economic plan. Address the issue of the photons and I might consider it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Nutrition Institute of America, Inc

Selected Entity Name: NUTRITION INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.
Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: NUTRITION INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.
DOS ID #: 234115
Initial DOS Filing Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 1973
County: NEW YORK
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)
NONE
Registered Agent
GARY NULL
2307 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10024

Gary Null sells nutritional supplements Home | Gary Null Power Foods

LOL, I am sure his "report" was not profit motivated at all

[LadyShea]

God is an epiphenomenon, an intelligence that we can only see through our observance of the laws of nature. To believe this universe came about by accident is so remote that it isn't even worth talking about. I am not referring to a Being LadyShea. This intelligence that is behind everything that exists is difficult to conceptualize, but it's the only way to come to terms with the magnificence of creation and all that supports it.

No, it's not the only way to come to terms with anything at all. You are positing a faith or religious position. You are absolutely referring to a Being if you are saying that there is "something alongside" or "behind" the Universe.

There is no chance involved, no accident, those are human concepts because our minds want us to know why. Any epiphenomena is simply the human mind, trying to make sense of things. The Universe is, that's the starting point, there is no before.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have read the book in its entirety (minus the part you refuse to share), but it was several years ago now and I have no interest in changing the subject to discuss your father's moronic economic plan. Address the issue of the photons and I might consider it.

I am so tired of your lies. You have not read the book Spacemonkey. The epistemic standards you are using are too narrow, and you won't budge. You are myopic. He made no presuppositions. His reasoning ability and observational skills surpass the average person which is why you don't believe they prove anything. Most people make claims that are false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's not the only way to come to terms with anything at all. You are positing a faith or religious position. You are absolutely referring to a Being if you are saying that there is "something alongside" or "behind and supporting" the Universe.

I have no desire to defend my position of a universal intelligence based on the laws of nature. Believe what you want Ladyshea, the last thing I am interested in is trying to get you to change your worldview. That is not what this thread is about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so tired of your lies. You have not read the book Spacemonkey. Admit it for what it is, total lies.

I have never lied to you, and I have read the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The epistemic standards you are using are too narrow, and you won't budge.

And you've shown that when one's epistemic standards are widened to allow Lessans ideas to be considered plausible, one must also consider things like flat Earthism to be considered equally plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are myopic which is why you are going to lose here. There are no presuppositions that you keep badgering me on.

Denialism. Faith claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is you who is falsely judging what is valid and what is not. There are so many observations Lessans made that cannot be contested.

All of his 'observations' can be and have been contested.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He thought analytically, not empirically where everything has to be reduced to variables. It's not even in the same class, but you don't get it and I'm tired of talking to you, so we have to end our relationship...

Again?

[Vivisectus]

Nutrition Institute of America, Inc

Further research into the Nutrition Institute of America also shows a connection to Carolyn Dean, MD. Carolyn has written a book, "Death by Modern Medicine", which mentions this study.

Carolyn is a regular contributor to Natural News. These days she seems convinced that Magnesium cures just about anything from depression to heart disease. A decade ago she blamed the majority of man's ill on fungal infections.

So much so that her Canadian license to practice medicine has been revoked because of her tendency to diagnose patients with Candidiasis based on a 10 minute interview and no physical examination whatever. She did used to recommend a blood-test at 100 dollars a pop for confirmation of the diagnosis: the adress of the lab is the same as that of her practice. The test that supposedly supported her diagnosis has been proven not to work.

Her Californian license was put on probation as well. She is currently selling magnesium supplements from Hawaii. She also offer telephone consultations for just about any disease, undoubtedly diagnosing everyone with magnesium definiency.

Funny - her books do not mention "Death by modern Medicine" in the blurp on her site. I wonder why?

[LadyShea]

Adverse Drug Events are a serious problem, especially since modern medicine has humans living longer than ever before, so age related problems are more common. The CDC monitors and tracks them. There are risks and people should, and do, weigh the risk vs. benefit of medications.

CDC - Adults and Older Adult Adverse Drug Events - Medication Safety Program

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Adverse Drug Even are a serious problem, especially since modern medicine has humans living longer than ever before, so age related problems are more common. The CDC monitors and tracks them. There are risks and people should, and do, weigh the risk vs. benefit of medications.

CDC - Adults and Older Adult Adverse Drug Events - Medication Safety Program

I am sure it is a big issue, but I was more interested in pointing out that the amount of research the average punter on that site is likely to put in is quite low, as long as what is said is in line with what they already believe. A few minutes on Google will tell you that the "institute" is likely to be a far from reliable source of information.

Ofcourse everyone has this kind of bias to a greater or lesser extent, and the question remains if they are going to want to believe the book, but at least you can count on a strong anti-scientific bias.

The authoritarian tone might be a stumbling block, but the anti-scientific community rant should go down ok.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have read the book in its entirety (minus the part you refuse to share), but it was several years ago now and I have no interest in changing the subject to discuss your father's moronic economic plan. Address the issue of the photons and I might consider it.

If you are refering to chapter 10, it's much like the rest of the book only more-so. You're really not missing much unless you're looking for amusment. It deals with living again as a different person but is not reincarnation, and all based on pronouns. Like you it's been about 2 years since I read it, but I didn't down load it to my computer so I no longer have access to it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm asking you to be honest as to whether you would have this kind of reaction if you knew this was a genuine discovery.

Yes, I'd say that Lessans' lawsuit was frivolous even if I believed he made "genuine discovery." Do you know why? Try figuring it out on your own before clicking on the spoiler tag.

show spoiler

It's because the lawsuit was frivolous. The truth of that fact is wholly independent of whether or not the purported discovery is genuine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I did not look it up.

Okay, then. So you wrote that Lessans' motivations rendered the lawsuit non-frivolous even though you knew that motivations have nothing to do with whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous. That's ... peculiar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It probably was a frivolous lawsuit, according to the definition,

Now there's a big step in the right direction. Remove the word "probably" and we'd have us an entirely true statement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but Lessans was using anything he could to get someone to listen.

I don't doubt your father's sincerity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's a long trainwreck.

On that we're in complete agreement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think of all the hours that you're wasting that could be used for more satisfying endeavors.

What a strange statement. According to Lessans, when I'm posting in this thread, there is nothing more satisfying for me at that time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've tried your best, now go do something constructive. I know you can't leave.

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have read the book in its entirety (minus the part you refuse to share), but it was several years ago now and I have no interest in changing the subject to discuss your father's moronic economic plan. Address the issue of the photons and I might consider it.

I don't even have a word for you. You've completely lost your objectivity. To call this plan moronic when poverty can be wiped out is true idiocy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm asking you to be honest as to whether you would have this kind of reaction if you knew this was a genuine discovery.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Yes, I'd say that Lessans' lawsuit was frivolous even if I believed he made "genuine discovery." Do you know why? Try figuring it out on your own before clicking on the spoiler tag.

show spoiler

It's because the lawsuit was frivolous. The truth of that fact is wholly independent of whether or not the purported discovery is genuine.

If he was able to get publicity and ultimately get this knowledge brought to light (which was his goal), the means would have been forgiven by everyone but you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He knew that people would think he was a crackpot, but he did it as a last resort to get attention. It was a means to an end which, under his circumstances, was understandable.

Even if it was (which he would admit to), it was done as a last resort.

Okay

Time to get this train movin.

That's true, but I'm getting satisfaction telling you that you may not be considering the fact that there are more productive things to do than to waste your time on this trainwreck of a thread. My comment may influence you, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to look for something else to do.

You know it's true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Adverse Drug Events are a serious problem, especially since modern medicine has humans living longer than ever before, so age related problems are more common. The CDC monitors and tracks them. There are risks and people should, and do, weigh the risk vs. benefit of medications.

CDC - Adults and Older Adult Adverse Drug Events - Medication Safety Program

They didn't track this very well.

The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. What kind of protection is this?

Deadly Immunity

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Further research into the Nutrition Institute of America also shows a connection to Carolyn Dean, MD. Carolyn has written a book, "Death by Modern Medicine", which mentions this study.

Carolyn is a regular contributor to Natural News. These days she seems convinced that Magnesium cures just about anything from depression to heart disease. A decade ago she blamed the majority of man's ill on fungal infections.

So much so that her Canadian license to practice medicine has been revoked because of her tendency to diagnose patients with Candidiasis based on a 10 minute interview and no physical examination whatever. She did used to recommend a blood-test at 100 dollars a pop for confirmation of the diagnosis: the adress of the lab is the same as that of her practice. The test that supposedly supported her diagnosis has been proven not to work.

Her Californian license was put on probation as well. She is currently selling magnesium supplements from Hawaii. She also offer telephone consultations for just about any disease, undoubtedly diagnosing everyone with magnesium definiency.

Funny - her books do not mention "Death by modern Medicine" in the blurp on her site. I wonder why?

This is just as bad. There are bound to be a few bad apples in the bunch, but it still doesn't change the fact that thousands of people are hurt by drugs and surgery every year by the medical profession. They don't get their licenses removed. I wonder why.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just as bad. There are bound to be a few bad apples in the bunch, but it still doesn't change the fact that thousands of people are hurt by drugs and surgery every year by the medical profession. They don't get their licenses removed. I wonder why.

Probably because they followed procedures that, while they are undoubtedly not perfect, at least ensure a decent level of professionalism in stead of testing people with what is basically an E-meter. This is no guarantee: medicine as a science is still quite young, and there is undoubtedly an enormous amount of ground left to cover. But at least we can try to keep it on a scientifically sound footing.

By the way - she is a regular contributor to Mike's natural news.

[peacegirl]

added to post:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

That's because the image (or pattern) does not get reflected and travel Spacemonkey. You are ignoring his claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Blatantly fallacious reasoning perhaps, but nothing more.

That's a total lie because his reasoning follows sequentially.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then leave and do something else with your time.

Don't worry.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

You will not allow yourself to accept that he was right [even temporarily] so that you can move forward. That's why you'll never understand this work. You have cotton in your ears.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

You were more interested in trying to prove him wrong than listening to his reasoning.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I'm tired of you saying this. There were no presuppositions. You can't accept that he observed how conscience works and it's correct. But in order for these principles to work the environment has to change in order to remove the hurt done to others so that they won't have the justification to hurt in return.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

He described many things accurately. One of them is that we can only see this world through our very own consciousness. This can be observed and it doesn't need any other 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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

You got that right. And that's why there's no point in sending you the book. You even said it will not be accepted by the universities because it doesn't meet the epistemic standards to even consider it plausible. I'll find my own readers, but thanks for offering to help even if it was insincere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Probably because they followed procedures that, while they are undoubtedly not perfect, at least ensure a decent level of professionalism in stead of testing people with what is basically an E-meter. This is no guarantee: medicine as a science is still quite young, and there is undoubtedly an enormous amount of ground left to cover. But at least we can try to keep it on a scientifically sound footing.

There is no doubt that some medicines have helped people, but due to the need to earn a living many drugs have been put on the market without enough research given to their safety, or the results of that research is tampered with so that they can push the drug through, and the results are devastating. Thousands of people die each year due to bad reactions and I don't see anyone getting fired in the FDA except for the whistle blowers.

[Vivisectus]

I took the liberty of having a look at your website, by the way, and do you realize it is a marketing nightmare? Are you going to do it up a bit before you start marketing for real? Because there is no point trying to get traffic on a site like that - you will never convert any of it to sales.

Do you have a proper marketing plan yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is not a difference, it is an equivalence.

Exactly like Lessans.

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

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.

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

That's not true Angakuk. Is it possible not do what has already been done? This observation does not need evidentiary support because it's self-evident. You can argue that we can go back in time and undo what has already been done, but there's no proof that this can be done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I took the liberty of having a look at your website, by the way, and do you realize it is a marketing nightmare? Are you going to do it up a bit before you start marketing for real? Because there is no point trying to get traffic on a site like that - you will never convert any of it to sales.

Do you have a proper marketing plan yet?

I agree with you but I don't have anyone to help me, and I'm new at this. Suggestions are welcome. I don't have a marketing plan yet. I'm on Chapter Eight, and as soon as I finish reading the proof and giving permission to put it online, I will try to figure out my next step.

I also wanted to say that the flat earthers believed in conspiracy theories. Also, they are very vague in their explanations which is how they have gotten around their contradictions.

However, flat-earthers don't fit entirely snugly in this general picture. Most conspiracy theorists adopt many fringe theories, even ones that contradict each other. Meanwhile, flat-earthers' only hang-up is the shape of the Earth. "If they were like other conspiracy theorists, they should be exhibiting a tendency toward a lot of magical thinking, such as believing in UFOs, ESP, ghosts, the Devil, or other unseen, intentional forces," Oliver wrote in an email. "It doesn't sound like they do, which makes them very anomalous relative to most Americans who believe in conspiracy theories."

Flat Earth Society Says Evidence Of Round Planet Part Of Vast Conspiracy Theory

[The Lone Ranger]

Kind of like how all the evidence that the eyes are sense organs is part of a vast conspiracy by the scientific "establishment," eh?