A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science-fiction buffs also get excited about the prospect that what is now fiction could one day become a reality. My question is: Why do so-called "scientists" get a free pass calling their worm holes and time dilation science (which it's not), yet Lessans can't use the term "scientific" even if his discovery does what it claims it can do; bring about world peace? This whole thing is nuttier than a fruitcake if you think about it.

Some of what was science-fiction 50 to 100 years ago is now reality, much of it is still science-fiction. Scientists don't get a free-pass, there needs to be some redeeming quality to the line of research they are pursuing, sometimes it is just the possibility that something may be discovered. Many discoveries in one area have come from studies in a different area, but someone recognized the usefulness of the knowledge. Penzias and Wilson were attempting to measure radio waves bounced off satellites with a 6 meter microwave antena and discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It has been said that Penzias didn't believe the Big Bang theory but ended up proving it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now there's something to put on the dust cover of your book.

And just as hard to swallow as that fruitcake that has been passed around for several Christmas'

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fiction is a certain genre David regardless of area of writing within that genre. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

OMG you moved the goalposts from science fiction to just the general fiction? Really? You just can't ever admit even a simple mistake can you?

davidm is a published fiction author, BTW, he doesn't need your backpedaling about genres

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

yet Lessans can't use the term "scientific" even if his discovery does what it claims it can do; bring about world peace?

Lessans didn't do science. Even if Lessans fictional world could bring about world piece, it would be sociology and politics, and there is some debate as to how scientific that is. For myself I don't believe there is any science in politics, certainly no scientists.

[davidm]

LOL, I missed that one. You should know about ignorance, peacegirl. You are the biggest ignoramus on the Internet, and that is quite a distinction.

And, no "horror" and "science fiction" are separate genres within fiction, idiot.

[thedoc]

DavidM, some titles please, just curious.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never in my entire life did Lessans say, "This is all you need to know." You must know something I don't.

But he rather does that in the book: he states that if you disagree with the first two chapters, you should just read it again as you must not have understood, as it is "undeniable". There is no possibility of him being wrong, or of a different way of looking at it being even more useful: if you do not agree 100%, you need to go back over it as you have not understood it.

He claims his idea is the end-all of the subject, basically all you need to know about it. The book is the final word on free will and how mankind should organise society, family, relationships etc. according to him.

Typical signs of a crackpot. In science, there is never a final word: there are just lots of ways of understanding what we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, that is EXACTLY what he said, you little liar. You seem to forget that people COPIES of the book. Shall we throw his words back at you yet again?

I have read the chapter in its entirely. It is you who does not understand the chapter, and you are desperately flailing about, unsuccessfully, to explain it. There are three possibilities:

1. Reincarnation of a soul. Lessans is not talking about this.

2. Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence. Lessans' own example of Jews killed by Hitler later being other people is at variance with ER.

3. The Stewart/Clark notion of existential passage/generic subjective continuity.

There are no other options.

Why don't explain your own words what Lessans meant? Because you can't. You have NO IDEA what he was talking about. All you care about is that he wrote it, so you think it must be true. You are both dishonest and crazy.

If you read the chapter in its entirety you should be able to point out the passage where he said Jews should not be unhappy. It's not there. YOU ARE THE , and you know it. All he wrote was this:

Theologians and other philosophers received intuitive incursions that
man was truly immortal, but they had no way of communicating or
translating their feelings into language that could not be denied
simply because they were completely confused with words and beliefs.
It will be proven, conclusively, that there is nothing to fear in death,
and when all the facts are in you will see that there is justice for those
who have gone before us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can our consciousness always be here if there is no being reborn?

Because there is no gap in the chain of consciousness.

p. 498 The consciousness of your individuality without understanding
that you are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences
that die, but the germinal substance A and B which never die because
they are carried along from generation to generation and when united
develop into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation.

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness
of C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there is no gap in the chain of consciousness.

How can there be no gap in consciousness if there is no being reborn? How is my consciousness being continued after my death without any rebirth? Where is it being continued?

[LadyShea]

The dead aren't dead

Originally Posted by Lessans

"Do you mean that I lived through every period of history?"

"Yes you did, only, of course, you don't know who you were or whether you were a male or a female."

"This is just too fantastic. In other words, once it is understood that man's will is not free and what this means, our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead?"

"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it. However, when he fully realizes that all evil came into existence because God needed it to develop mankind, and now that we are developed it will be forthwith removed, he won't ever be able to blame another because there won't be anything left to blame. It might take 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light because it may blind those who have been looking for a different type of solution, something in accordance with their own opinion. It was the same thing that gave Mendel posthumous recognition. In our Golden Age, the inception of which will take place as soon as this discovery is confirmed valid by our world leaders, we will fall mutually in love, raise our families in complete health, security, wealth and happiness, live to a ripe old age without overpopulating the earth, and die only to be born for the same happiness again and again. Well, isn't this the most wonderful knowledge to behold? God has the whole world in His hands, and what wonderful hands they are! Is God a reality and is He good? You bet your life He is."

"It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course your misunderstanding is absurd, and a strawman.

"Time itself" is not dilating (expanding). Time dilation refers to the observed differences in clock time.

No, it is said that time changes the clocks due to gravity. They say that this fourth dimension of time is due to its ability to bend, dilate, go back into the past through wormholes, or take us into the future, as if we can teleport without having to go through the physical processes of movement from point A to point B. And you say that Lessans' ideas about light and sight are out of this world?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you shut up

neither do you

<snip assorted butthurt histrionics and projection>

Now you get a feel for what I've gone through when people call me names. You don't like it and you will strike back by telling me to shut up because I told you to shut up, which is a normal reaction because in your mind I struck you first. But when I react to being called names by responding in kind, I am told I'm being insulting. Do you see the double standard, and you don't think there is group bias?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The dead aren't dead

I don't have this text. Is it from the secret missing chapter? Do you have a copy of this?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there is no gap in the chain of consciousness.

p. 498 The consciousness of your individuality without understanding
that you are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences
that die, but the germinal substance A and B which never die because
they are carried along from generation to generation and when united
develop into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation.

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness
of C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How does this differ from existential passage/generic subjective continuity?

Consciousness is an individual characteristic, it exists only with each individual human brain. If I die, my consciousness dies with my brain. I have no biological children so my "germinal substance" in my ova and my husbands in his sperms will not be passed on. So the loss of my consciousness will leave a gap according to Lessans, because we are not providing any A and B united to form C

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't have this text. Is it from the secret missing chapter? Do you have a copy of this?

I found it in the thread. Maturin pasted it when that chapter was on Google books.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say rebirth...

Liar.

Originally Posted by Lessans

...we will [...] die only to be born for the same happiness again and again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you get a feel for what I've gone through when people call me names. You don't like it and you will strike back by telling me to shut up because I told you to shut up, which is a normal reaction because in your mind I struck you first. But when I react to being called names by responding in kind, I am told I'm being insulting. Do you see the double standard, and you don't think there is group bias?

I was just parroting you back at yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Some of what was science-fiction 50 to 100 years ago is now reality, much of it is still science-fiction. Scientists don't get a free-pass, there needs to be some redeeming quality to the line of research they are pursuing, sometimes it is just the possibility that something may be discovered. Many discoveries in one area have come from studies in a different area, but someone recognized the usefulness of the knowledge. Penzias and Wilson were attempting to measure radio waves bounced off satellites with a 6 meter microwave antena and discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It has been said that Penzias didn't believe the Big Bang theory but ended up proving it.

Please don't respond to this video. I don't care if this man is religious or not, it's an interesting concept and I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE!

Is the big bang theory a scientific fact? -...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is said that time changes the clocks due to gravity.

No, it is said that clock time is different for two observers situated differently from gravitational masses, or for two observers moving relatively to each other.

They say that this fourth dimension of time is due to its ability to bend, dilate, go back into the past through wormholes, or take us into the future, as if we can teleport without having to go through the physical processes of movement from point A to point B.

Where do "they" say this? Do you have exact citations or just the crackpot's interpretation? And since when do you have a problem with this, since you think light can defy time and be at distant locations instantly?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1141437]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you get a feel for what I've gone through when people call me names. You don't like it and you will strike back by telling me to shut up because I told you to shut up, which is a normal reaction because in your mind I struck you first. But when I react to being called names by responding in kind, I am told I'm being insulting. Do you see the double standard, and you don't think there is group bias?[/QUOTE
I was just parroting you back at yourself.

Exactly! You wouldn't have parroted me back if I said LadyShea, would you please tone it down? You didn't like that I said "shut up" so you responded in defense. It's a normal reaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is said that time changes the clocks due to gravity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it is said that clock time is different for two observers situated differently from gravitational masses.

Um, you got the point so why are you splitting hairs now?

They say that this fourth dimension of time is due to its ability to bend, dilate, go back into the past through wormholes, or take us into the future, as if we can teleport without having to go through the physical processes of movement from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where do "they" say this? Do you have exact citations or just the crackpot's interpretation?

I saw this show on wormholes where they believe we may be able to get to a faraway planet in seconds due to this newfound ability, whereas it would normally take hundreds of years. And you call this science speculation rather than what it really is: science-fiction in the guise of true science?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um, you got the point so why are you splitting hairs now?

Because your understanding is wrong leading you to attack a strawman version of it, just as you do with vision and "traveling images"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I saw this show on wormholes where they believe we may be able to get to a faraway planet in seconds due to this newfound ability, whereas it would normally take hundreds of years. And you call this science speculation rather than what it really is: science-fiction in the guise of true science?

It is speculation, that is exactly what it is....just as Lessans descriptions of the Golden Age are speculation of the future world based on the possibility that his principles hold, these types of scenarios are speculation based on the possibility that stable wormholes are a feature of our universe.

Also, a TV show taking a theoretical mathematical construct (not actual ability, newfound or otherwise) and hypothesizing about what it might mean someday is not a scientific citation, which is what I asked for. How many times have we told you that possible future occurrences are not actual evidence for anything in the present?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly! You wouldn't have parroted me back if I said LadyShea, would you please tone it down? You didn't like that I said "shut up" so you responded in defense. It's a normal reaction.

It is still all irrelevant butthurt and deflection from what we were actually discussing.

So, how about you address my point?

"We will be born again and again..." that implies rebirth, and that implies a connection between this life and future lives, just as much as "passage" implies a connection. You haven't read either Clark's or Stewart's work, to understand the terms in context, have you? You are dismissing it without even understanding it. Isn't that what you keep saying we shouldn't do to Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wrong. Travel backward in time is perfectly possible under general relativity. Whether it is physically possible is another matter. Hawking thinks that it is possible in principle but not possible in practice, because the energy needed to effectuate opening and traversing a worm hole to the past will not be achievable. The physicist Paul Davies has written an entire book on how to build a time machine. Your "rebel science" source is a crackpot, and Dragar explained why he is, which you have not rebutted because you are unable to do so. Yet you love crackpots because you and your father are both crackpots.

It should be noted that the absence of time travelers from the future in our own time is not evidence of the impossibility of time travel. The kind of time travel possible under GR is of this kind only: You cannot travel backward in time beyond the moment of activation of the time travel wormhole. So if, in the future, a time travel machine is built, the earliest previous time that future time travelers will be able to reach, is the moment when the machine first became active.

Why are you so afraid to call a spade a spade? Why do you have to hide behind the umbrella of scientific research when it is no different than the imaginative ideas of Star Trek?