A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I was special, but I have been a major player in this thread considering that I started it. If he comes here I will just back out. No problem.

Admitedly you may have contributed the most posts numerically, but you have contributed the least in way of content. Even your copy paste of the book have amounted to almost nothing of substance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by pissypants

Yes they have, and now it's too late.

It was too late 60 years ago.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they have, and now it's too late.

How have they done that? Have they edited or censored your posts? Has someone come around to your house and broken all your fingers so you couldn't post anymore? Just how has anyone here prevented you from saying whatever you want to say?

If it is true, as Lessans claims, that no one can make you do what don't want to do, then isn't the correlary, no one can prevent you from doing what you really want to do , equally true.

It seems obvious to me that you derive greater satisfaction from complaining about how people are stopping you from doing what you claim you want to do than you do from actually going ahead and doing it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Another one for the list, or is it already on the list?

I don't trust DavidM with a 10 foot pole either, no telling what he might do with it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns. It's amazing how you have completely disregarded everything he has written with a very smug attitude. That's what makes this experience the most difficult for me, and why I am turned off to the scientific community, which you could care less, so don't respond.

Of course there is nothing wrong with his analysis, there is no meaningful analysis. BTW this is a response.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HERE YE HERE YE: ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LADYSHEA WHO IS THE SMARTHEST WOMAN ON EARTH WHO CLAIMS...

Pssst...peacegirl...LS had already requoted this one before you edited out the rest of the hissy fit

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

Did you read your own link?

the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space.

Additionally, I already mentioned that the nature of time is under much discussion in the scientific community...which davidm is well aware of and has never denied.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

Lessans didn't merely use pronouns, his "analysis" is totally dependent on pronouns. If it wasn't you would be able to explain it without using personal pronouns. Without them, it seems, there is no discovery at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing how you have completely disregarded everything he has written with a very smug attitude.

Nothing amazing about it. What he has written I find easily disregarded. And I don't consider myself smug so much as matter of fact. However, seeing as how you consider Lessans self aggrandizement in his writing the mark of a humble man, I don't trust you to understand attitudes at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what makes this experience the most difficult for me, and why I am turned off to the scientific community

LOL, I am not part of the scientific community, and this is a tone argument, which is fallacious reasoning. You wouldn't be "turned on" by science no matter how I presented it.

the person who is saying, “I would agree with you/support you/support your cause if you were nicer about it” has no intention of ever agreeing or supporting in any way

Tone Argument as Logical Fallacy | But Not the Armadillo

which you could care less, so don't respond.

Why should I care? And I'll respond if I want to.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't respond because this is the last post I'm making on this topic. If anyone has any ideas on marketing, I will be willing to stay a little longer but I am done talking about the book.

People have given you all sorts of ideas about marketing but they aren't going to work if you can't buck up, get a grip on yourself and behave like a professional. That doesn't mean that you have to wear a suit and be stuffy but at a minimum you need to be able to speak calmly like an adult, handle dissent and even unpleasant or bad behavior from others gracefully while staying on message and show some respect for the people that you interact with. It's not good enough to do it once in a while, it's not good enough to only be able to do it when people are agreeing with you and unfortunately for you the internet remembers what you've said and done even when you would prefer that you could delete it all like posts that you're ashamed of. You're never "off duty" when you're advocating for your father's ideas online.

To be honest the only thing that I could do is to point out to you every time that you communicate in an immature and childish way and every time you lose your cookies instead of maintaining a calm demeanor but that's just mean at this point. If you decide to move forward at least have the sense to use the great summary that David wrote for you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If you decide to move forward at least have the sense to use the great summary that David wrote for you.

It would be a good idea to give proper credit, by the way. peacegirl isn't always ... meticulous ... about properly crediting others' work.

[ChristinaM]

She might want to check with David first to make sure that he wants his name associated with this thing in any way, shape or form. I think I'd rather let her plagiarize from me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. peacegirl was rude and insulting from literally her first day here -- to people who had been nothing but polite and helpful up until then.

So it's more than a little hypocritical of her to lecture others on civility.

I apologize to anyone who thinks I insulted them, but the truth is I reacted the way I did throughout my time here because I felt attacked and demeaned. I would never go out of my way to insult someone. It's just not in me to do that. As I said earlier, this group has brought out the worst in me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It shouldn't matter matter what people's motivations are for saying things in this thread. If you can benefit from it, learn from it, or improve your situation with it you have the opportunity to do so. Whether you take the opportunity is up to you. This is true in much of life.

I have learned a lot, but I came here to teach as well. Unfortunately no one is listening because they've already made up their minds. I guarantee you very few people have read the first three chapters with the intention to understand what he's even saying. Their intention is only to criticize. This presents a major stumbling block because people cannot get out of their own way. They cannot allow themselves to agree with anything he writes because that would be an admission of defeat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'm staying and I'm more than comfortable with accepting that she knows what she's talking about and that you don't. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, especially when you're shouting it in caps?

Of course I was trying to help you because I felt sorry for you and not because I agree with this gibberish and I was completely clear about that from the beginning. It's just not any fun to help someone who pitches this many hissy fits and refuses to admit that there are things that they don't know or understand. I'll give you a few freebies though. "So" and "no" only have one "o" in them and appending 'girl' to your name at your age is not an asset in terms of the first impression that you create.

I have never refused to admit that there are things I don't know or understand. The things I know are nothing in comparison to the things I don't know. But the things I do know cannot be taken away from me, and I know my father made a discovery. This is not a joke, although everyone has made it into one.

Christina, please think carefully about this. How do you know this is gibberish? Do you understand the discovery? Tell me the truth. Don't just say what people want to hear, or repeat what everyone else says; that this discovery must be worthless because of how many years I've been online without any success.

I'm not sure what you mean by "so" and "no". As far as the name peacegirl, I'm still a girl at heart. I tried using the name peacewoman but it didn't have the same appeal. I could always change it in the future.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have learned a lot, but I came here to teach as well. Unfortunately no one is listening because they've already made up their minds. I guarantee you very few people have read the first three chapters with the intention to understand what he's even saying. Their intention is only to criticize. This presents a major stumbling block because people cannot get out of their own way. They cannot allow themselves to agree with anything he writes or that would be an admission of defeat.

You started weaseling on day 1 with your evasions, insults, and mealy mouthing, so yes, some people made up their minds early on....however you have had over two years of open opportunity to change that around, but you haven't changed a single thing about how you speak to people or how you react to questions and valid criticism. The quotes below are all from your first 48 hours here

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not find any testable hypotheses in the first 2 chapters. It's very much a philosophical, and somewhat theological, piece, not a scientific one.

What kind of tests are you imagining could be done?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability from your understanding of the principles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, I didn't say that at all. We don't lock threads here at

Please re-read what I said without all the defensiveness.

You had this discussion at another forum, the Philosophy forum, I linked to it upthread. They got frustrated at your unwillingness or inability to defend the principles from your own understanding, or to answer their questions in your own words and THEY locked the thread over it.

Here at we are also looking for that kind of discussion, though we won't lock the thread or ban you or whatever. Are you willing to discuss it and answer questions about it? If not, move on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).

I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

What is it you feel I am missing?

[quote=peacegirl;924563]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it is a law of our nature.

This natural law, which
reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that no wonder it wasn’t
found until now. But by demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced which compels this fantastic change in the
direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be
called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of nature.
The same nature that allowed Hitler to slaughter six million Jews,
that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of
human relation is going to veer so sharply in a different direction
that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their
subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such
a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. Laugh if you
will but your smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face
once you begin to read the text chapter by chapter of which the first
two are most fundamental.

Thank you.

Wrong. It is not empirically based but based on accurate reasoning and astute observation.

By applying the principles because they do work. You will see why if you understand why man's will is not free and why conscience works in a very predictable way --- which can be duplicated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say you were easily confused. I said the standard determinism is not completely accurate in the way it is defined.

If you read the first two chapters, you would know. I'm not calling you a liar, but if you did read these chapters you would at least be able to identify what the discovery is, and please don't tell me it's that man's will is not free, and therefore we should not blame.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author. What you are missing is your understanding of why man's will is not free, what the two sides of the equation are, what will happen as a consequence of applying this law of our nature, and how it will benefit our world. LadyShea, I actually welcome your questions because they seem sincere.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That does not make it a scientific hypothesis. What kinds of tests could be set up to produce replicable results?

This is an assertion based on little more than belief, not possible test parameters.

How would a scientist set up a controlled and time limited method of applying the principals and how would they track and compare the results? What exact hypothesis would they be testing?

If the hypothesis is "Humans do not have free will", what kind of experiment could that lead to?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

p. 498 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. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1142289]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have learned a lot, but I came here to teach as well. Unfortunately no one is listening because they've already made up their minds. I guarantee you very few people have read the first three chapters with the intention to understand what he's even saying. Their intention is only to criticize. This presents a major stumbling block because people cannot get out of their own way. They cannot allow themselves to agree with anything he writes or that would be an admission of defeat.

You started weaseling on day 1 with your evasions, insults, and mealy mouthing, so yes, some people made up their minds early on....however you have had over two years of open opportunity to change that around, but you haven't changed a single thing about how you speak to people or how you react to questions and valid criticism. The quotes below are all from your first 48 hours here

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not find any testable hypotheses in the first 2 chapters. It's very much a philosophical, and somewhat theological, piece, not a scientific one.

What kind of tests are you imagining could be done?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability from your understanding of the principles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, I didn't say that at all. We don't lock threads here at

Please re-read what I said without all the defensiveness.

You had this discussion at another forum, the Philosophy forum, I linked to it upthread. They got frustrated at your unwillingness or inability to defend the principles from your own understanding, or to answer their questions in your own words and THEY locked the thread over it.

Here at we are also looking for that kind of discussion, though we won't lock the thread or ban you or whatever. Are you willing to discuss it and answer questions about it? If not, move on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).

I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

What is it you feel I am missing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were very cordial in the beginning until you started telling me that this is a philosophical or theological work, not a scientific one. Right from the start you condemned him for offering nothing more than mere assertions, tautologies, modal fallacies, etc. How could I accept these ridiculous rebuttals without a fight? But, alas, I didn't have a fighting chance. Now that I know this group better, I understand why you all can't accept that these are spot on observations. His findings are not considered scientific in the technical sense, so therefore you all feel justified in throwing his whole work out as if it means nothing. It's really unfortunate not just for me, but for all of you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Pssst...peacegirl...LS had already requoted this one before you edited out the rest of the hissy fit

I know. I will often read stuff back that I have written and, to my dismay, it is way too histrionic. This was one of those times.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

p. 498 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. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

Replace all pronouns with proper nouns (stick with A, B, and C or give names like Alison, Bob, and Cary) and see if it works to convey the same thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you read your own link?

Additionally, I already mentioned that the nature of time is under much discussion in the scientific community...which davidm is well aware of and has never denied.

Are you kidding me? He is very threatened by this new understanding. If time is not a dimension, his whole worldview falls apart. Now he's going to call me more names, just watch. I know him like the back of my hand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Replace all pronouns with proper nouns (stick with A, B, and C or give names like Alison, Bob, and Cary) and see if it works to convey the same thing.

Don't you see, it won't work because using proper names would indicate Alison is now Cary, or what have you. It would not be YOU, it would be someone else, which is the opposite of what he is trying to get across. He used the appropriate language, trust me on this.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: This video should be spread all over.

The Only Time It’s OK To Make A Kid Cry In Front Of His Entire School Is Right Here

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Christina, please think carefully about this. How do you know this is gibberish? Do you understand the discovery? Tell me the truth.

I'm so glad that LS just posted this because you should go read it again. The word gibberish came to mind the first time that I read it for all of the reasons that LS just reminded you of.

I know that you don't remember me but I was there for your IIDB thread, had no preconceived notions about you or your father or his work and it was just as frustrating then as it is now. You seem to think that there are only 2 choices of what to do on these boards which are learning and teaching but those are a products of discussions on a discussion board and not one-sided lectures. I noticed this discussion between you and LS in her post:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.

Have I misunderstood this all along and you wrote that fake dialogue and self-aggrandizing stuff and they aren't your dad's own words yet you refuse to change them? You could actually take that shit out without altering the sacred text? OMFG please say that it isn't so.

Don't just say what people want to hear, or repeat what everyone else says; that this discovery must be worthless because of how many years I've been online without any success.

See, that in itself is insulting. Why would you assume that I would only say or repeat what others have said? In my opinion the discovery is worthless because what isn't factually incorrect or only trivially true is downright silly and illogical. It isn't even a discovery, just an idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by "so" and "no". As far as the name peacegirl, I'm still a girl at heart. I tried using the name peacewoman but it didn't have the same appeal. I could always change it in the future.

It's not about how you feel at heart because no one can see your heart or particularly cares how you feel when you're advocating for something. It's about being effective and creating a first impression that someone will take seriously. Peacewoman won't help you out either once you get away from forums where all of the men are very intelligent, in fact it will open you up to a whole new ugly level of abuse. It also sounds like a hippie name. If you're contacting individuals you should use your real name of course and just find some forum name that doesn't sound frivolous or cutesy like your middle name or something. Just because everyone else gets to have cool names and user titles doesn't mean that you should because you're trying to use these forums as a public podium.

I was tempted to go find that crackpot index thing and walk you through it with your dad's work but I don't remember where it is and the word crackpot is going to show up on almost every page. You'll screech "noooooooooo you're soooooooooooooooooo wrong!!!!!!!" (the extra o's make you sound like a shrill teen and lose the exclamation points) but even if everyone is indeed wrong maybe you'll see why it might have been nice to avoid doing some of that stuff in order not to appear to be a crackpot.