A revolution in thought

[ChristinaM]

This is all that I can find that she's posted in public about the economics parts so far:

p. 173 Now I am going to demonstrate (once again in an undeniable
manner) that when man is guaranteed to be given the money needed
should he be forced, BEYOND HIS CONTROL, to go below his
standard or to be without the necessaries of life and then guaranteed
never to be blamed no matter what he does — WAR, CRIME AND
INFLATION will come to an end out of absolute necessity —
TAXES AND PRICES will be forced to come down, and everyone’s
standard of living will be improved beyond their wildest expectations.
All these changes will take place without hurting one single individual
and of one’s own free will (or desire). You will understand this much
better as we continue, so don’t get discouraged or assume this is
impossible. Just bear in mind that I cannot put everything down at
one time.

p. 217 There will be the greatest investment
opportunity ever dreamed of for the millionaires who want to invest.
Nothing is stopping them from building schools (since there will be no
more government), superhighways, bridges, fire fighting equipment,
for the sole purpose of making huge profits — which will be entirely
their business. They will set their prices according to market demand,
just as it is in today’s world. In a very short while the smallest income
will have a purchasing power unbelievably high because prices have got
to come down.

Would it disturb you, think very carefully before
answering, if the janitor also had steak for dinner just as long as this
does not take away from your own purchasing power? The purchasing
power of many will always be greater or lesser than others, while the
lowest level of mankind will be raised enormously. The millionaires
are going to be given an opportunity to become billionaires and those
that want to become millionaires will have this opportunity, and the
poor people will have a chance to become wealthy.

Now once again be
perfectly honest. If I can show you how to invest your money (and
labor) so that it will put to shame any investments you now have, and
guarantee a fabulous return, would you be interested? Am I giving
you a choice? Wouldn’t you like to double and triple the value of your
money and labor so that you can buy many of the luxuries you have
only been dreaming about? Remember, the solution to this problem
requires that every person on the planet be satisfied, otherwise it is
obvious that God is showing partiality.

p. 196 During the transition, more and more people will be displaced
from their jobs. The manufacturers of war equipment will be out of
work, as well as those who make burglar alarms, safes, vaults, armored
cars, locks and keys. Even cash registers that are designed to check on
the honesty of cashiers will no longer be needed. Also displaced in due
time since nobody will be spending money in that direction are private
and public eyes, floor walkers, security guards, and all licensing
departments because they blame individuals for being unqualified by
refusing to give them a license. We can continue to spend in this
direction if we want to, just as a businessman can continue to hire
floor walkers, but when everyone becomes citizens of the new world
how is it possible to want to when this serves no purpose and the
money could be used to improve our standard of living? However,
the lawmakers will not be completely displaced because they will serve
a useful purpose. They will have the job of analyzing every possibility of
hurt that could occur, and make it known. Whereas before we were
controlled by the fear of punishment which allowed those who thought
they could beat the laws to attempt things without any regard to who
got hurt, we are now prevented from desiring to disobey a law that is
just because the fear of being excused for hurting others offers no
satisfaction when all the principles are understood.

If there has been any more recently then I missed it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If there has been any more recently then I missed it.

Would you like to read the whole chapter? PM me.

[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Would you like to read the chapter on economics? PM me.

It depends on its length. But I don't see why someone in the know cannot address my questions here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

It depends on its length. But I don't see why someone in the know cannot address my questions here.

It has been mentioned that someone could "Game the System" but Peacegirls response is that people would not want to take advantage and hurt another person.

The chapter six is page 167 to page 247 on my PDF, but I understand that Peacegirl has made some minor changes to other chapters. the whole PDF is 572 pages which you can look at what you want to.

[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has been mentioned that someone could "Game the System" but Peacegirls response is that people would not want to take advantage and hurt another person.

That sounds rather utopian thinking to me, but it does address the first issue I raised. But it doesn't address the 2nd situation of " suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right".

Originally Posted by thedoc

The chapter six is page 167 to page 247 on my PDF, but I understand that Peacegirl has made some minor changes to other chapters. the whole PDF is 572 pages which you can look at what you want to.

Thank you, not at this time.

[wstewart]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Is it OK for me to ask what might be dumb questions as I read the links as I go along or would you rather that I waited until you guys were done?

Questions on related topics are OK by me. Only, in thread, I think it makes sense to defer questions that go beyond the scope of Old/New Paul while that scenario is under active debate. PM's an option.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You finally got something right, because whatever hatched from the egg was the same creature that was inside the egg. The confusing part to some people is that you don't need a creature that is exactly a chicken to lay a chicken egg, it could easily have been a cross breed of two slightly "Not Chicken" creatures.

In reference to the other question, is was your dishonest weaseling that caused others to react, and you put your guard up. Your dishonest weaseling was the egg.

You obviously don't understand what this idiom means. A chicken and egg situation IS a situation in which it is impossible to say which of two things existed first and which caused the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I have pointed out, and as you have agreed, the one way system requires special circustances in order for it to work: people need to already not want to do selfish things. As a method for determining what is selfish and what is not, it is utterly useless: this has been clearly demonstrated, and your only answer to this has been "Ah but people would not want to do selfish things".

What do you mean by "would not want to do selfish things"? Who are you calling selfish? I don't even think you understand the definition of the term. I use the right-of-way system in my life now and it has saved countless arguments.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermmm.. with whom?

Family and friends. It's even helped my son and his wife with their marriage.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The same sort fo thing happened when we asked "Why should we assume conscience works as the book describes".

It can very easily be seen that conscience needs an excuse to do bad things to others, even if the justification isn't overt.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you want it to be so. But that does not make it so - and you have been unable to provide a reason to believe it is.

You're going to have to take my word for it then. This observation took years and years of study, seeing patterns in human behavior, and finding commonalities that show that conscience works in a very predictable way. This is scientific even though he didn't write his findings down since he didn't plan on making a discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or when it was shown that if you follow the reasoning of the book, then it pretty much states "That which people end up choosing is that which people end up choosing" since the only way to find out what led to the "greater desire" is to see what people choose... you simply denied this too, even though the denial itself is your only real answer: you are unable to support it in any way.

It's true that the only way to find out what leads to the "greater desire" is to see what people choose. The only predictive power this knowledge provides is the fact that, under the changed environmental conditions, man will be unable to derive greater satisfaction out of hurting others when not to becomes the preferable choice.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hence the fallacy.

What fallacy? When the new world is here and there's no war and crime, you'll still be saying Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then there are the mountains of evidence that disprove efferent sight: we have already demonstrated that if you apply the standards required to uphold efferent sight in the face of this evidence is the kind of standard that treats flat earth theory as plausible and that is unable to dismiss the existence of fairies as unlikely.

But no - no critical examination here! Hardly any critical questions at all!

Your ability to stick your head in the sand and just dismiss any criticism that you cannot answer is amazing.

You keep going back to the flat earth theory. I already said that each claim has to be judged on its own merit. You cannot compare the two in all fairness. You are conflating two different trains of thought, with completely different proofs, as if they are one and the same.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I use it as a way to show what kind of ideas fit inside the standard of truth that is required to make your idea seem even remotely plausible, a fact that seem to consitently go over your head.

The standards are high. Each claim has to be judged on its own merit. There is more proof that the earth is a sphere than the earth is flat. There is not conclusive proof that light without the object brings the pattern of the object to the eye after traveling through space/time.

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I resent your lies and hypocrisy.

And as a scientist and educator, I have a duty to confront lies and hypocrisy masquerading as science.

There are plenty of people who you could confront. You've been here a long time, isn't it time to move on to someone else who would benefit more?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here's what else makes you so contemptible. You have no idea what any of this is about. You have not got a clue as to what Savain is talking about, or what is ontologically or scientifically at issue here. This means you have no standard by which to evaluate the claims of Savain or anyone else. All you did was frantically Google the Web to try to find someone who would say something that you think, however tenuous, supports Lessans.

Google is a tool to help people do research, and I'm glad we have it. Savain has a lot of good points. You will purposely attack his worldview in order to dismiss anything he has to say. Some of his ideas may not be valid, but that doesn't mean the ones that are should be ignored. Some of your ideas may not be valid, but that doesn't mean you should be ignored either. You are the one that is contemptible because you have treated me extremely disrespectfully this whole time. Why? You are threatened. I will not be bulled into submission.

Originally Posted by davidm

But of course, what Savain is saying has nothing to do with real-time seeing. As I've already explained to you several times, real-time seeing has been established for hundreds of years. We've explained to you in great detail about the moons of Jupiter, and how the delay in seeing the light reflected by them, made it possible to measure the speed of light.

There have been many other experiments to measure the speed of light, not just the moons of Jupiter.

Originally Posted by davidm

This means that even if, by some miracle, the theory of relativity proved to be wrong, this fact would NOT make Lessans right. The theory of relativity does not establish that we see in delayed time; rather, it is merely a consequence of the fact that we see in delayed time. Even if the theory proved to be wrong, it would STILL be the case that we see in delayed time, and NOT in real time, as Lessans so erroneously contended.

No, relativity being wrong in the sense that Savain describes (that space/time is physically existent) wouldn't prove that Lessans' claim was right. The only thing that would prove Lessans right, to satisfy scientists, is if his observations could be tested in a controlled environment.

You are wrong on all counts. First of all, it depends what is meant by relativity. Just like Savain said: The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events.

Originally Posted by davidm

Total bullshit. Some physcists are substantavalists about spacetime, maintaining that is some sort of "thing;" others are relationalists about space and time, maintaining that it is not. Whether one is a substantavalist or a relationist about spacetime affects not one whit the theory of relativity.

Actually it does. One says there is a possibility (based on relativity) that there is a wormhole through which we can find ourselves in the past or future. The other claims that's impossible.

I didn't say you don't know how neurons function. I said that there are still mysteries when it comes to the brain. Why are you so positive? I know Lessans would have put his hand on the chopping block to prove that he knows whereof he speaks. Could you do that? You never answered me.

I also never ever said you don't know the anatomy of the eye.

And I never said you don't know how cameras function. Why are you lying like this?

Originally Posted by davidm

On the contrary, it is you who is lying, again. You are twisting his words. He did not say that you accused HIM of not knowing these things; he pointed out, correctly, that if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, then the whole of our science as as observed and constructed for centuries would have to be wrong.

That's not true at all. The anatomy of the eye does not have to change for his claim to be right. You are grasping at anything you can to discredit Lessans, but it won't work.

Originally Posted by davidm

Thus, yes, if Lessans were right, then everything thaty we know about how neurons function, how cameras work, the anatomy of the eye, and on and on, would have to be flat wrong. But they're not wrong, so it follows that Lessans is wrong.

Again, not true. One does not negate the validity of the other.

The world would not be destroyed just because we see in real time, nor would the stars be so close that the sky would be all white, nor would the planet burn up.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And you've conclusively proven that you're completely incapable (or more likely, unwilling) of comprehending why Olber's Paradox alone demonstrates that we don't see in "real time."

Originally Posted by davidm

The distribution of stars is not uniform, so why should the sky be all white even if we were to see in real time? It doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by davidm

This has already repeatedly been explained to you.

Not to my satisfaction. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

I think the forbidding people to do anything that might be viewed "hurtful" towards others is very naive. Pretty soon, some people would game the system. For example, suppose seeing person X earning income is hurtful to me. What happens? Or suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right?

There is no gaming the system, and there is no forbidding. It is not a hurt to someone if another person is making more money. That is an imaginary hurt, and therefore could not be used to justify anger? The same goes for someone making less money. As long as each person knows that his standard of living is guaranteed so that he never has to worry about the possibility of falling below if times get tough, there is no justification in being angry that someone took a job that pays less than someone else. This system satisfies the whole human race because no one can be hurt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I should go find some happy dancing around smiley but it's great to see you Laughing Dog

So Peacegirl, why don't you tell Laughing Dog about the economic changes that will come about after the discoveries are put into practice? He knows a lot about economics and I'm sure that he'll find it fascinating. Seeing as you don't want to talk about free will, determinism, vision, genitals, existential passage or whatever your dad calls it that might be a nice change of subject for you.

I have no problem with that, but first maybe Laughing Dog can introduce himself. It seems that you know him. Also, I need to know what he understands about the discovery because I cannot jump into the economic system without him knowing why this system will work along with the basic principle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.

This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.


This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.

And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.

I was wrong on all of these things. I was trying to make it fit so that people would not reject Lessans' claims outright. Now that you know me, my hope is that you will not reject Lessans' claims outright, but if you do, I can understand why. I made big blunders, and you are entitled to hold them against me.

[Vivisectus]

Family and friends. It's even helped my son and his wife with their marriage.

So did you explain how it is perfectly cromulent to go fishing when your significant other is giving birth?

And did you notice that you are, right now, trying to respond to a critical question? We shall call it critical question 1 for convenience.

You're going to have to take my word for it then. This observation took years and years of study, seeing patterns in human behavior, and finding commonalities that show that conscience works in a very predictable way. This is scientific even though he didn't write his findings down since he didn't plan on making a discovery.

Right - just like you will have to take my word for it that flight is not something that has anything to do with wings flapping, which is also scientific, even though I did not use the scientific method or conduct any kind of test to arrive at my conclusion, because I was just studying stuff at random and not planning on making any kind of discovery.

And you know you can trust me, because it took me years of study to reach this conclusion, spotting patterns in animal behaviors and finding commonalities between things that fly.

This totally makes up for any evidence to the contrary, lack of evidence in favor, complete absence of even a reason to think it might be so, and at times utter incoherence of my account.

Please note that this is also a response to a critical question: number 2 so far. In this post alone.

What fallacy? When the new world is here and there's no war and crime, you'll still be saying Lessans was wrong.

What you just described is one of the basic fallacies. It is a textbook example, in fact.

and this is critical question number 3. Look how they rack up!

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I use it as a way to show what kind of ideas fit inside the standard of truth that is required to make your idea seem even remotely plausible, a fact that seem to consitently go over your head.

The standards are high. Each claim has to be judged on its own merit. There is more proof that the earth is a sphere than the earth is flat. There is not conclusive proof that light without the object brings the pattern of the object to the eye after traveling through space/time.
[/QUOTE

And thus you yourself show the double standard you apply:

There is more proof that the earth is a sphere than the earth is flat

and yet

There is not conclusive proof that light without the object brings the pattern of the object to the eye after traveling through space/time.

One notion does not require absolute proof, the other one does. Any evidence in against one is easily accepted, but any evidence against the other is held to a different standard.

Your idea requires a special standard of evidence that is much, much lower than the one you apply to ideas you are not similarly attached to. It really is pretty obvious.

4 critical questions in one post! My goodness. It is almost as if you are just claiming that is the case so you can pretend this idea makes sense!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.

This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.


This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.

And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.

No, that's not what I mean. These are structures that are understood, and I'm not arguing with this. But in defense of Lessans, there is still a lot about the brain that we have yet to understand. Are you telling me that science knows all there is to know about the brain?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

People use it in different ways but sometimes it refers to the way that a person tries to distract everyone when they've argued themselves into a corner. I'm not sure if it was because you didn't want David and Wayne to talk about existential passage or you wanted to divert people back onto the dog video thing in a roundabout way or you just wanted us all to take a break to look at the cute puppy but it sure looked like an attempt at a distraction.

It wasn't meant to distract. It was meant as intermission. Since I'm here most of my waking life (), if I find something interesting or thought provoking, there is no reason why I shouldn't share it (is there?). It's as simple and unassuming as that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Holy fuckin shit, it feels like I'm talking to a couple of idiots who can't read, I don't care what the fuck you call it, who gets it. If one person dies and two are born at the same time and only one bit of "Germinal Substance" is avaliable, Who gets it? Or how is it devided to create two new people when only one has died?

This has nothing to do with Lessans' discovery. I hope that someone will start a different thread so Lessans and Stewart's explanation as to what happens after death don't get confused. David, since you had the idea, why don't you start a new thread? I will visit from time to time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Attempting to distract people whenever it's pointed out that she can't/won't support her claims is one of her most frequent activities.

Why are you getting caught up in these playground activities? You are a busy man, aren't you? These conversations are a waste of time, and I would leave too if I hadn't started the damn thread.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem with that, but first maybe Laughing Dog can introduce himself. It seems that you know him. Also, I need to know what he understands about the discovery because I cannot jump into the economic system without him knowing why this system will work along with the basic principle.

Laughing Dog is here because he's one of my favorite people from these forums and I saw his name on the member list, saw that he had posted in the last 6 months and sent him a PM to say hi. He's either still an economics professor or has retired since the last time that I saw him so I mentioned that we were talking about economics in here (because we were at the time) and he might want to stop by. He's really funny and nice but he doesn't tolerate bullshit very easily so my advice would be not to say "nuh-uh" unless you can back it up with something.

Just be happy that I'm too new to feel comfortable inviting the rest of my old friends. You would really hate them because they make me look like a cute puppy when the snark gets going I know that you think that it would be polite if he introduced himself to you before posting but it isn't your thread to control and it's not the norm in these forums.

[LadyShea]

Uh, I am not at all philosophically literate Christina, don't follow me!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But only a 'chicken egg' preceded a chicken, but it did not need a chicken to lay it, as explained above. Basically your comment is irrelevant.

No, it's really not. The cat just got your tongue, is all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I mean. These are structures that are understood, and I'm not arguing with this. But in defense of Lessans, there is still a lot about the brain that we have yet to understand. Are you telling me that science knows all there is to know about the brain?

Ah, the God of the Gaps!

"There are things we do not know everything about yet. Therefor God exists!"

Peacegirl, we do not know everything about physics yet either. Maybe one of the things we are yet to learn is an explanation for why wings are not a cause for flight in birds!

[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no gaming the system, and there is no forbidding. It is not a hurt to someone if another person is making more money. That is an imaginary hurt, and therefore could not be used to justify anger? The same goes for someone making less money. As long as each person knows that his standard of living is guaranteed so that he never has to worry about the possibility of falling below if times get tough, there is no justification in being angry that someone took a job that pays less than someone else. This system satisfies the whole human race because no one can be hurt.

It seems to me that your usage of the term "hurt" is unique. People feel hurt and injured based on their feelings. And their feelings justify that hurt. So, People who are not satisfied with their standard of living as legitimately "hurt" as someone who is well-off and has his/her wage reduced to finance income maintenance of someone else. So, I really don't see how your response addresses my concern.

Perhaps, in your system, "justified hurt" is ascertained by someone(s) other than the actual person. Unless everyone can agree the standards for "justifiable hurt" and the measurement of "justifiable hurt", gaming the system is inevitable under current human psychology.

If you are also claiming that humans will change so that gaming will not occur and that all will agree on what "justifiable hurt" is and how it should be addressed, then your philosophy is utopian in nature. There is nothing wrong with utopian philosophy and proposals as long as they are recognized as such. But their very nature makes them unconvincing and/or unpalatable to the unbelievers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, the God of the Gaps!

"There are things we do not know everything about yet. Therefor God exists!"

Peacegirl, we do not know everything about physics yet either. Maybe one of the things we are yet to learn is an explanation for why wings are not a cause for flight in birds!

Yep...it's really all she has left when it comes to efferent vision

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, I am not at all philosophically literate Christina, don't follow me!

That's why I'm following you. You seem to hit the same "whoa wait a minute" spots that I do but I don't have to look up things like metaphysical naturalism when you post because you use more lay terms that apply to most types of critical thinking.