A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1252013]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Classic PG projection. Again, you claimed you would not answer my questions because they don't apply, yet they clearly do apply as you yourself admitted. So either explain how and why you think they don't apply, or answer them already. Five words is all it will take. What are you so afraid of? What have you got to lose?

I'm not joining you on that hamster wheel. I want to move on. I've wasted 3 years discussing the same thing over and over and have gotten nowhere. I want his observations to be investigated to see if there is validity to his observations. That's what matters to me. I don't care at this point whether people believe the eyes are afferent or efferent.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I put that excerpt in, not him. You, like everyone else, judge the value of what is written by a faulty standard that has nothing to do with the value of the writing itself. This is a faulty way to judge someone's work.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet.

I didn't see any description of an observation yet, and Richard Milton has been discredited by those who actually work in the fields he is criticizing.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, since you claim to know so much about science, perhaps you would care to comment on these people, Wegener, Marsh, Cope, Bretz.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not joining you on that hamster wheel.

So you don't have an answer, or don't know what to say, so you denigrate Spacemonkey, who is just asking for clarification.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not joining you on that hamster wheel. I want to move on. I've wasted 3 years discussing the same thing over and over and have gotten nowhere. I want his observations to be investigated to see if there is validity to his observations. That's what matters to me. I don't care at this point whether people believe the eyes are afferent or efferent.

You've wasted 3 years by avoiding questions instead of answering them. If you want to try something different—something that might actually result in progress for you—then you should try answering my questions for once. Again, it's only five words. What have you got to lose?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's ludicrous.

I agree that it's ludicrous that you do that. So stop already.

Maybe you think that's all they are; unsupported claims. He made astute observations (and explained what those observations were) but you won't accept them or even consider them as being correct because he didn't supply empirical evidence.

Then, by definition, we have no reason to believe that these "observations" are true, or that he even made these "observations." Why on Earth should we take you merely at your word that he made any relevant observations at all, much less that they were "astute"?

Of course his claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ probably threw you off to such a degree that you stopped listening altogether.

That is one of his "observations." It's an "observation" that's not just demonstrably false, it's idiotic.

The only way I will do this is to cut and paste that section. I'm not working harder than anyone is willing to try and understand.

In other words, you can't provide us with any actual "observations." How convenient.

Also, I'd like to remind you, for the record, that You have repeatedly stated that you have no interest in trying to understand the evidence against Lessans' claims. Which makes you all kinds of a hypocrite.



Still, I'll make it easy for you. First things first: list a few of Lessans' so-called "observations." Do not mindlessly copypaste from the Holy Text. That doesn't work because the Holy Text is so much incoherent word salad.

If you can't tell us -- in your own words -- what these so-called "observations" are, then you have no business pretending that there were any such "observations."


The first step in evaluating the validity of any claim is to see what the evidence is. If Lessans made any actual "observations," then they count as evidence. So, let's see it already.

For years now, people have been begging you to tell us what these so-called "observations" are. All you've been able to do is provide variations of: "Trust me, he made observations, and they were astute observations."

So, put up or shut up. List these "observations," and we have a basis for conversation.


Heck, I'll give you the first one for free.

"Observation": The eyes are not sense organs.
Status: Demonstrably false.

Next?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's ludicrous.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I agree that it's ludicrous that you do that. So stop already.

Stop taking my words out of context.

Maybe you think that's all they are; unsupported claims. He made astute observations (and explained what those observations were) but you won't accept them or even consider them as being correct because he didn't supply empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Then, by definition, we have no reason to believe that these "observations" are true, or that he even made these "observations." Why on Earth should we take you merely at your word that he made any relevant observations at all, much less that they were "astute"?

I don't know where you've been but he made observations about how the brain and eyes work. It was never based on my word.

Of course his claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ probably threw you off to such a degree that you stopped listening altogether.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That is one of his "observations." It's an "observation" that's not just demonstrably false, it's idiotic.

As I said, I don't want to harp on the subject of whether the eyes are a sense organ, as it is taking away from his observation regarding how the eyes and brain work, and the importance of this knowledge. Even if the eyes were a sense organ (which I still don't know but I'm not willing to pursue it), this knowledge may still hold validity.

The only way I will do this is to cut and paste that section. I'm not working harder than anyone is willing to try and understand.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In other words, you can't provide us with any actual "observations." How convenient.

I've given the observations. It's amazing to me that you argue that he has anything of real value yet you can't even tell me what his observations were.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Also, I'd like to remind you, for the record, that You have repeatedly stated that you have no interest in trying to understand the evidence against Lessans' claims. Which makes you all kinds of a hypocrite.

I already said that it appears that we see in delayed time, and because of the strong evidence, I am conceding that maybe science got it right. I still believe Lessans was right regarding his observations whether it follows that the eyes are a sense organ or not.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Still, I'll make it easy for you. First things first: list a few of Lessans' so-called "observations." Do not mindlessly copypaste from the Holy Text. That doesn't work because the Holy Text is so much incoherent word salad.

Please stop imitating Maturin, okay? It's rude to make fun of this book by calling it the Holy Text. It is not incoherent word salad. Now you're imitating thedoc. Please stop! And please don't tell me how to introduce this work. If I feel it's better explained by the author himself, I will copy/paste, and if you don't like it don't read it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you can't tell us -- in your own words -- what these so-called "observations" are, then you have no business pretending that there were any such "observations."

Explaining in my own words has nothing to do with pretending there were such observations. You're not even making sense.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The first step in evaluating the validity of any claim is to see what the evidence is. If Lessans made any actual "observations," then they count as evidence. So, let's see it already.

I told you that you will probably shoot down his observations in a flash because he didn't back his observations up by empirical testing. That doesn't mean his observations were wrong, just remember that.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For years now, people have been begging you to tell us what these so-called "observations" are. All you've been able to do is provide variations of: "Trust me, he made observations, and they were astute observations."

That's total BS.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, put up or shut up. List these "observations," and we have a basis for conversation.

I will put up but I'm not going to do it your way. Sorry. I will cut and paste. To repeat, if you don't like it, lump it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Heck, I'll give you the first one for free.

"Observation": The eyes are not sense organs.
Status: Demonstrably false.

Next?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Still too busy to list any observations?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Still too busy to list any observations?

Not a matter of being busy. Another false conclusion. Only if the time is right and the air is clear will I even attempt to start over again. I'm not willing to spend enormous amounts of time to titillate the participants in this thread (whether active or lurkers) just because they're bored or want to start an argument. I believe you would agree that that would be insane.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not a matter of being busy. Another false conclusion. Only if the time is right and the air is clear will I even attempt to start over again. I'm not willing to spend enormous amounts of time to titillate the participants in this thread (whether active or lurkers) just because they're bored or want to start an argument. I believe you would agree that that would be insane.

In the time you have wasted responding to these posts, you could have easily posted several of these "observations" that you and Lessans claim to have been made. Post several, prove us wrong, and come out ahead, unless the "astute observations" don't exist any you're just trying to keep everyone on the hook so you can get your abuse fix.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not willing to spend enormous amounts of time to titillate the participants in this thread (whether active or lurkers) just because they're bored or want to start an argument.

And yet, here you are.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, just think how far ahead you would be if 14 years ago you had listed several astute observations for people to analyze for you. You could be leading the way to the Golden Age.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And yet, here you are.

Yep, here I am, and a decision to start again is a big one and it's not looking good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, just think how far ahead you would be if 14 years ago you had listed several astute observations for people to analyze for you. You could be leading the way to the Golden Age.

The astute observations people think they would be making are not astute at all, so I'm glad I did not enlist anyone in this thread to analyze my father's work for me. You certainly have no lack of hubris.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The astute observations people think they would be making are not astute at all, so I'm glad I did not enlist anyone in this thread to analyze my father's work for me. You certainly have no lack of hubris.

Wow! Hubris is certainly an interesting word that perfectly describes your father, I'm sure that from growing up with him, you would know it well.

Hubris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the Wikipedia article,

"In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance. Hubris is often associated with a lack of humility, though not always with the lack of knowledge." Though in your fathers case there was a distinct lack of knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wow! Hubris is certainly an interesting word that perfectly describes your father, I'm sure that from growing up with him, you would know it well.

Hubris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the Wikipedia article,

"In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance. Hubris is often associated with a lack of humility, though not always with the lack of knowledge." Though in your fathers case there was a distinct lack of knowledge.

You are an arrogant man! You certainly aren't in the position to know whether my father had a discovery or not. If you had just shut up for 5 minutes I may have posted some of the chapter, but you ruined it. You just can't shut up, can you?

[The Lone Ranger]

"My Daddy did too make observations! And they were astute observations!"

"Waaaa! Pay attention to me!"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are an arrogant man! You certainly aren't in the position to know whether my father had a discovery or not. If you had just shut up for 5 minutes I may have posted some of the chapter, but you ruined it. You just can't shut up, can you?

And you will use any lame excuse you can find, to not support your claims. This time you are blaming me for your failure. You're not setting a very good example of how your no-blame society would work.

I couldn't help myself, Lessans made me do it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And you will use any lame excuse you can find, to not support your claims. This time you are blaming me for your failure.

You're darn right I am. You're creating a hostile environment which is causing me to shut down.

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're not setting a very good example of how your no-blame society would work.

I couldn't help myself, Lessans made me do it.

No one can make you do anything but circumstances can create the conditions which push someone in a particular direction for satisfaction. Right now, you are pushing me in the direction of giving up this thread due to your stupid comments.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are an arrogant man! You certainly aren't in the position to know whether my father had a discovery or not. If you had just shut up for 5 minutes I may have posted some of the chapter, but you ruined it. You just can't shut up, can you?

Tell me Peacegirl, how does what others post on this thread, in any way at all limit or prevent you from posting? Or is it that you just need to respond in order to keep people upset with you so that they keep posting the abuse to feed your martyr complex?

Poor little abused Peacegirl, all us big bad meanies are just too much for you to cope with, but you keep coming back for more. You just have to keep feeding your martyr complex, and if you actually supported your claims it might all go away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"My Daddy did too make observations! And they were astute observations!"

"Waaaa! Pay attention to me!"

I don't need your attention!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Tell me Peacegirl, how does what others post on this thread, in any way at all limit or prevent you from posting? Or is it that you just need to respond in order to keep people upset with you so that they keep posting the abuse to feed your martyr complex?

Poor little abused Peacegirl, all us big bad meanies are just too much for you to cope with, but you keep coming back for more. You just have to keep feeding your martyr complex, and if you actually supported your claims it might all go away.

I have no martyr complex. I'm just bored at the moment, is all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're darn right I am. You're creating a hostile environment which is causing me to shut down.

No, you and your posts have created this hostile environment by refusing to answer questions about your fathers book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need your attention!

But you keep coming back and refuse to answer questions or recognize the evidence presented to you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can make you do anything.

That is another of Lessans unsupported claims that he then used to try to make other claims, so that none of them have any real support. He wrote it and just expected everyone to agree, but it just isn't true.