A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Honestly, I'm really getting into reading this book. In fact, I'm going to base a character in a novel I'm writing on this author. This book is literally causing me to fall out of my chair laughing:

The book is not just goofy here and there; it's got great gooey gobs of gourmet goofiness everywhere, on every page and paragraph; on some pages, on every line. It reads like a manuscript written on a roll of toilet paper using the stub of a pencil by a man confined to a madhouse.

Peacegirl, if you really can get people to pop $39.95 for this bilge than more power to ya. As has long been noted, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of teh American public.

OTOH, it is so damned funny (not intentionally so, alas) that maybe it really is worth buying.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

What are the chances of you living right now, during this infinitesimal fraction of time? Well, given that "you" could not have lived at any other time, and still be you, the chances are 1:1 -- unity! -- of you living at this particular infinitesimal fraction of time! No mystery there!

I'm not sure that this was the authors intent, rather the odds of any one person being alive when this "discovery" was made. Actually those odds aren't too bad, 1:4. Of all the Human Beings who have ever lived on Earth 25% are alive today. 1 in 4, not bad odds compaired to the lottery.

[davidm]

I laughed until my guts ached at his chapters on dating and marriage and Mom preparing dinner.

I just can't get out of my mind the image of scantily clad "goils" hanging out in bars, and then they start necking with the first dude who says "hi." According to the author, that means they are married! Then they live happily ever after, sez the author, and pop out some kids. Then mom has to put some clothes on -- for the love of Christ, Mom, what do you think this is, some kind of brothel? -- and get into that fucking kitchen and start cooking the spaghetti and meatballs!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm not sure that this was the authors intent, rather the odds of any one person being alive when this "discovery" was made. Actually those odds aren't too bad, 1:4. Of all the Human Beings who have ever lived on Earth 25% are alive today. 1 in 4, not bad odds compaired to the lottery.

True, he may have meant that, it's hard to tell, because his writing over all is so bad. But as you point out, even if that's what he meant, he's wrong. But that's what comes from thinking that "trillions and trillions" of people have inhabited the earth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

More wisdom:

Wait a min. this is not a religious work, who brought God into it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

The author's own words:

Bold mine.

Well that's as clear as can be, If you wake the child because the house is on fire, and you want to get him out, then you are blaming the child for the fire. So the child goes to jail for arson, Wait a min. I thought there was no blame?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

True, he may have meant that, it's hard to tell, because his writing over all is so bad. But as you point out, even if that's what he meant, he's wrong. But that's what comes from thinking that "trillions and trillions" of people have inhabited the earth.

Yes I think if you work it out from my figures it comes to about 26 billion, wait is a trillion more than a billion to a 7th grader? And did she say he actually passed 7th grade, or got stuck there on the higher math and left. Lets not even talk about science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I laughed until my guts ached at his chapters on dating and marriage and Mom preparing dinner.

I just can't get out of my mind the image of scantily clad "goils" hanging out in bars, and then they start necking with the first dude who says "hi." According to the author, that means they are married! Then they live happily ever after, sez the author, and pop out some kids. Then mom has to put some clothes on -- for the love of Christ, Mom, what do you think this is, some kind of brothel? -- and get into that fucking kitchen and start cooking the spaghetti and meatballs!

David, the way you are explaining it is making me hysterical. It's a great spoof, but, in all seriousness, it's unfortunate how you are misrepresenting it. You are searching for all the lines you can find that would be funny if not in context, and you are highlighting them for a good laugh, at Lessans' expense. You're good at it, I admit, but because that is your intent, you're screwed when it comes to really getting something out of the book. The fact that you had no idea what this means: we are compelled, of our own free will...tells me that I'm right. I still say it all started when Lessans said the eyes are not a sense organ. You hated the book since then and are determined to get everyone else to hate it too.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, observations can be evidence, if the observations are correct. It does not have to be through experiment. If people keep saying to me "show me the evidence" and are looking for experimental data, then they won't find it. Do you understand how conscience works? This is an important pillar of his discovery.

Observations are indeed a form of evidence. They do not, however, constitute proof, and it is extremely foolish and disingenuous to call them 'undeniable.' This is especially true when we have only one set of observations (Lessans') to go on with no corroborating evidence. And even more especially true when contradictory evidence has been provided for several of the claims Lessans makes based on his 'observations.'

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The author's own words:

Bold mine.

Do you see how you take everything out of context? I know you're doing this on purpose and I just hope people realize this.

The next thing proven completely false even though it
contravenes everything we have been taught to be true is the
waking of a child for anything at all, since this obviously blames
his desire to sleep. As we saw in Chapter Seven, when someone
is asleep his body desires this, and for him to be awakened by a
doctor or anybody unless his sleeping is obviously harmful (such
as a fire which would reveal his desire to be awakened), you are
imposing your desire and judging what is right for him. This offers
conclusive evidence that any fears a doctor may impart regarding
the necessity of waking a child to administer medicine, or for a
feeding, examination, or anything else you care to throw in, are
completely unfounded and grounded in unconscious ignorance.
When a doctor advises these things it is only because you are
asking for some advice which he takes advantage of to earn a
living — for which he cannot be blamed. Therefore, it should be
obvious that the only way you can get your children out of bed
without blaming them for not wanting to get up at the desired time
is to teach them how to use an alarm clock. Then it will be entirely
up to them.

If they desire to get up at a specific time; if they desire
to go to school — they will — and if they desire to sleep, there is
nothing you can do about it unless you blame them in some way.
Furthermore, once the blanket of blame is removed, once you
cannot prevent this desire to stay home from school without threats
of punishment, then it is obvious that the harm you perceive in
their not receiving this type of education is purely imaginary, but
in today’s world the value placed on going to school and the
penalty the parents would receive if they honored their children’s
request to stay home compels them to make their children do what
they may not find any value in.

In order to get out of class they
may try to come up with an excuse that sounds reasonable. Do you
see what is happening? We have been forcing our children to
prefer lying as a solution to their problems; then we blame and
punish them for what is not their responsibility, as a solution to our
problems. In other words, we strike the first blow by judging what
is right for them, and then when they strike back by disagreeing
with our judgment we blame and punish them for doing what they
preferred under their set of circumstances, which included the
advance knowledge that they would be blamed.

How many times
has a child been blamed for cutting classes he never wanted to take
in the first place and was severely punished for this ‘infraction’ of
the rules which hurt no one? The school system was able to shift
responsibility and justify why the student was at fault, not their
teaching methods. He is now labeled ‘a truant’ by school
authorities and the parents are asked to get involved and follow
through with an appropriate punishment. Not knowing what to do,
and fearing they may be looked down upon in the eyes of the
community, the parents continue where the school left off by
taking away the one thing that gives him any pleasure at all —
after school sports.

When he strikes back by running away or
acting out in other ways, he is put in a juvenile detention center or
punished for weeks on end. By now the child has developed
psychological problems because he is totally misunderstood and
considered a serious behavior problem. His reputation as a bad kid
has spread among his peers and he finds himself in a downward
spiral where it is difficult to pick himself back up. Let us fast
forward the life of this child by 20 years to observe how he is
doing. Sadly, but not surprisingly, he has ended up on the wrong
side of the tracks which began in his early school years, and he has
never regained a sense of stability or direction.

Although this
analysis is far from complete, it gives us an understanding of how
easy it is for a student to get lost in the cracks of a broken system.
It all begins when the school strikes the very first blow and then
punishes the student for striking back in justifiable retaliation. This
unfortunate scenario occurs more often than anyone would like to
admit.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well that's as clear as can be, If you wake the child because the house is on fire, and you want to get him out, then you are blaming the child for the fire. So the child goes to jail for arson, Wait a min. I thought there was no blame?

If only you understood THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION, also known as "the slide rule," "God's corollary" and the "mathematical certainty," all would become magically clear and you would see the light and BELIEVE!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, the way you are explaining it is making me hysterical. It's a great spoof, but, in all seriousness, it's unfortunate how you are misrepresenting it. You are searching for all the lines you can find that would be funny if not in context, and you are highlighting them for a good laugh, at Lessans' expense. You're good at it, I admit, but because that is your intent, you're screwed when it comes to really getting something out of the book. The fact that you had no idea what this means: we are compelled, of our own free will...tells me that I'm right. I still say it all started when Lessans said the eyes are not a sense organ. You hated the book since then and are determined to get everyone else to hate it too.

I don't hate the book; I think it's a laugh riot!

And, "we are compelled, of our own free will..." doesn't mean anything, peacegirl, because it is self-contradictory. And therefore funny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Observations are indeed a form of evidence. They do not, however, constitute proof, and it is extremely foolish and disingenuous to call them 'undeniable.' This is especially true when we have only one set of observations (Lessans') to go on with no corroborating evidence. And even more especially true when contradictory evidence has been provided for several of the claims Lessans makes based on his 'observations.'

Kael, it's true that someone could say that no matter what his observations are, you can't generalize, therefore it's not proof. If I see rain falling out of the sky, not coming out of the ground, I can assume that my description that rain falls out of the sky is correct. You can say that it's not proof, and I guess technically you're right. You didn't answer my question: Did you understand his explanation about conscience, or are you conveniently avoiding it?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, it doesn't matter about the fire and sleeping and whatnot. That's beside the point. The point is this: to hold a view that, "to wake up a child is to blame it for sleeping" is by itself so hilariously dumb that it doesn't even do the author sufficient justice to call him "eccentric."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you understand his explanation about conscience, or are you conveniently avoiding it?

Ah, there we go. See that, Kael? It can't be that his explanation about conscience is wrong, or even that it is incoherent. That can't be! So, you must be conveniently avoiding The Truth!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You really hate the book and you're turning it a laughing matter because you don't like what he is claiming. You're trying so hard to make a joke out of it for self-protection, most likely. If it turned out that he was right, that would make you wrong, and who wants to be wrong?

And, "we are compelled, of our own free will..." doesn't mean anything, peacegirl, because it is self-contradictory. And therefore funny.

That's because you don't even understand his definition of determinism. You are still back in the dark ages by using the old definition which would make it contradictory. I think I need to set up a special tutoring session (if that would even help; I think it might be too late) just for you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you don't even understand his definition of determinism. You are still back in the dark ages by using the old definition which would make it contradictory. I think I need to set up a special tutoring session (if that would even help; I think it might be too late) just for you.

Peacegirl, he doesn't have a coherent definition of free will or determinism; it's all buncombe. Unlike your father, I have read extensively in philosophy, and know the philosophical literature of the free will/determinism debate. This author is not conversant with the history of the debate, and like all cranks, he uses words and concepts in a non-standard way, which leads to incoherence. There is literally nothing here to understand.

[davidm]

A perfect example of his non-standard use of terminaology is his constant insistence that his ideas represent a "mathematical certainty." No they do not! There is no mathematics whatsoever presented in here; and indeed, math is NOT a field that can be applicable to these sorts of subjects in any form.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Ah, there we go. See that, Kael? It can't be that his explanation about conscience is wrong, or even that it is incoherent. That can't be! So, you must be conveniently avoiding The Truth!

David, you have no idea either, but, of course, you immediately assume that the explanation must be incoherent or wrong. You will never ever admit that he could be right. It scares you. Kael, I realize you are trying to understand this knowledge and that's why I asked you if you understood the part on conscience, but you didn't answer. I shouldn't have said are you 'conveniently' avoiding it because that sounds like I'm blaming you. But how can I move forward to try and help you if I don't know what your understanding is?

[davidm]

Mathematics is deductive. The kind of "reasoning" going on here, if one might call it that, is inductive, and (to the extent that observations are made) empirical. So it's not mathematical, and yet the author keeps insisting that he has a mathematical proof. It's just loony-tunes stuff.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

A perfect example of his non-standard use of terminaology is his constant insistence that his ideas represent a "mathematical certainty." No they do not! There is no mathematics whatsoever presented in here; and indeed, math is NOT a field that can be applicable to these sorts of subjects in any form.

David, where have you been? Have you not read the posts? I said 50 pages ago that there is no mathematics per se in this book. You are bringing this up as if it's a new revelation.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, you have no idea either, but, of course, you immediately assume that the explanation must be incoherent or wrong. You will never ever admit that he could be right. It scares you.

Yes, I'm shaking in my boots.

This is also the usual tactic of the crank, along with a martyrdom complex ("I will be crucified for my knowledge."): the assumption that their "knowledge" scares other people. But it's not scary, because it's all buncombe, as I've explained. It does have the redeeming quality of being side-splittingly funny, though. It wasn't intended to be funny, I understand; but it is.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, where have you been? Have you not read the posts? I said 50 pages ago that there is no mathematics per se in this book. You are bringing this up as if it's a new revelation.

Jeez Louise, peacegirl, do you think I've read all your posts, or even the author's whole book? I have many better things to do with my time. I'm reading the parts of the book that are amusing, like about the scantily clad "goils" and mom slaving in the kitchen.

Alas, however, it seems you yourself, then, have not read the book. The author repeatedly insists throughout the book that his ideas represent a mathematical certainty. If so, there must be an equation in there somewhere!

Show us the math, peacegirl!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Mathematics is deductive. The kind of "reasoning" going on here, if one might call it that, is inductive, and (to the extent that observations are made) empirical. So it's not mathematical, and yet the author keeps insisting that he has a mathematical proof. It's just loony-tunes stuff.

His observations are inductive because he is using his observations of many and making a universal claim. It's the same thing as observing leaves always falling to the ground and making a universal claim that all leaves fall to the ground. You did help me understand the difference between empirical and experimental. I can say it's an empirical observation, correct? For two days now I have been discussing the fact that he never meant to misuse these words. He tried to clarify what these words meant only in reference to this book. He should have used the word undeniable and left it at that. But it's too late now, so are you going to condemn him forever and ever and assume that the rest of his book is inaccurate?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jeez Louise, peacegirl, do you think I've read all your posts, or even the author's whole book? I have many better things to do with my time. I'm reading the parts of the book that are amusing, like about the scantily clad "goils" and mom slaving in the kitchen.

Alas, however, it seems you yourself, then, have not read the book. The author repeatedly insists throughout the book that his ideas represent a mathematical certainty. If so, there must be an equation in there somewhere!

Show us the math, peacegirl!

You know I said there is no numbers per se, but that doesn't mean it isn't undeniable, or in his words 'mathematical'.

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical
impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi.
Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible not to do what has already been done?”

“Naturally, it is impossible for me not to do what has already
been done...because I have already done it.”

“Now if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead
of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been
chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A,
once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this
comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice you
must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet in order
to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It
must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already
been done and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly
the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is
not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is
mathematical; scientific; undeniable and, as I stated earlier, it is not
necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in
order to be exact and scientific.” Let me rephrase this in still
another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true,
whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the
following. If it is mathematically impossible to prove something
true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite
of that something false? Obviously the answer must be no, it is not
possible unless the person asked does not understand the question.
In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will
true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it
obvious that if determinism (in this context the opposite of free
will) was proven false, this would automatically prove free will
true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless
we can turn back the clock?

How is it possible to prove free will
true when this requires doing something that is mathematically
impossible? We can never undo what has already been done.
Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true
cannot be accurate because it is impossible to prove this theory
since proof requires going back in time, so to speak, and
demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume
that he didn’t have to do what he did.”