A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

You, TLR, I, a number of posters, have asked her these questions.

She has not answered them. She has, however, blustered, lied, insulted, evaded, and returned hoping no one notices.

--J.D.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the brain was interpreting the signals, then the value being processed would be a definite part of reality. That's why there is a demarcation between those considered ugly, and those considered beautiful. And don't we see this difference with our very eyes? Of course we do, but the conditioning has already taken place. No one would think of the witch of the west as being beautiful. This all has to do with how the brain is able to photograph a picture and an inflection, and then project that value onto undeniable substance. If the brain was interpreting signals from the light and turning them into images, this phenomenon would be non-existent, but it isn't.

The features we see are real. The descriptors "beautiful" and "ugly" are subjective. Not necessarily learned, mind you, there are reasons humans might find some things more aesthetically pleasing than others instinctively, rather than because they've been taught or conditioned to. But, they are still subjective. Why do you think some people find one particular style of art, such as paintings or jewelry, beautiful while others find the same thing ugly? They are both seeing the same actual features via their eyes (by sending information about gathered light to be processed in the brain), but are making subjective judgments about its overall quality and impression.

[davidm]

For the record, and as has already been stated, but it bears repeating: people are angry over your displays of dishonest, willful ignorance. That's why The Lone Ranger has expressed himself strongly to you, and I've never seen him express himself so strongly. Your dishonesty, and your willful ignorance, naturally arouse indignation in all honest, educated people. This is because, what the world believes matters. A prime exampel that I gave before, and will give again. Dishonesty and willful ignorance fuel global warming denialism. This matters, because the prospect for the future is potentially catastrophic, if global warming is unchecked; under the worst-case sceanario, tipping points will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect that would make the earth uninhabitable: i.e., global warming could turn out to be an extinction-level event.

Moreover, it's now too late to stop global warming. So willful ignorance will cause us to run an experiment, whether we like it or not, that could have terminal consequences.

That's why people get angry at wilfull ignorance and dishonesty, both traits you exemplify in spades, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Kael;939271]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His knowledge as to why man's will is not free is absolutely undeniable. His understanding as to the role of conscience is absolutely undeniable. And the two-sided equation is absolutely undeniable.

Originally Posted by Kael

You do not understand what that means. Laying aside the debate over whether anything even can be "absolutely undeniable," your father's claims do not even begin to meet the most generous criteria I can think of. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find any point in his work that is not the functional opposite of "absolutely undeniable."

The three points that need to be undeniably true are what I mentioned previously. If you don't see why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, you will say it doesn't meet the criteria of scientific proof. If you don't see that conscience has a very specific role, and that it needs justification to hurt others (whether it's a rationalization or a true justification) --- even if it looks from an observer's point of view that there is no justification --- then you will say it doesn't meet the criteria of scientific proof. If you don't see that the two-sided equation works because the two sides of the equation are undeniably sound, then you will, once again, say that it doesn't meet the criteria of scientific proof. No one has shown very much interest in this psychological law, yet they tell me right off the bat that the premises are wrong.

Originally Posted by Kael

That YOU have accepted something as undeniable does not make it so.

Obviously Kael.

Originally Posted by Kael

That the "undeniable" principles in question are completely unsupported and indeed actually contradicted by extant data hardly helps matters. You are either actually dense or have simply chosen to be because you cannot come to grips with the possibility that your dad was wrong, that his conjectures come to nothing, and that his life's work, and yours, will NOT stop all the evil in the world, as you and he so grandly claim.

You are not in the position to judge this work, but you keep repeating that the accumulated knowledge contradicts him. As far as the eyes are concerned, how many times do I have to ask people to hold back from their premature conclusions until more empirical evidence comes in? We don't know every aspect of how the brain works, even by the most experienced scientists. We have yet to discover many things about the human body that we didn't know before, or we could even be wrong about some things. There is that possibility, ya know? All you keep saying is that I can't come to grips that he could be wrong. I can come to grips if that were true, but I don't think he was wrong, not because I'm his daughter, which has been used against me time and time again, but because I have analyzed his work, and I think he was absolutely correct in his observations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the brain was interpreting the signals, then the value being processed would be a definite part of reality.

Uh no, on accounta, you know, the unique brain of an individual being involved. That's where values and perceptions come from, not from the object we are seeing.

So if you and I looked at a tree with a single brown branch, while all others are green and healthy, you might see an ugly flaw, I might see a beautiful imperfection, a tree surgeon might see a disease. We are seeing the same reality, the brown branch, we are perceiving it differently.

That's why there is a demarcation between those considered ugly, and those considered beautiful.

Ugly and beautiful are subjective values applied by the brain.

And don't we see this difference with our very eyes?

See what difference?

Of course we do, but the conditioning has already taken place. No one would think of the witch of the west as being beautiful. This all has to do with how the brain is able to photograph a picture and an inflection, and then project that value onto undeniable substance. If the brain was interpreting signals from the light and turning them into images, this phenomenon would be non-existent, but it isn't.

No, you are absolutely deluded if you can't understand that the brain applies values, categories, definitions and/or emotions to everything we sense and perceive and think...that's why we are each unique, because our brains are uniquely structured.

What you are positing with your photographs and inflections is incoherent, for one thing. I know it seems perfectly clear to you, but as I said from page one, it is not clear, at all. Also, if it means what I think it might mean, it is completely unnecessary, because neuroscience perfectly explains why we perceive things subjectively.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have analyzed his work, and I think he was absolutely correct in his observations.

Then how do you explain his "astute observation" that if the sun were turned on at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight minutes? I have shown why this "astute observation" of his is impossible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here's a thought. Since peacegirl can't answer the question about the sun, she has decided to say that she won't talk to me. So someone else ask the question. Let's see if she can answer it then.

Sorry, but the light from the sun hasn't gotten here yet, so I can't see the keyboard well enough to type it yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

For the record, and as has already been stated, but it bears repeating: people are angry over your displays of dishonest, willful ignorance. That's why The Lone Ranger has expressed himself strongly to you, and I've never seen him express himself so strongly. Your dishonesty, and your willful ignorance, naturally arouse indignation in all honest, educated people. This is because, what the world believes matters.

Yes it does matter, and that's why I'm trying to get people to listen, instead of just calling me names and getting scary mean as time goes by.

Originally Posted by davidm

A prime exampel that I gave before, and will give again. Dishonesty and willful ignorance fuel global warming denialism. This matters, because the prospect for the future is potentially catastrophic, if global warming is unchecked; under the worst-case sceanario, tipping points will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect that would make the earth uninhabitable: i.e., global warming could turn out to be an extinction-level event.

So then why in hell don't you read the book david like it should be read (not the way you butchered it), which would prevent this possibility from occurring? You know you are shooting yourself in the foot, don't you?

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, it's now too late to stop global warming. So willful ignorance will cause us to run an experiment, whether we like it or not, that could have terminal consequences.

That's why people get angry at wilfull ignorance and dishonesty, both traits you exemplify in spades, peacegirl.

I am not willfully ignorant. I am consciously ignorant of many things, even the names of all the parts of the eye. But I'm not ignorant of the things that matter as far as this discussion goes. I don't need, nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works. I believe this exhaustive presentation is very informative, but, once again, Lessans came to his conclusions indirectly. If you want more empirical evidence to determine if his claims hold weight, that's fair, but you should not give up just because you don't see how it's possible.

I couldn't help but answer you david, but if you go back to your name calling, I'll be back to ignoring your posts; it's as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

[quote=thedoc;939307]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here's a thought. Since peacegirl can't answer the question about the sun, she has decided to say that she won't talk to me. So someone else ask the question. Let's see if she can answer it then.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sorry, but the light from the sun hasn't gotten here yet, so I can't see the keyboard well enough to type it yet.

But the light is here. What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

[LadyShea]

nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works.

That is rich coming from someone who thinks we should read 568 pages of unsupported assertions including one about how eyes work.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't see why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, .

And there-in lies the problem, for any of this to work we must accept Lessans definitions. But these definitions are in opposition to the accepted definitions and are, in fact, incorrect. When you build on a false assumption the conclusion will also be false.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then why in hell don't you read the book david like it should be read (not the way you butchered it), which would prevent this possibility from occurring? You know you are shooting yourself in the foot, don't you?

I have read the book. It's an intoxicating mish-mash of unmitgated rubbish mixed with the unintentionally hilarious.

I am not willfully ignorant. I am consciously ignorant of many things,

Urm, that's what wilfull ignorance means!

I don't need, nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works.

BINGO! (bold-faced mine)

You don't need to know how the eye works. But if you don't know how the eye works, then how do you know what Lessans claims is true?

That you say you "don't need to know how the eye works" is the example par excellance of willful ignorance.

And, with that, my participation with your idiocy draws to a close. The fork has been stuck in you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light is here. What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

Thankyou, now that I have light, I think I'll have eggs for supper.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Then how do you explain his "astute observation" that if the sun were turned on at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight minutes? I have shown why this "astute observation" of his is impossible.

How many times do I have to say that this was an afterthought. If the light from the sun hasn't gotten here yet (this was hypothetical because the light is already here), and we did see efferently, then the only way I can assimilate this knowledge is that the light could still cause a reaction in the eye without it actually impinging on the eye. This is not the most important thing to be thinking about. The first thing is whether it is possible that the brain could be using the eyes (including the ciliary muscles, the rods and the cones, the photoreceptors, the lens, the retina, and the light) as a window to see the real world, not to create an image of the real world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Thankyou, now that I have light, I think I'll have eggs for supper.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does matter, and that's why I'm trying to get people to listen, . . .

By:

• 1. Ignoring their questions
  2. Ignoring their evidence
  3. Lying about what they post
  4. Insulting them

Curious. . . . .

So then why in hell don't you read the book david like it should be read. . . .

With gapping credulity? Sorry: critical thinkers here. Have you considered selling your pap and willful ignorance to a Disney board or something?

Originally Posted by davidm

That's why people get angry at wilfull ignorance and dishonesty, both traits you exemplify in spades, peacegirl.

Indeed.

I am not willfully ignorant.

You are. You show none of the signs of mental retardation; you cannot blame your ignorance on congenital deficits. Since the evidence has been presented to you, numerous times, by many different posters, on many different boards, over many, many, years, your ignorance proves willful.

Ron White: I would like to thank the thirty thousand soldiers for their service.

Woman Heckler: NONE OF THEM WORTH A FUCK!

Ron White: Maybe it's . . . you?

I am consciously ignorant of many things, even the names of all the parts of the eye.

Quod erat demonstrandum

But I'm not ignorant of the things that matter as far as this discussion goes.

Of course you are. This has been demonstrated over and over again.

I don't need, nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works.

Because it proves you and the crank Lessans wrong.

We know.

. . . . but, once again, Lessans came to his conclusions indirectly.

In other words, he made it all up through his own willful ignorance.

We know.

If you want more empirical evidence to determine if his claims hold weight, . . .

We do not need any more; we have enough.

. . . but you should not give up just because you don't see how it's possible.

So we should not give up believing the Earth is flat because we do not "see how it's possible?"

Again, that YOU ignore reality remains your error.

I couldn't help but answer you david, so I am going to throw another temper-tantrum and hope people notice and validate me!

Your are boring as well as willfully ignorant.

--Ed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I have read the book. It's an intoxicating mish-mash of unmitgated rubbish mixed with the unintentionally hilarious.

Urm, that's what wilfull ignorance means!

BINGO! (bold-faced mine)

You don't need to know how the eye works. But if you don't know how the eye works, then how do you know what Lessans claims is true?

That you say you "don't need to know how the eye works" is the example par excellance of willful ignorance.

And, with that, my participation with your idiocy draws to a close. The fork has been stuck in you.

There's no fork that is stuck in me. I told you this was an INDIRECT OBSERVATION. He wasn't a physicist, or an astronomer, or a biologist. But he was an astute observer of human nature, and was an amazing thinker whose reasoning ability was enormous. What I would like to find out is if it's possible to see efferently. I think people would say it is not because there are no efferent fibers in the optic nerve. But the brain, if Lessans is correct, needs to be using all of the parts of the eye in order to see. It would have to be seeing through the cones and rods, the photoreceptors, the lens, the retina, etc., just in reverse.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Thankyou, now that I have light, I think I'll have eggs for supper.

Supper's Ready?

YouTube - Genesis - Suppers Ready pt.3...

--J. "As Sure as Eggs is Eggs" D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no fork that is stuck in me.

Then explain the sharp pain in your hindquarters.

I told you this was an INDIRECT OBSERVATION.

Which was not even a valid observation. It was a claim that proved false.

What I would like to find out is if it's possible to see efferently.

Not the way the human nervous system is constructed, no.

But the brain, if Lessans is correct, . . .

He is not. But then you like to avoid the evidence that proves he is not.

FAIL.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you this was an INDIRECT OBSERVATION.

Can you describe exactly how he did his 'Indirect Observation', the only thing that comes to mind, is observing thru a mirror, but that doesn't make sense?
How did he know what was happening if he did not see it directly, was it second hand information? thats not very reliable either.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Supper's Ready?
--J. "As Sure as Eggs is Eggs" D.

Just like this thread - scrambled.

[Doctor X]

It is why they stopped letting Peter get at the mushrooms during sessions.

--J. "What the Fuck is a 'Prayer Capsule?'" D.

[davidm]

I found that The Lone Ranger's essay, when printed out as a Word document, was 36 pages long.

Seymour Lessans' book is 589 pages long.

Let's be clear here. Peacegirl wants everyone to slog through 589 pages of a book written by a lunatic. But she can't even be bothered to try to read 36 pages that lay out how we see. That is, she does not even KNOW the scientific description of how we see, and she cannot even be bothered to try to find out what it is. Yet, she claims it is wrong, without even knowing what it is.

And this idiot wants people to read 589 pages of bullshit, when she can't even trouble herself to read 36 page of reality.

Folks, it's time to stick a fork in her. The best thing to do is just ignore her drivel, and let her rant on like a crazy person on a streetcorner.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Let's be clear here. Peacegirl wants everyone to slog through 589 pages of a book written by a lunatic.

Yup.

But she can't even be bothered to try to read 36 pages that lay out how we see. That is, she does not even KNOW the scientific description of how we see, and she cannot even be bothered to try to find out what it is. Yet, she claims it is wrong, without even knowing what it is.

Yup.

And this idiot wants people to read 589 pages of bullshit, when she can't even trouble herself to read 36 page of reality.

So like fuck her.

--J.D.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by davidm

Folks, it's time to stick a fork in her. The best thing to do is just ignore her drivel, and let her rant on like a crazy person on a streetcorner.

Haven't you said that like 8 times now? If that's really what you think, why are you still posting?