A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

I don't think scientific experiments are the only way to gain knowledge.

But I have seen neither astute observations nor sound reasoning from you or your daddy either, so don't even pretend like that's the issue.

Who said that erimir is the one to determine what is true or not true. No one appointed him as the knower of all truth, or did I miss something?

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you asked me if I should take a break, and I answered you very honestly. There is no fate involved. I am choosing to be on this thread in the direction of greater satisfaction. Fate is something that happens to you, after you have done your best to prevent it. You don't get this; I realize that. I never even met you so I have no idea what you understand coming from Lessans' position (based on pure observation ane very very sound reasoning, mind you).

It's too bad that you can not read Wargirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think its reincarnation with a twist (of lemon?) but don't ask for particulars, I'm running out of asprin.

Doc, your understanding is laughable. The fact that you said that I'm a troll is absolutely excruciating, and I refuse to talk to someone who is trying to discredit Lessans with absolutely no proof or contestable argument. You are just following the crowd.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Awareness

It's too bad that you can not read Wargirl.

Awareness, you are another one who doesn't get it, but thinks he does. You are not someone I can talk to, because you believe that conflict is normal and inevitable. So if your child died in an accident, you would say this is normal and inevitable and not try to change things to make it better. I want to understand very clearly what you are saying. Let me go a step further. If there is a divorce, for example, between two people, you would say it's natural because it's normal that people fight. So we should not try to get people to get along according to your reasoning, correct? I don't think anyone would agree with you. Please defend your position, and hopefully (I won't bet on it) you will see that you are categorically wrong not only in your non-existent proof, but what you stand for in general. I would rather live in a safe world and have some semblence of predictability, then in a world where people kill and hurt without any predictability. You get to choose the world you want; no one is stopping you from making choices in the direction of what gives you greater satisfaction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that this knowledge is falsifiable, but you have to give him a chance.

Then give us a testable hypothesis. Without a way to test it, it is not falsifiable. Conscience can't be accurately measured or quantified, neither can greater satisfaction. His ideas about sight might be testable, however neither he nor you provided a working model to base any tests on.

In other words, if you are ever going to recognize the validity of this work, or even get him into the running of someone who could actually have a genuine discovery, you will need to read the book with an open mind without judging it through the lens of empiricism.

Empiricism is how science works. If you don't want empiricism to be a factor, you need to stop presenting it as a scientific discovery and present it for what it is...a philosophy.

There is time enough to get further evidence to confirm his claims through this method.

Both you and he have had decades to get supporting evidence, yet it wasn't done.

But for now, you need to read it carefully without this filter.

No, not if it is presented as a scientific theory.

You are absolutely incorrect. He never had a chance where anyone of scientific stature even cared to open the cover of his book, so how could they judge his book in terms of any data? What you're saying doesn't even make sense if you knew what he was up against.

He didn't present any data, did he? If he did, where is it?

[Awareness]

[quote=peacegirl;940690]

Originally Posted by Awareness

It's too bad that you can not read Wargirl.

Awareness, you are another one who doesn't get it, but thinks he does.

Oh so true in your case Peacegirl. Now that was not so hard was it Peacegirl, or were you creating a climax?

You are not someone I can talk to, because you believe that conflict is normal and inevitable.

That is an understatement Peacegirl , especially in your case.

So if your child died in an accident, you would say this is normal and inevitable and not try to change things to make it better.

Alas, me oh my Peacegirl, stay focused on reality, and do not pick on my family.

I want to understand very clearly what you are saying. Let me go a step further. If there is a divorce, for example, between two people, you would say it's natural because it's normal that people fight.

A very poor example Peacegirl, and it is normal that people fight, sometimes.

So we should not try to get people to get along according to your reasoning, correct?

Correct. But you could try and let people FEEL that they are maybe wrong.
You are not Peacegirl you are the "People Whisperer".

I don't think anyone would agree with you.

I think everybody would agree with me.
People also have a mind and "heart" of their own.

Please defend your position, and hopefully (I won't bet on it) you will see that you are categorically wrong not only in your non-existent proof, but what you stand for in general.

Who is wrong or right is irrelevant when human beings are concerned, too bad you do not have feelings for people, just calculations.

I would rather live in a safe world and have some semblence of predictability, then in a world where people kill and hurt without any predictability.

You are a Jehovah witness Peacegirl?

You get to choose the world you want; no one is stopping you from making choices in the direction of what gives you greater satisfaction.

You can not choose a world Peacegirl, satisfaction is not for you, but for the people who make up.

Making up is the whole answer to the whole wide world.

Loonies you lock up, and hope their soul will return one day.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, unless I am to accept this as a good description of Lessan's discovery about reincarnation, you need to give us the chapter. If this is an accurate description then you are on the same level as a crystal waving woo peddler.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, your understanding is laughable. The fact that you said that I'm a troll is absolutely excruciating, and I refuse to talk to someone who is trying to discredit Lessans with absolutely no proof or contestable argument. You are just following the crowd. I feel sorry for you.

What kind of "bitchy" words are these Peacegirl?

That is what I mean , that words on the internet mean totally nothing.
Only when you have a message.
But at leasts Doc's words have a meaning, which you yourself proved to Doc.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said that erimir is the one to determine what is true or not true. No one appointed you as one who oversees what is absolutely true, or did I miss something?

erimir is who decides what is true for erimir. He is expressing his opinion, as is everyone else.

Now, as it so happens, many people happen to agree with him.

[The Editor]

This peacegirl really enjoys raging in impotent fury.

--Ed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

erimir is who decides what is true for erimir. He is expressing his opinion, as is everyone else.

Now, as it so happens, many people happen to agree with him.

Specious is correct.

Note erimir's use of "I" statements

"I (erimir) don't think scientific experiments are the only way to gain knowledge."

"I (erimir) have seen neither astute observations nor sound reasoning from you or your daddy.."

He doesn't claim to be determiner or overseer of truth, nor does he use the words "absolute" at all. The only person here who uses such strong words as absolute and undeniable is Lessans, and by extension you, peacegirl.

Peacegirl, why did you respond as if he made claims or statements he didn't make?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said that erimir is the one to determine what is true or not true. No one appointed you as the knower of all truth, or did I miss something?

Oh, of course not! erimir does not determine what is true or not true. Your idiot father does that!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that this knowledge is falsifiable, but you have to give him a chance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then give us a testable hypothesis. Without a way to test it, it is not falsifiable. Conscience can't be accurately measured or quantified, neither can greater satisfaction. His ideas about sight might be testable, however neither he nor you provided a working model to base any tests on.

In other words, if you are ever going to recognize the validity of this work, or even get him into the running of someone who could actually have a genuine discovery, you will need to read the book with an open mind without judging it through the lens of empiricism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Empiricism is how science works. If you don't want empiricism to be a factor, you need to stop presenting it as a scientific discovery and present it for what it is...a philosophy.

LadyShea, I'm tired of trying to prove to you that this more than a philosophy.

There is time enough to get further evidence to confirm his claims through this method.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Both you and he have had decades to get supporting evidence, yet it wasn't done.

If you believe that all this is is an assertion, then let this thread go. I don't want to go in circles anymore.

But for now, you need to read it carefully without this filter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, not if it is presented as a scientific theory.

Then we're at a dead end.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are absolutely incorrect. He never had a chance where anyone of scientific stature even cared to open the cover of his book, so how could they judge his book in terms of any data? What you're saying doesn't even make sense if you knew what he was up against.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't present any data, did he? If he did, where is it?

I'm giving up in surrender. His book was nonsense. It had no evidence. He was just a dreamer living in la la land. Are you happy now?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just believe he was right regarding the direction the eyes see based on his observations. I don't know the exact mechanism.

BINGO!!!1!

You don't know the exact mechanism! And you (and Lessans) can't identify a single flaw in our understanding of light and sight. So, as I said many, many pages ago, you've got a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem.

But that doesn't stop you from babbling away! And why not?

"Daddy said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, really? You are telling us the for-paying-customers-only chapter is about reincarnation?

I thought you said the book was a no woo zone?

Lessans writes:

This does
not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and
are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your
consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of
reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of
the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you
are this moment.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does
not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and
are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your
consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of
reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of
the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you
are this moment.

So if it's not reincarnation then what is it? Define "we" in "we are born again and again". What part of us is reborn? How?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm tired of trying to prove to you that this more than a philosophy.

You just got through admitting that you have not got a proposed testable mechanism for this nonsense. Therefore, it's not science because there is nothing to test.

On top of which, all the tests that have been done over centuries of accumulating knowledge have proven that the eye is a sense organ.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if it's not reincarnation then what is it? Define "we" in "we are born again and again". What part of us is reborn? How?

It sounds like this and this.

WARNING: the second is another online book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, unless I am to accept this as a good description of Lessan's discovery about reincarnation, you need to give us the chapter. If this is an accurate description then you are on the same level as a crystal waving woo peddler.

LadyShea, I already told you way back in this thread that this guy never read the book. He was angry because he didn't like the whole sun exploding part (like davidm) and went behind my back and wrote a terrible review. How could he know what Lessans wrote when he didn't read that chapter? He had read a summary only, and was trying to extrapolate what it was about from a few sentences.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is if I leave, I will never come back. The discussion will be over and people will move on to another debate. Many new people will have joined this forum, and the people who were here will say that I was deluded, and go right back to their gold standard of determining truth: empiricism only; never astute observation and sound reasoning. By then, this thread will have been long forgotten.

Originally Posted by Awareness

You are not deluded, but just too young and inexperienced in life and relationship. That is a fact, by reading your words.

People learn to cope, and they do not like to be lectured or drugged to live together.

A pact between two fighting tribes is always stronger and more durable,
then a reprimand or a robotic CORRECTION.

Who is being drugged, or lectured to Awareness?

Originally Posted by Awareness

Good and Evil exist together, they can never exist alone.

Continuing our analysis, there is another hidden problem that
leads to a build up of resentment not only between married couples
but as a part of the general social fabric. What is this serious
problem? It is the fact that mankind is having constant collisions of
desire. This has been an enormous source of conflict and must be
solved in order for there to be peaceful coexistence. To balance this
equation during our years of development God was compelled to have
good and evil, and the balance was perfect. Now that we have
developed sufficiently to see His laws which reveal Him by observing
the harmony in the mankind system that was never understood until
now, He snips off the evil and attaches good so that the balance still
remains perfect.

Originally Posted by Awareness

But you have had your testing grounds indeed for yet another forum, and you would surely use your findings of what reactions there can be.

The other forums were similar to this one, with the same refutations. It's like you all come from the same mold. I'm not arguing against the scientific method, but there is no allowance for anyone who might have gained information from pure observation. To dismiss so easily what he observed after years of study is just as bad as not providing the evidence that people claim he has failed to do.

[peacegirl]

This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations.

Originally Posted by Awareness

We do not even have to speak about that SOMETHING that brought OR is evident in us around us and beyound us.
We have a special quality as human beings not only to reason but to feel.
The ONLY way to come to terms, to reconcile, to make up, is to understand each other first.
For mankind it is utterly cruel to deprive him or her of this fact.

Who is arguing with this? This knowledge is all about understanding. You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Awareness

Everyone who can feel and reason knows that this is gruesome: "creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations "

Constantly loving has always a BARF climax, and is UNNATURAL!!

Oh really? So you would rather live in a world where there is murder, war, crime, hatred, jealousy, rape, accidents, drugs, mental illness, divorce, insecurity, poverty, all because a loving world is UNNATURAL??

[LadyShea]

No, I am not happy that you are throwing a 12 year old "Fine, whatever!" fit. I would be happy if you would try to understand why you keep getting the same reception over and over. I would be happy if you realized that doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is stupid and pointless. I would be happy if you applied critical thinking skills to the issue rather than your dogmatism. I would be happy if you quit blaming everyone else for your and Lessan's failings.

[peacegirl]

You are not someone I can talk to, because you believe that conflict is normal and inevitable.

Originally Posted by Awareness

That is an understatement Peacegirl , especially in your case.

And what is that supposed to mean?

So if your child died in an accident, you would say this is normal and inevitable and not try to change things to make it better.

Originally Posted by Awareness

Alas, me oh my Peacegirl, stay focused on reality, and do not pick on my family.

I'm not picking on your family. I'm asking you a question because this is the real issue. We can talk intellectually all we want, but no one wants their family member to get hurt from the kind of world we live in. We are all striving to make this world a better place. We try to resolve conflicts. If you want to stir up conflict because it gives you satisfaction, be my guest. No one is going to tell you what to do in the new world.

I want to understand very clearly what you are saying. Let me go a step further. If there is a divorce, for example, between two people, you would say it's natural because it's normal that people fight.

Originally Posted by Awareness

A very poor example Peacegirl, and it is normal that people fight, sometimes.

No one is going to artificially stop people from fighting. I think you got the wrong message. The only thing that changes is the desire to fight when there is nothing to fight about.

So we should not try to get people to get along according to your reasoning, correct?

Originally Posted by Awareness

Correct. But you could try and let people FEEL that they are maybe wrong.
You are not Peacegirl you are the "People Whisperer".

What does that mean Awareness?

I don't think anyone would agree with you.

Originally Posted by Awareness

I think everybody would agree with me.
People also have a mind and "heart" of their own.

Who said they didn't?

Please defend your position, and hopefully (I won't bet on it) you will see that you are categorically wrong not only in your non-existent proof, but what you stand for in general.

Originally Posted by Awareness

Who is wrong or right is irrelevant when human beings are concerned, too bad you do not have feelings for people, just calculations.

Huh??

I would rather live in a safe world and have some semblence of predictability, then in a world where people kill and hurt without any predictability.

Originally Posted by Awareness

You are a Jehovah witness Peacegirl?

No, but they are nice people. They come to my door every once in awhile and try to convert me.

You get to choose the world you want; no one is stopping you from making choices in the direction of what gives you greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Awareness

You can not choose a world Peacegirl, satisfaction is not for you, but for the people who make up.

Making up is the whole answer to the whole wide world.

Breaking up is hard to do...you know that song? Why break up only to make up when not getting in a fight to begin with is better for the whole wide world?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not carry the signals that would convey to the brain the rudiments of an image. Light is a condition that allows the image to be seen through its wavelengths ...

How?

Oh, and by the way, Lessans in his book said that nothing reaches the optic nerve (which is of course impossible, but that's what he said) whereas you told The Lone Ranger that light raches the optic nerve.

So you disagree with Lessans?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The other forums were similar to this one, with the same refutations. It's like you all come from the same mold.

That's because you keep choosing forums populated by critical thinkers. You need to find credulous people who also feel their notions are devalued or overlooked by "the establishment"...you know who those people are, correct?

I'm not arguing against the scientific method, but there is no allowance for anyone who might have gained information from pure observation.

The reason for that is that pure observation doesn't explain anything. It's only the first of many steps required. It's stuck on the bottom rung.

To dismiss so easily what he observed after years of study is just as bad as not providing the evidence that people claim he has failed to do.

Stopping at observation is not a reasonable or rational thing for someone claiming a scientific discovery to do. What reason does anyone have to not dismiss it?