A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

I offered my summation of the two sided equation, where's yours for human will not being free.

You know what, I'm really getting the feeling that you want to win at all costs. That's what this is about, isn't it? I can't go on with this combative group if this is about proving that I'm a fundamentalist. That's not what this discussion is supposed to be about, and unless people start asking relevant questions after reading the first three chapters, this thread will be over, but it won't be because of me.

Your feelings regarding my motivations are the product of a probable histrionic personality disorder, coupled with an inferiority complex, and simple childlike projection and deflection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There can be no transition to a new world if the foundations of its very existence are not valid.

If you weren't such an intellectual inferior you could understand my statement.

That's why I said that you must contain your skepticism until the book is read in its entirety, hopefully twice. I can't count how many times I read this book, and how much I learned later on in life while compiling his 7 books. And I'm still learning. You need to temporarily accept that his premises are correct. Read it like that, okay? You have the rest of your life to conclude he was wrong, so for this small window of time, give him a break. Give him a chance to demonstrate what he observed and how these principles have the power to change our world for the better.

[LadyShea]

Sorry, he offered no means to ascertain or analyze the validity of his conclusions...it's very possible his observations were inaccurate because of subject sampling bias, or that he had an undiagnosed mental illness, or that he didn't write the book at all, that you did and put his name on it. I have nothing to go on at all.

This is how people who know more than you operate in this world.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Kael;953184]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may not think there is anything to this book, but he would never have prefaced the foreword and introduction this way if he didn't know positively that he had uncovered a genuine discovery that is valid based on careful observations, sound reasoning and an uncanny insight into the human condition.

Originally Posted by Kael

In other words, he was right because if he wasn't right he wouldn't have said he was right. Yes, you've said as much many times. I don't think you're so stupid that you don't understand why this argument holds no weight.

The fact that he would have admitted if he was wrong, doesn't mean anything as far as the validity of this discovery is concerned. You're absolutely right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that if you are comparing him to a fundamentalist group, which is the very opposite of who he is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The comparison is valid from what he wrote. He may have been different in real life, but we can only judge what and how he wrote.

True.

He never said anyone was stupid or deluded. He was just frustrated and this was his way of trying to preclude anybody from forming any preconceived ideas, although unfortunately it had a reverse effect.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was proactively frustrated with unknown potential readers? This is in the forward for chrissakes.

Yes, because he knew the type of intellectual he needed to reach, and those very intellectuals that would be capable of understanding have been, for the most part, the very people who would prematurely judge his work. Can't you see the catch 22 he was in?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When you come out swinging, of course people are going to feel unfairly attacked.

True, but that was his experience, and that's what I believe has happened here. No matter how nice the introduction would be, they would still be name calling because he's a nobody in their eyes, and they refuse to take him seriously. It's no wonder I'm swinging.

There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a way that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” ~Lessans ii

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In that passage he wasn't saying anything terrible; he wasn't being arrogant. He was only trying to get people to refrain from passing judgment, before reading the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was saying that people are shadow/cave dwellers and deluded into believing they were living in reality when they were not.

He was saying that people are living in a semblance of reality based on what they believe or want to be true. People won't listen and that's why he wrote what he wrote. I don't think it was so terrible unless you chose to take it that way. Here is this one sentence for those who didn't read it:

There are
those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they
come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows
that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may
deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He further attacks his potential readers by prejudicedly assuming that if they deny it, it could not possibly be out of honest skepticism, valid contradictory reasoning or facts, or expectations of valid supporting logic or evidence, but because they don't understand or don't want to learn.

This is exactly why he wrote the introduction the way he did. He agreed that it's normal to be skeptical, but not to the point where you would rule out a scientific miracle just because it sounds ludicrous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it still didn't work. People have done the opposite of what he requested. How unfair can one get, and then have the gall to pass judgment on his work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Want to talk about unfair? How about telling your readers, the very people you hope to persuade to your way of thinking, that if they don't agree they are either incapable of understanding or are intractably stubborn?

Once again, he said this because that was his experience. All he wanted was the chance to to give an accurate demonstration of his findings. The truth of the matter is that if this knowledge turns out to be genuine, then what he said is correct. If people don't agree, it's because there's something they don't understand. But pride can be very destructive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence there is against any of the ideas, no matter how shoddily reasoned any part of the book is, you, peacegirl, have this built in excuse of "you don't understand". Is that a good way to gain truth and knowledge?

There is no evidence against him. There is no modal fallacy. There are no tautologies; and efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may not think there is anything to this book, but he would never have prefaced the foreword and introduction this way if he didn't know positively that he had uncovered a genuine discovery that is valid based on careful observations, sound reasoning and an uncanny insight into the human condition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But put yourself in the shoes of a first time reader, like us when you brought this to us? How are we to know what he would or wouldn't do? All we have to go on, right now while reading the forward, are the words he wrote. He basically accuses his reader of stubbornness and adherence to incorrect ideas from the get go.

He prefaced the book this way because he didn't want people to use false logic and conclude that this is some kind of joke. He was trying to point out the reasons that might lead someone to come to a premature conclusion, and not give him a chance. I guess it backfired.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"It's arrogance, peacegirl, for him to assume he is 100% correct. And it is arrogance and unfairness to set up a false dichotomy; either they agree, or they do not understand.[/quote]

It's not arrogance LadyShea. But I understand how odd it feels that someone should actually introduce a genuine discovery. Probably will never happen again.

[quote="LadyShea

It's like the Emperors New Clothes...if you can't see the clothes you are a fool. Really, what other scholarly works are prefaced like this? Which authors feel the need to order their readers about in such a manner? Either the material stands and persuades on its own merits or it does not.

It has to stand on its own merits, exactly. He didn't want people using fallacious standards to judge that which contains undeniable proof of its veracity. Did you read the excerpt in the introduction that Richard Milton wrote. This was another person's perspective of what often happens in academic circles.

[LadyShea]

if this knowledge turns out to be genuine, then what he said is correct

If it is correct it is correct? Yeah no tautology here!

He didn't want people using fallacious standards to judge that which contains undeniable proof of its veracity.

He basically stated readers are to disregard any and all normal ways of ascertaining veracity, and to be absolutely sure he couldn't be checked, he offered nothing to analyze! He just claims undeniability and calls it proof.

Did you read the excerpt in the introduction that Richard Milton wrote.

Richard Milton is a crackpot, a purveyor of pseudoscience, who cares what he says?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but that was his experience, and that's what I believe has happened here. No matter how nice the introduction would be, they would still be name calling because he's a nobody in their eyes..

How you flatter yourself! What delusions he had, and what delusions you have! You're a chip off the old blockhead, I'd say.

People are not attacking you or him, but rather his claims are under attack, because they are wrong. More -- they are insane. They are asinine, incoherent and wholly disconnected from reality.

It's true you have been personally attacked, but that is because people are fed up with your dishonesty.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Richard Milton is a crackpot, a purveyor of pseudoscience, who cares what he says?

Richard Milton!

[davidm]

Richard Dawkins wrote this about Milton's book on evolution:

"twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand".

And that, I submit, is also a perfect review of Lessans' book.

[LadyShea]

Dupe

[LadyShea]

Milton was, like Lessans, very fond of using the "Galileo [Mendel, whoever] was laughed at [met with skepticism, whatever], and he was right, so I am probably right too" fallacy.

That Lessans states the opposite is fallacious reasoning "People have been wrong so you might be wrong" while espousing the former is hypocrisy at its finest.

[LadyShea]

There is no evidence against him. There is no modal fallacy. There are no tautologies; and efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics.

How does one ascertain the veracity of these statements? Can you back these extraordinary claims up without using fallacious reasoning or arguing from ignorance?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does one ascertain the veracity of these statements? Can you back these extraordinary claims up without using fallacious reasoning or arguing from ignorance?

This is the reason why nothing will ever penetrate peacegirl's head. For peacegirl, it is axiomatic that Lessans is infallibly correct; just as, for fundie christians, it is axiomatic that the Bible is infallibly correct and literally true.

We know she thinks her father is infallible -- i.e., is God. She thinks her father is God. She has said as much. She has repeatedly said: "If he knew that he was wrong, he would have said so." The implication is plain: since he never said he was wrong, he was never wrong!

It never enters peacegirl's head that there is another alternative: Leassans was wrong, but did not know that he was wrong. As it happens, that is the correct alternative. He was gob-smackingly, laugh-out-loud funny wrong about vision and light in particular.

But for peacegirl, since Lessans was axiomatically correct, no counterexample, no PROOF, that he was wrong, will cause her to reconsider her faith in LessansGod. This is why she won't read TLR's essay on how we see. Some corner of her is terrified that it is convincing and undeniable, and totally fatal to the notion of efferent seeing -- which, of course, it is. So she handwaves it away. Yet she has the unmitigated gall to demand -- demand! -- that we read her father's idiotic book, not just once, but TWICE! Even while she will not read TLR's short essay, and even as her own children won't be bothered with her father's tripe!

Wow. She is a Peace of Work.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You just discovered this?
--J.D.

I think most have realized this from early on, on the other forum it got hopelessly off topic and she left on page 3. but I had already criticised Lessans for his methodology (lack of collaboration) and presentation. I think many on this thread are responding with different purposes, there is trying to educate Peacegirl, presenting the reality to counter her claims, for myself I was hoping for some more detailed description of his observations to try and discern how he came to those conclusions. Also there is the hope that his thought process and reasoning will be described, Peacegirl claims to have some notes but so far there has been no evidence of that. It is probable that anyone reading the book will have a better understanding than she does, as hers is completely biased, that the book is completely and unquestionably true. In 240+ pages nothing but the woefully inadequate book to support these claims.

[LadyShea]

Oh peacegirl you dishonest little thing you. I was looking up some stuff I remembered reading about Milton, because your method of argumentation seemed so familiar, and since you mentioned his name again.

Since Milton didn't start publishing until 1993, and Lessans died in 1991, you obviously added that excerpt. You've mentioned several times that you wrote something we criticized, and you stated you added the ridiculous dialog, and now we know you added to the intro...maybe even wrote it entirely. Just exactly how much of this book did you write yourself? How influential was Milton to your contributions?

Reading Dr. Carrol's essay was like reading a critique of everything you and Lessan's have said here and in the book...I am thinking very influential.

Source for quotes below Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Milton ignores the fact that science has nothing to gain by believing what is false. Unlike Milton, who sees scientific beliefs as essentially ideological, scientists as a group have nothing at stake should the facts of nature turn out to be otherwise than currently believed. Of course, individual scientists from time to time get stuck in ideological and idiosyncratic corners, but science as a whole is an enterprise that is self-correcting.

Milton should review the Alfred Wegner case for an example of how science really works, because it is quite different from his notion of conspirators guarding the gates of error and rejecting such things as homeopathy or iridology "because they threaten to violate the accepted canons of scientific rationalism."* Milton seems to have little appreciation for the fact that it is easy to find confirmation for just about any hypothesis and that one must constantly be on guard against confirmation bias, self-deception, wishful thinking, and other psychological hindrances that can lead to pathological science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Two sided equation
* Man's will is not free, as he is compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction

* No person can be forced or compelled to do anything they do not want to do

*Because everyone understands points 1 and 2, nobody will ever blame, punish, criticize or question another person for any action even it results in hurt

*Therefore it is not possible to commit a hurtful action, because one cannot derive satisfaction from hurting another knowing they will never be held responsible in any way by another person.

Feel free to ask questions to test my understanding, because I know you can't believe, even for a second, that someone could understand and still disagree.

There's so much missing in this summation, it's no wonder you disagree.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. You are still seeing in real time even though the frame of reference is different for each observer.

SR does not rule out efferent vision. You may be seeing light that has reached B, not A which was where it originated, but you are seeing B in real time.

This proves that we use information coming from light, and that information is dependent on our frame of reference, but there are no images being carried in the light itself.

You sound like a stuffy old professor who can't even hear another point of view.

Wrong for reasons I just mentioned.

If I'm a liar, you must have pseudologia fantastica!!!

Wrong. I just didn't understand how you were using the term.

Wrong. I told you from the beginning that I was figuring it out as I go along, since I was never asked these questions. Just because I got confused over a couple of questions has nothing to do with the validity of his claim.

But it isn't false, as far as I can tell.

If that's true, then there should be no reason why you would oppose seeing the results of a few more empirical tests.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, it would be nice to make money, but that is not first and foremost on my mind. And yes, I loved my father but I don't have a psychological need to believe he was right unless he was proven to be right.

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, now we've established beyond doubt that you're a lair, not just confused.

Hey peacegirl, you're such a moron that you didn't notice something important: You are now in disagreement with your father. Lessans explicity attacked scientists for promoting the thesis that light carries information and that real-time seeing is impossible because of this. However, that thesis is a CENTRAL TENET of the special theory of relativity; if light did NOT carry information that is transduced to the brain, the theory would not just be wrong, it would actually be meaningless!

Hey, shitwit, if we see in real time, how come the person ont the train sees the light pulses sequentially, while the person on the ground sees them simultaneously?

Also, shitwit, how come, if the sun is turned on at noon, we see the reflected light of the moon immediately, but not the reflected light of our neighbors for eight and a half minutes?

It's that time again!! I can only take you in small doses. Bye bye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, I still request you lay out "why human will is not free" in a similar or comparable format as I have offered the two sided equation (see below).

Fair is fair, right?

I told you I'm not doing that. I gave you the pages to read (pages 46-59). If you're truly interested in understanding this knowledge, then read it carefully. You can let me know what you understood and I'll try to clarify anything you didn't grasp. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. Like I said, I'm not invested in this group.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's so much missing in this summation, it's no wonder you disagree.

Okay, what's missing? You can't just claim it to be inadequate, you have to demonstrate why it is so.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I'm not doing that. I gave you the pages to read (pages 46-59). If you're truly interested in understanding this knowledge, then read it carefully. You can let me know what you understood and I'll try to clarify anything you didn't grasp. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. Like I said, I'm not invested in this group.

I think Lessans reasoning was poor and circular. He states his conclusion without any foundational premises, at all. He says more or less "It is what it is because it is".

Man is compelled to choose that which leads to greater satisfaction, therefore his will is not free

He supports this by merely defining all choices as those which led to greater satisfaction.

You are unable to defend it, I guess.

And lol, if you aren't invested in this group then leave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People will conclude that because people have been positive and wrong, he could be wrong because he's positive. He was just demonstrating the kind of fallacious logic that people use.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is true that he could be wrong though, so the logic is not fallacious.

Sorry, but he's not wrong. Crucify me for saying this if you want, but I'm not going to back down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that Lessans' discovery is based on a psychological law of man's nature; which is not a physical object such as a lightbulb that can be easily demonstrated; nor is it physics which can be shown easily through empirical data.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When demonstrating psychological principles or "discoveries", all other researchers offer their extensive notes regarding their observations, detailed information/demographics about the observed subjects (to eliminate the possible charge of sample bias, for example), offer and address confounding factors, and other data to support their conclusions. You can see this in every paper ever published in psychological journals. Lessans did none of this.

And those papers are very valuable. But this is more than a sampling. It's a law. Laws don't have borders, or samples. They are universal.

As I said, this knowledge can be tested empirically, but it's not as simple because much of this knowledge is immaterial, and unless you see the relations, you're going to say that he only made assertions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then he should have offered specific testing methods for researchers to use, and he should have followed accepted ways of gathering and presenting scientific information. He gave us his assertions and conclusions only.

With all due respect LadyShea, you don't know what you're talking about. His reasoning was sound as was his observations. He was so ahead of his time that it's no wonder no one can believe he made a discovery of this magnitude without collecting data to confirm what he saw.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They knew less than he did. That would be like asking a chimpanzee to help me with my math homework. I'm being serious.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did he know they were chimpanzees to his human? How did he know they knew less than he did? Why did he approach them at all if they were so inferior?

He was not arrogant, that's why. He never said they were inferior. They implied he was inferior because of his schooling.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Basically you are claiming he had no intellectual peers? And you don't see how arrogant that is?

Arrogant??? You are so off base you have no idea. I wish my sister was here. She would let you know that your description of him is incredibly wrong. He was a quiet man; he had friends but he didn't talk about these things.

two plus two equals four, and his professor claimed that it was five. Is he supposed to listen to the professor because he went to college, or trust himself because he sees the relations?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2+2=4 can be easily demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction using a bag of apples. Not even remotely analogous.

It is analogous because it wasn't the content that was being compared. It was to show that someone with certain knowledge can't always get support from a peer or a teacher if they themselves are unable to see certain relations.

Imagine for a moment that someone has an actual discovery that no one knows about asking a professor for help when the professor himself has no understanding of the subject matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Researchers and honest people ask their peers to check their methods, to check their data, to check their math. Crackpots and narcissists assume they are 100% correct and need no checking.

He was able to check and balance his own work. He used mathematical standards to do this. That was all he needed to check and double check that he was correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not approach these people for checks and balances because he knew what he had

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Narcissism does tend to piss people off.

He was not narcissitic, so you don't have to get pissed off. Actually, I can't stand narcissistic people either.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are a toddler to my adult and intellectually inferior to me in every possible way peacegirl. Why I am I bothering talking to you?

Does that make you want to listen to anything I have to say?

No it doesn't. That might have been your interpretation (which I can understand), but this was not his intention. He taught me that all people are equal. He had respect for everyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think Lessans reasoning was poor and circular. He states his conclusion without any foundational premises, at all. He says more or less "It is what it is because it is".

Man is compelled to choose that which leads to greater satisfaction, therefore his will is not free

He supports this by merely defining all choices as those which led to greater satisfaction.

You are unable to defend it, I guess.

And lol, if you aren't invested in this group then leave.

I may just do that if there's no progress. His reasoning was spot on. It did not come from him just saying it is what it is because it is. The following was not circular reasoning. I'm only posting a tiny part because I'm not going to chop up the book like everybody else did.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this?

However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

[Doctor X]

Camus was a fool: Sisyphus was never happy.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

["Poof!"--Ed.]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Two sided equation
* Man's will is not free, as he is compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

True.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

* No person can be forced or compelled to do anything they do not want to do.

True.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*Because everyone understands points 1 and 2, nobody will ever blame, punish, criticize or question another person for any action even it results in hurt.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How can someone not desire to strike back if they've been hurt LadyShea? You think this is what he's been saying; that we should turn the other cheek and not blame, even if we've been hurt? No wonder you don't think he has anything of value.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*Therefore it is not possible to commit a hurtful action, because one cannot derive satisfaction from hurting another knowing they will never be held responsible in any way by another person.

This point does not follow from the last premise. The only way it's not possible to commit a hurtful act is if there is no justification to do so. In the world of free will, people can justify or rationalize almost anything, which is why it's so difficult to see the 180 degree change that's going to occur when all blame is removed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Feel free to ask questions to test my understanding, because I know you can't believe, even for a second, that someone could understand and still disagree.

So far, you disagree because you don't understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's so much missing in this summation, it's no wonder you disagree.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, what's missing? You can't just claim it to be inadequate, you have to demonstrate why it is so.

Everything is missing, and the only way to fill in the gap is to read as if it were a book club. Let's start at Chapter One. As soon as you read it, we can discuss it. I can't do any better because there will always be unanswered questions, which is why he urged people to read in a step by step fashion.