A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

]It is absolutely necessary that we move in one direction only. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't know that, nor prove it, nor lay it out non-fallaciously

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he has proven this 100%. He shows where his observation originated. He did not create a tautology, as he has been falsely accused of.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a falsifiable concept, first of all so can't be 100% proven by any means, secondly neither "greater satisfaction" nor "dissatisfaction" can be objectively measured, third and most important he simply defined all choices made as those that led to greater satisfaction, which makes the whole thing a tautology.

A-Humans must always make choices that allow them to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

B-How do you know?

A-Because humans always do make choices that allow them to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

That was not his proof LadyShea. I don't know if you will be able to recognize his proof even when it's right in front of you. You obviously read it and dismissed it, or overlooked it. It's very easy to reject an undeniable relation if it's not understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I am wrong, demonstrate it. Feel free to lay the argument out in a logical format that is not tautological nor commits a modal fallacy and we can go from there.

I will give you the page numbers again. I really hope you can see the difference between a logical construct and an undeniable observation, because if you don't, we won't be able to move forward.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to go Swartz' page where he discusses all of the modal fallacies. LadyShea provided a link.

No, you dishonest little shit, I provided that link. Nearly 200 pages ago to your sorry little ass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So readers can't analyze it logically because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, and readers can't analyze it scientifically because it isn't a testable hypothesis nor were we even provided an observed data set, what on Earth makes you think it is anything but assertion or even opinion?

You are being absurd.

There is a difference between an undeniable observation, and a syllogism. This is not formal logic. Formal logic can be invalid or unsound, but an accurate mathematical equation cannot be.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Thank you thought for the word syllogism, I was not familiar with it.

You're welcome.

[davidm]

Hey, Perfesser Peacegirl, see the unanswered questions above. Remember, you are here to edu-mu-cate us, so I'm sure you will be delighted to answer in detail.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;957133]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to go Swartz' page where he discusses all of the modal fallacies. LadyShea provided a link.

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you dishonest little shit, I provided that link. Nearly 200 pages ago to your sorry little ass.

I thought she gave the link the second time. I am crediting everyone for their contributions, including you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Perfesser Peacegirl, see the unanswered questions above. Remember, you are here to edu-mu-cate us, so I'm sure you will be delighted to answer in detail.

Not until you stop calling me shithead.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you I credited the examples to the individuals who said them.

But did you really?

I know there are lawyers who deal specifically with intellectual property on the internet. It's a whole new field.

No shit! You don't say! Tell me more things that I don't obviously already know.

If I happened to like a particular sentence that I read, and used it in a paragraph, does that count as plagiarism?

Could be.

We all use sentences that others use. I'm not sure where the line is drawn. I'm definitely not stealing someone's copyrighted material.

Are you sure?

I found this information below, but like I said, I don't think I'm guilty of plagiarism.

Is plagiarism illegal.

No. Plagiarism is neither a criminal nor civil offence. In fact, plagiarism is not a legal term and is not legally recognised. But breach of copyright or intellectual property rights (IPR) is illegal; if an act of plagiarism breaches copyright or IPR then it is illegal. Not every act of plagiarism is a breach of copyright. For example, you can plagiarise work that has no copyright.

I never said that plagiarism is a crime, and I never said that you committed a crime. I asked whether you breached your legal duties arising from your contractual agreement with the company that would print your little book if anyone ever bought it.

I tried giving everyone credit for their contribution.

Not an answer.

I did not maliciously steal intellectual property that legally belongs to someone.

Not an answer. Also, you seem to think that malicious intent would be important for some reason. It isn't.

I don't like thieves either. I don't consider myself a thief.

Doesn't matter. I don't consider myself angry.

I don't think of myself as a liar.

Don't care.

I did not misrepresent myself Chuck.

Are you sure? Did you represent yourself as the sole copyright owner of the work and all it scontent? Did you represent the work as not not plagiarized?

I'm sorry that you've gotten a bad taste in your mouth.

Sorry you're a plagiarist.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His proof came from an undeniable observation. Do you remember what his observation was?
.

Why don't you remind us what that observation was, or give us the page number?

[Doctor X]

Given that all of his observations were rather disproven, forgive me if my enthusiasm for a repeat of her lying and FAIL has wanned.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not his proof LadyShea. I don't know if you will be able to recognize his proof even when it's right in front of you. You obviously read it and dismissed it, or overlooked it. It's very easy to reject an undeniable relation if it's not understood.

I will give you the page numbers again. I really hope you can see the difference between a logical construct and an undeniable observation, because if you don't, we won't be able to move forward.

Did you happen to forget, this or are you still finding them?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Given that all of his observations were rather disproven, forgive me if my enthusiasm for a repeat of her lying and FAIL has wanned.

--J.D.

You're excused, you may procede at your own risk.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Sorry you're a plagiarist.

And possably a criminal? Doesn't lend much to your credability.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not his proof LadyShea. I don't know if you will be able to recognize his proof even when it's right in front of you. You obviously read it and dismissed it, or overlooked it. It's very easy to reject an undeniable relation if it's not understood.

I will give you the page numbers again. I really hope you can see the difference between a logical construct and an undeniable observation, because if you don't, we won't be able to move forward.

I asked you on like page 7 to explain the important points to me because the writing is so poor the points were difficult to tease out, and you wouldn't even do that.

You said you were willing to answer questions, in fact have begged us to ask questions, yet you refuse to answer them every time, giving us page numbers.

If the book was clear we wouldn't have questions and when we do have questions you send us back to the book.

So what's the big proof? Is it that stuff about how we don't choose to commit suicide all the time?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I asked you on like page 7 to explain the important points to me because the writing is so poor the points were difficult to tease out, and you wouldn't even do that.

You said you were willing to answer questions, in fact have begged us to ask questions, yet you refuse to answer them every time, giving us page numbers.

It's because she has no ability or inclination to explain anything in her own words. She actually thinks the book is self-evidently true, and all one has to do is read the sacred passages. This is how detached from reality she is. In reality, the sheer stupidty of this garbage provokes howls of laughter.

[Kael]

LS, you're forgetting that anything you don't understand or that doesn't make sense simply indicates you need to read the book again, not that it might help to restate it in plainer terms or peacegirl's own words or attempt to reproduce this undeniable observations under controlled conditions, and certainly not that there is a problem with the text*! Just put on your "biblical-", sorry I mean your "Lessansian glasses" and read it again, until you accept it as true on principle, then all the evidence and undeniability will fall into place.

*Heavens forfend, the very notion compels me, of my own free will, to retire to my fainting couch.

[davidm]

I recall way back when this nonsense first started the perfesser gave us all a multi-choice quiz to see if we understood the book.

[thedoc]

Several pages ago I suggested that lessans book was a joke aimed at the academic establishment. It may be noted that the first thing in the book, after the intro. and preface, was an account of an astronomer, presenting to the authorities of the day, his discovery that the Earth was round, and was rejected because the medicine man said the Earth was flat. Lessans is imediately setting himself up as like the astronomer, who is methodical and studied in his work, and the academics as the superstitious and dogmatic keepers of a sacred belief based on the incantations of a medicine man. The compairson falls apart because the astronomers/astrologists of ancient times were some of the best educated and respected men of the time. These men would have been the ones to discover that the Earth was round, and indeed they did, and would have presented this knowledge as men of authority. They would also have been in close association with the religious leaders, if they were not one in the same. Much of prehistoric religion was based on the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. There are many ancient sites that were used to govern the lives of society, based on astronomy. Lessans attempt to portray himself as a learned man who was rejected, totally fails due to his misunderstanding of ancient life. Lessans repeatedly tries to portray him self as superior in education than the recognized experts of the day, in fact Peacegirl has recently shown the same tendency in her declaration that she is here to educate us, not be educated by us. Arrogance seems to run in the family, I wonder if her son told his professors how to teach their courses, because he was obviously better educated than they were?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may be able to detect light coming from those stars (I already agreed that we can see the moon's image in a makeshift pinhole camera, which indicates the light has traveled). But if Lessans is correct, we do not interpret that image afferently. We see the moon; we see the stars; we see all kinds of celestial bodies because they are large enough to be seen with a telescope or with the naked eye, not due to emitted or reflected light traveling to us and turning into signals in the optic nerve.

...in that case there should be a difference between cameras and eyes. There isn't. Camera's definately DO work by emitted light.

[Vivisectus]

The book states that people always choose what leads to their greater satisfaction. That seems fair enough, but how do we know this? What is the defining test of this statement? We know that what was chosen was the choice that led to their greater satisfaction because they chose it, and not by any other way. "That what leads to greater satisfaction" is just another way of saying "That what people end up choosing".

So one of the basic premises of the book is "That which people choose is that what people end up choosing." - which is a tautology, and therefor contains no useful information.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book states that people always choose what leads to their greater satisfaction. That seems fair enough, but how do we know this? What is the defining test of this statement? We know that what was chosen was the choice that led to their greater satisfaction because they chose it, and not by any other way. "That what leads to greater satisfaction" is just another way of saying "That what people end up choosing".

So one of the basic premises of the book is "That which people choose is that what people end up choosing." - which is a tautology, and therefor contains no useful information.

For myself, and maybe for some others, but I love to learn:

Tautology may refer to:

Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity. Tautology also means a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct.
Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid.

How true, how true.

" I really would hate it, if I would lose my violent side. But luckily for us , we can not and never banish it "

And Peacegirl is full of it, I mean the violence..........of course.

(I stopped smoking now for the sixth time, by the way, and finally again I am the master of my brain.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, , it looks like you missed this:

This website explains all about the eye's lens. Nothing contradicts efferent vision, even though you think it does.

Lens, Light and Your Eyes

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Looks like you also missed this:

I looked it over, but there is nothing in there that Lessans is disputing except the one part about transduction. So why do I have to read the entire essay for the purposes of this discussion (even thought it's very interesting)?

[Vivisectus]

This website explains all about the eye's lens. Nothing contradicts efferent vision, even though you think it does.

Lens, Light and Your Eyes

[/QUOTE]

Except for the part that says "optic nerve sends message to the brain" and "lens focuses light on the retina" and the fact that the image is out of focus the light is not focused correctly, which incidentally happens exactly as if it is the light itself that is detected to make an image out of! And which we can manipulate by bending the light to put the image back in focus.

This is of course rather amazing, as this light does not really have anything to so with the image in your idea, which rather begs the question - if the light only needs to be on the object and around us to enable sight, then why would we have to manipulate it to get a focused image?

[Awareness]

This website explains all about the eye's lens. Nothing contradicts efferent vision, even though you think it does.

First the light rays are broken by the objects. not one but all, it's not like the other objects are efferenting.
Then these lightrays in turn are broken by your contact lenses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And you missed this:

OK, peacegirl, you are now on record as stating that cameras both do, and do not, take pictures in real time; and that information both does, and does not, travel faster than light. Wow, that is some undeniable truth ya got there! It's so undeniably true it seamlessly embraces mutually contradictory positions.

Hey, peacegirl, here is another question for you. In his book The Big Dummy asserts that a man with a telescope would see Columbus landing in real time, but that if a TV image were broadcast of the landing, the astronomer on Rigel would have to wait 800 years for it to arrive. And my question is,

WHY?

Why would the TV broadcast be delayed, but the camera and telescope see in real time? This should be fun.

You better be careful with your verbage. Calling him a big dummy one more time will get you sent back to ignore island faster than you can blink an eye.

A receiver (TV set) is able to receive the transmitted signals.

The camera rasterizes the scene. That is, the camera turns the picture into rows of individual dots called pixels. Each pixel is assigned a color and intensity.

The rows of pixels are combined with synchronization signals, called horizontal sync and vertical sync signals, so that the electronics inside a TV set will know how to display the rows of pixels.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and peacegirl? You evidently forgot to answer this one, so I'll repeat it:

Given that it is a POSTULATE of special relativity that light speed is invariant and finite across all inertial frames, AND THAT light carries information that is transduced to the brain for processing,

HOW IS REAL-TIME SEEING COMPATIBLE WITH SR?

Oh, and peacegirl? When God turns on the sun at noon, why do observers on earth see it and the reflected light of the moon instantaneously, but not the reflected light off their neighbors for eight and a half minutes?

Questions, questions, questions! My goodness! Well, you said you were here to "ed-u-cate" us.

Ed-U-Cate away!

We can see lightning strike, as per your example, based on those two postulates, and still see efferently. I don't see the contradiction whatsoever. Maybe I have a block like you do.