A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

YouTube - ‪(HD) BBC Horizon with...

[LadyShea]

Duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You spent pages insisting on that. All the while ignoring the fact that it's easily demonstrated that this is not the case.

Until you realized that this wasn't what Lessans had said. At which point you immediately switched positions.

I'm not switching positions. I'm trying to answer intelligently, but sometimes I myself have to extend the principles in relation to the question posed. This in itself has nothing to do with the validity of these principles. It has more to do with my inability to answer satisfactorily.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There, you did it again. That was The Lone Ranger, not me. Once again I am not insulted by the false attribution, as I agree with TLR wholeheartedly. I do, however, consider your continued failure to proofread and check your attributions to be an insult to everyone posting in or reading this thread.

I apologize. I'm trying hard to attribute the posts to the right person.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But people were asking her all kinds of questions that she was not prepared for. It confused her. You really can't hold her responsible for things that she wrote while she was confused.

It didn't confuse me, but it did require that I think through the question before answering it. Doesn't that sound like a good plan?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That does sound like a good plan. You ought to actually give it a try. The quality of your responses might increase considerably.

I said I came here because I needed people who had the intellectual capacity to understand this work.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The problem, for you, is that you found those people. You need to start aiming a little lower if you want to get any traction.

You're giving yourself too much credit.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And you are claiming way to much credit for Lessans.

And you don't believe this has anything to do with a group mentality? It's so obvious to me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sperm just doesn't hop around looking for a sweeheart to impregnate. It needs a vehicle to get to her.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That '52 Studebaker worked just fine for my parents. They didn't need no stinkin' germinal substance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You missed the whole point Angakuk? Why the anger?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There is no anger there. If you are referring to my "[t]hey didn't need no stinkin' germinal substance" line, that is merely a play on the Stinking Badges meme. It was certainly not an expression of anger on my part. The fact that you frequently interpret posts which are not expressing anger as if they were an expression of anger is somewhat revealing. Why do you suppose you do that?

YouTube - ‪We don't need no stinking badges!‬‏

You learn something new everyday.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is a problem when we make inferences based on our observations, but when Lessans does it it becomes an undeniable truth. Could he be any more arrogant and condescending?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it is, and you resent it. Why, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I don't resent it that Lessans does this. I find it both humorous and rather revealing that Lessans (and you) believes that his observations and reasoning are so much superior to nearly everyone else's. Nothing in his writing, or your defense of his writing, suggests that this is even remotely the case.

I have no idea what you understand or don't understand, so it's just more and more babbling to me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to trust some sources and take my chances.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Just not any of the ones that flatly contradict Lessans' claims. Those are clearly unreliable and are probably based on biased experiments and skewed data.

Only if the shoe fits.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But the shoe doesn't fit. You have rejected, out of hand, numerous scientific and scholarly studies on no more evidence than the fact that they did not support your beliefs.

That's not true. These studies were definitely not reliable. I'm not trying to avoid studies that are actually tested for qualilty.

Originally Posted by Angagkuk

At the same time you are rejecting these well documented studies you are also, on the flimsiest of pretexts, making use of unsubstantiated claims from unsourced internet sites.

I was quoting a few people's opinions that added to the discussion. I don't think I'm guilty of all that.

[LadyShea]

So if you are looking out at the ocean and see a tiny flashing light signaling SOS from a distance, you have received that information (SOS) instantly (as you are seeing the light source and not it's destination), and not after an X-nanosecond speed of light delay?

Then your answer is YES instantaneous communication of information is possible since we see light at the source in real time via efferent vision.

Why did you answer no?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These studies were definitely not reliable.

Which studies? How do you know they were not reliable?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not trying to avoid studies that are actually tested for qualilty.

Since I believe all the actual studies posted were peer reviewed and published in authoritative journals, they have been tested for quality to the greatest extent possible.

What quality testing process would you feel is "actual"? Which authority do you feel is trustworthy to review peers research methods?

[Gooch's dad]

OK, just coming to this discussion, so please stop and re-explain everything for me! It should only take a post or two, right?

On a more serious note--peacegirl, you said on the last page that "time doesn't exist" because we're always "in the present". One doesn't follow from the other, you do realize that, right?

It's like Thomas the Train Engine saying that the railroad tracks in back of him and in front of him don't really exist, because he's at THIS spot on the track.

You might ask why we are "on a track" with respect to time--why we can't freely move back and forth along the time dimension. Thermodynamics and statistical physics--which, judging from what I've read of your other posts, is completely beyond your level of science understanding--have explained this "arrow of time" since Boltzmann first proposed it in the 19th century.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That does not negate what I just said. Mentally checking out is a form of survival for some people.

Just flagging this for davidm's benefit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then answer in a simplistic manner. Is there any other option other than living or dying? Please answer with a yes or no.

OK Peacegirl, Since this point seems to be important to you, let us, for sake of argument, accept that a person is either alive or dead, one of those two options. Now would you get on and tell us what this proves?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm sorry that makes you sad, but your continued ignorant assertions are not my fault.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They aren't ignorant at all, and hopefully you'll see this one day.

Making specific claims about issues and concepts you are obviously not well versed in = making ignorant assertions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK Peacegirl, Since this point seems to be important to you, let us, for sake of argument, accept that a person is either alive or dead, one of those two options. Now would you get on and tell us what this proves?

It proves we are always moving towards greater satisfaction of course.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

YouTube - ‪(HD) BBC Horizon with Brian Cox - What Time Is It?‬‏

Thanks LadyShea, I'm going to try to listen to the whole thing tonight, or tomorrow. I want to know the other position so I know how to defend mine.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It proves we are always moving towards greater satisfaction of course.

It might prove that people want to go on living, but does not prove anything about 'greater satisfaction'. That is just one of many aspects of living, but not the 'end all, be all' of life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In our pasture there are two mares, a sorrel and a paint. There is also a mule colt, the offspring of the sorrel mare. The colt was born early in the spring. This afternoon I happened to notice the colt trying to mount the paint mare. I found this behavior kind of funny on several points. First, he is too small for his equipment to reach its intended target. Second, he is too young to accomplish anything useful even were he able to reach the target. Third, he is a mule. That is to say that, even if he were not too small and too immature it remains the case that he is infertile and the effort, even should he be successful, would ultimately prove futile, at least as far as producing any offspring is concerned. So, one may well ask, why is he engaging in this frustrating and ultimately futile endeavor? I assume that he is getting some benefit from the behavior, even if it is only the satisfaction of doing that which comes naturally to him and to which he is compelled by his very nature.

Consideration of my participation in this thread leads to a feeling of deep and profound sympathy for that mule colt. Although it is highly unlikely that anything I say to peacegirl will produce a measurable or useful result, I find that I am unwilling to resist the urge to screw with her.

I suppose that those who are just lurkin in this thread are in much the same position that I was this afternoon as I watched that colt repeatedly attempt, and fail, to achieve the impossible. That is to say, they are likely to be sympathizing with us in our futile attempts to achieve the impossible and laughing at the absurdity of the entire enterprize.

&NR=1

You are too funny Angaguk, but you don't have to feel sorry for me because I'm not a mule, and I am not engaging in futile behavior, even if one person gets it. Will someone come forward to tell me they got even a little from all of these pages of discussion? That will spur me on to new heights.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to know the other position so I know how to defend mine.

There really is no single "other position", except an acceptance of the fact that time is an existent and important factor in the fundamental laws of the Universe, just like gravity, electromagneticism, and matter. There is ongoing study and debate regarding the nature of time however. To really get a grasp you will need to research Newtonian time vs. Spacetime vs. Quantum time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So cute!

It has no worth at all, except as a source of hilarity unintended by your father. By putting this out you are making him a laughing stock.

So I shouldn't put it out? Is that what you're saying?

[LadyShea]

So I shouldn't put it out? Is that what you're saying?

What does it matter what davidm thinks you should or shouldn't do?

I am personally somewhat confused as to your motivation for continuing the discussion here at though. Whether you should or shouldn't do it depends on your goal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I was just watching a WWII documentary about the war in the South Atlantic which included the 'Hunt for the Admiral Graf Spee' and an account of the 'Battle of the River Plate'. What, you may ask does this have to do with the thread? Well I'll tell you.
In the nariation of the program, which was produced by the victors, the Graf Spee was described as "Brilliantly Designed" and "Perfectly suited for the role", when in fact she was neither. The Graf Spees design was primarily political, she was not a proper battleship, cruser, or mercant raider, she was not well shuited for any military role, only a political one. The producers were inflating the power and importance of the ship for only one reason. To defeat a week foe isn't very impressive, but to defeat a powerful foe is a major victory. Likewise Lessans had his imaginary encounters with Ph,D's, College Professors, Priests and Rabi's, those who, in his mind, had the most education, so to best them would be a major accomplishment. Just how impressive would it have been to recount a conversation with a friend at the Pool Hall, not a place noted for heavy thinkers. So to bolster his own esteem Lessans used those who represented the highest level of accademic accomplishment.

How can that be true if he never talked to his pool buddies about his discovery. He never used big language. He was just one of the guys. They did see him writing his manuscript, but he never boasted or mentioned what he was writing about. I already told you this. You certainly have a short memory.

Originally Posted by thedoc

The other problem with the program was in the video portion, which was typically very poor. Those in charge of "carefully selecting Archival Footage" seemed to know nothing about the ships involved or the ships in the film. Those involved were, of course, the Graf Spee with tripple turrets fore and aft, and the british ships Exeter, Ajax, and the Achilles, all with superfiring twin turrets. And yet many of the shots showed superfiring tripple turrets of a light cruser, and shots of French and Italian Battleships, and even a shot of the Bismark. None of these ships had any part in the battle and the Bismark was not even commissioned yet. All this was extraneous footage having nothing to do with the battle, much like Lessans extraneous diversions into subjects and topics that had nothing to do with the main subject, but only served to divert attention and obstruct the development of the main points.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop right there! Where did he go off on an extraneous diversion? You guys are doing that, not him.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Much like the producers who had little or no knowledge of the details of the ships Lessans displayed little or no real knowledge of these extraneous discussions. There was no reason to include them except to divert attention away from the real message, to confuse and throw everyone off so the main topic could be asserted without challenge.

OMG!! You're the one that is diverting attention away from the main topic. How many times have I said, lets get back to his main discovery, and I get no takers. What am I supposed to do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times have I said, lets get back to his main discovery, and I get no takers. What am I supposed to do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

But you are not even trying to lead the dialogue, you are simply asking everyone to read and accept without any real questions. Everytime someone does ask for clarification you just tell them to go back to the book. Your 'takers' seem to be only those who will swallow Lessans book without any criticism. Just get on with it and see what happens, you are the one holding things up waiting for everyone to agree. Sometimes when presenting material you just go over the whole thing and then go back to clear points up that need. That you haven't gotten out of ch. 1 is your own fault, and no one elses.

[thedoc]

I'm begining to think that Peacegirl is a particularly 'needy' individual. She's on this thread desperately trying to find someone who will agree with her fathers book and validate her belief in it. It makes me wonder if Lessans job as a salesman kept him away from home and his daughter. She could have developed an unusual attatchment to him due to the absence. This would explain her plea's for everyone to read the book uncritically and accept the ideas of her father without question. The questions and objections are obviously disturbing her and inhibiting her ability to rationally answer those questions and objections. Indeed her floundering about on this thread seems to be just as irrational as her fathers book. I would seriously recomend that she seek professional help.

[LadyShea]

Lessans chose to make specific claims regarding time and sight and instantaneous transfer of information....yet he didn't know enough about these topics to avoid contradicting the empirical findings of multiple disciplines of science.

He could have used nothing but psychology to make a case for conditioning, and really there would be no way to refute it empirically because psychology isn't as easy to test as physics and optics. He made his bed though, and you have to lie in it*


*These vapid phrases are fun!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can that be true if he never talked to his pool buddies about his discovery. He never used big language. He was just one of the guys. They did see him writing his manuscript, but he never boasted or mentioned what he was writing about.

I did not say he talked to his pool buddies in his imaginary conversations, only the educated people that he envied and desperately wanted to be like. Try reading posts when you are not so upset.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He made his bed though, and you have to lie in it*

*These vapid phrases are fun!

'Vapid' is OK but I would add 'over-used' to that qualification.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't post that

I did.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not switching positions. I'm trying to answer intelligently, but sometimes I myself have to extend the principles in relation to the question posed. This in itself has nothing to do with the validity of these principles. It has more to do with my inability to answer satisfactorily.

I apologize. I'm trying hard to attribute the posts to the right person.

So you claim, while repeating the same mis-attribution. I think your definition of trying hard and my definition must be very different.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you don't believe this has anything to do with a group mentality? It's so obvious to me.

I don't think what has anything to do with group mentality? I am pretty sure that Lessans' lack of credibility and persuasive argument has nothing to do with group mentality. Unless you mean to suggest that Lessans was not just writing as an individual but as a representative of some kind of hivemind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you understand or don't understand, so it's just more and more babbling to me.

I have no idea what you understand or don't understand, so it's just more and more babbling to me.

I could hardly have said it better myself.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are too funny Angaguk, but you don't have to feel sorry for me because I'm not a mule, and I am not engaging in futile behavior, even if one person gets it. Will someone come forward to tell me they got even a little from all of these pages of discussion? That will spur me on to new heights.

Peacegirl, your powers of miscomprehension are truly astonishing. While it is true that you share certain characteristics in common with mules, this parable is not about you and it is not about feeling sorry for anyone, you least of all. It is about me and the others who have made the effort to communicate with you. We are the mules who are engaged in a futile and absurd enterprize.