A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Wrong thread

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you'll finally get the courage to buy the book. I swear to you you won't be disappointed.

It's all coming. I am not afraid of reading it. Someone gave me a hand and offered me a PDF. I'll give it a look, I fear nothing, except fear itself.

Look I am not trying to rob you, I am just saying that all truths begin in a fundamental lie, and all lies in a fundamental truth. I just think you have too much invested in this and should take a step back and understand not everyone is going to accept your truths, just like not everyone is going to accept their lies. The truth is a ninja an assassin, it kills, it maims, it frees itself but not you. But it never is honest; putting something down to something so easy as a fundamental truth is a mind killer, its easy to do we've been doing it for 10000 years or more, since civilisation started, hence religion. There has never been an honest religion, and honest philosophy or a science that is true. Truth is a figment of our imagination. There never will be truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Like assholes everyone has one.

Perspective: we all have thought at some time we have all the answers, usually we were high, or young and didn't know nay better, but the truth is we know shit, understand shit, and the only thing that keeps us sane is that we think we are right about enough to keep us so. It's a lie but it keeps us sane. Trust no 1 not even no one. If I ever found a fundamental truth or an absolute I would keep it secret, because in that moment I would know I was truly insane.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It's all coming. I am not afraid of reading it. Someone gave me a hand and offered me a PDF. I'll give it a look, I fear nothing, except fear itself.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Look I am not trying to rob you, I am just saying that all truths begin in a fundamental lie, and all lies in a fundamental truth. I just think you have too much invested in this and should take a step back and understand not everyone is going to accept your truths, just like not everyone is going to accept their lies. The truth is a ninja an assassin, it kills, it maims, it frees itself but not you. But it never is honest; putting something down to something so easy as a fundamental truth is a mind killer, its easy to do we've been doing it for 10000 years or more, since civilisation started, hence religion. There has never been an honest religion, and honest philosophy or a science that is true. Truth is a figment of our imagination. There never will be truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Like assholes everyone has one.

But this is true. It is an invariable law of man's nature. Why would I be doing this if it was just an opinion Sidhe?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Perspective: we all have thought at some time we have all the answers, usually we were high, or young and didn't know nay better, but the truth is we know shit, understand shit, and the only thing that keeps us sane is that we think we are right about enough to keep us so. It's a lie but it keeps us sane. Trust no 1 not even no one. If I ever found a fundamental truth or an absolute I would keep it secret, because in that moment I would know I was truly insane.

But I'm not insane. This is a fundamental truth whether you see it or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sidhe is apparently a physics student...I am pretty sure he'd be pissed off if he spent money on the book only to learn that Lessans claims that we see (gain information) faster than the speed of light, thereby negating the laws of physics.

I can't believe you're stuck on that one thought. You can't make a comparison because efferent sight does not require time. Of course you conveniently fail to see this, so I'd rather get off the subject before another fiasco begins.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl if you were not so obsessed with this thread it would have ended a long time ago. It is you who must let go of your fantasy and face reality.

This is just a way to fill time. And I have gotten to know all of you so it's not like I'm starting all over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. I already told you that newbies may ask questions from time to time and bump this thread, which is at my home-forum. I will make comments in it as I feel, just like you will.

Our liking each other is beside the point

Very true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why is your heart burdened?

I'm not sure.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Hey, is this a dead thread, no posts for over 3 hours, Lets start a dead thread party, you guys kick it off and I'll join in. Yea right.

‪Party Noise Makers‬‏ -...

&feature=related

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe you're stuck on that one thought. You can't make a comparison because efferent sight does not require time. Of course you conveniently fail to see this, so I'd rather get off the subject before another fiasco begins.

I can't believe you don't understand that seeing, by any means, is a transfer of information. I am stuck on this because I am gobsmacked that you fail to accept this undeniable fact.

It's like denying that water is wet.

[thedoc]

Apparently seeing by efferent vision supersedes all known physics and everything we know about biology and the nature of vision. So much fiction and so little time to understand it.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Apparently seeing by efferent vision supersedes all known physics and everything we know about biology and the nature of vision.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I made sure not to say that. But the truth of the matter is if you really are anxious to have me gone, just start another thread if you want to have a follow up on the book. I told everyone I won't interfere because that's not my thread. This one is.

No, it is not your thread. You merely started it. You do not own it and you have no control over where it goes. If you are dissatisified with the course the thread has taken you are free to stop participating in it. Stay or leave, whichever moves you in the direction of greater satisfaction, but please do us all a favor and quit whinning about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not anybody's fault. Please don't think that. I am upset because you think someone's to blame. No one is to blame. If I leave, I want all of you to know that. NO ONE IS TO BLAME FOR THIS FIASCO.

Have you already forgotten how often you have blamed various posters for ruining this thread?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this is true. It is an invariable law of man's nature. Why would I be doing this if it was just an opinion Sidhe?

But I'm not insane. This is a fundamental truth whether you see it or not.

Yes of course its true. Nurse 50ccs of phenobarbitol and 10ccs of Haloperidol.

That's just what David Koresh said.

I woke up after a visit to Jerusalem and realised I was the reincarnation of King David and hence the mentioned stem of Jesse in The Bible. Armed with the fundamental truth that I was the son of God I tell you this:

Why would any body believe you because you say so or because anyone said so. We are not gullible stooges? An inevitable law of my nature is if someone says something that sounds like bs I say bs.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can't believe you don't understand that seeing, by any means, is a transfer of information. I am stuck on this because I am gobsmacked that you fail to accept this undeniable fact.

It's like denying that water is wet.

The eyes obviously are receiving information (even if there's a slight delay before the information is processed), but the information received doesn't have anything to do with traveling through space and time, therefore you can't use this as a comparison to FSL.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Apparently seeing by efferent vision supersedes all known physics and everything we know about biology and the nature of vision. So much fiction and so little time to understand it.

It doesn't supercede all known physics. There you go again spouting off what you know nothing about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, it is not your thread. You merely started it. You do not own it and you have no control over where it goes. If you are dissatisified with the course the thread has taken you are free to stop participating in it. Stay or leave, whichever moves you in the direction of greater satisfaction, but please do us all a favor and quit whinning about it.

Have you already forgotten how often you have blamed various posters for ruining this thread?

David and Stephen are responsible for turning the book into something unrecognizable at Lessans' expense. That was a definite hurt to me and him. But I can't pin any one person down and say you are to blame for my leaving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yes of course its true. Nurse 50ccs of phenobarbitol and 10ccs of Haloperidol.

That's just what David Koresh said.

I woke up after a visit to Jerusalem and realised I was the reincarnation of King David and hence the mentioned stem of Jesse in The Bible. Armed with the fundamental truth that I was the son of God I tell you this:

Why would any body believe you because you say so or because anyone said so. We are not gullible stooges? An inevitable law of my nature is if someone says something that sounds like bs I say bs.

So now I'm being compared to Kavid Koresh, or someone who is delusional? You came in this thread at the tail end. Of course someone who doesn't know the first thing about the book would think it's all BS. I know it sounds crazy to say that all war and crime are coming to an end. But you have rushed to judgment like everybody else. The fact that you don't even have a single question makes me wonder about your intentions.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sidhe is apparently a physics student...I am pretty sure he'd be pissed off if he spent money on the book only to learn that Lessans claims that we see (gain information) faster than the speed of light, thereby negating the laws of physics.

What really?! I gain information way faster than that Information travels back in time and I gain it before it happens, which is why I knew you were going to say that, and that peacegirl was going to say that. Silly girl. And before you say time travel is hypothetical don't be a dink, shut up, because I knew you were thinking that too.

Seriously though if you could prove it it would be cool. However I don't think anyone can or has so its just hot air, or what we in the physical education medium technically term wordwank or in interwebese teh crackpottery. I presume he makes a philosophical argument to attest to this that most people think is a waste of everyone's time, hence it not being readily accepted by anyone except Peacegirl and her dad and some hippies with way too much time on their hands and some LSD and or some Buddhists. Hey science is a really harsh critic, Stephen Hawking once claimed (seriously) that light entering a black hole might exceed c, and everyone just called him a dick (I laughed at him and my monocle fell off, which is serious rebuking), and he was Stephen Hawking. Science has to be harsh or NASA would be working on perpetual motion machines, and antigravity beams or worse String Theory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

Doctor X, your little sidebars are funny because they are so wrong. I don't lie and cheat, and I'm doing nothing to preserve my ignorance. I told you I read the part of TLR essay that was relevant to the discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

What really?! I gain information way faster than that Information travels back in time and I gain it before it happens, which is why I knew you were going to say that, and that peacegirl was going to say that. Silly girl. And before you say time travel is hypothetical don't be a dink, shut up, because I knew you were thinking that too.

Seriously though if you could prove it it would be cool. However I don't think anyone can or has so its just hot air or what we in the physical education medium technically term wordwank or in interwebese teh crackpottery. I presume he makes a philosophical argument to attest to this that most people think is a waste of everyone's time, hence it not being readily accepted by anyone except Peacegirl and her dad. Hey science is a really harsh critic. It has to be or NASA would be working on perpetual motion machines, and antigravity beams or worse String Theory.

I never said we gain information faster than the speed of light. You don't even know what that chapter is about. How ridiculous is this whole thread becoming?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said we gain information faster than the speed of light. You don't even know what that chapter is about. How ridiculous is this whole thread becoming?

Give us a break I haven't had time nor the inclination to read it yet. I was just going by what someone else said.

Alright what does he claim then give me a synopsis?

I knew you were going to say that by the way, and yes before you ask your dad was not critiqued so harshly because people are so unfair, but because that's what peer review is. They are merciless bastards. My friend tried to get a paper published once on the mathematics of the Navier-Stokes equations, and how he thought smoothness and linearity might be unprovable, and their frightening use of logic and abstruse mathematical language was horrific. They told him also to I'm paraphrasing "go back to school" what they actually said was that he didn't know enough to advance such a posit and perhaps he should re-examine the subject in more depth. True story that. I actually did the LaTex support on the paper, because he had never used it before. it was my one shot at getting my name on a published article, and he blew it. I'm not even that good at LaTex, but life's so unfair. I have another friend who works at Imperial (London branch) as a Theoretical Mathmonerd, who said on me saying this, he's probably right, he'd been working on it for ten years and he was clueless. True story also. I'm rambling now, but science and philosophy and or maths are bastards is the point.

ETA:

And oh yeah this thread is so unfair, btw before you say that, bastard that it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Give us a break I haven't had time nor the inclination to read it yet. I was just going by what someone else said.

Alright what does he claim then give me a synopsis?

I'm not going to get back into that chapter because it goes in circles; they say he didn't prove anything because he didn't use empirical evidence. He was sharing his astute observations after years and years of study, but all they keep calling them are unsupported assertions. That's so wrong I could scream.

Originally Posted by sidhe

I knew you were going to say that by the way, and yes before you ask your dad was not critiqued so harshly because people are so unfair, but because that's what peer review is. They are merciless bastards. My friend tried to get a paper published once on the mathematics of the Navier-Stokes equations, and how he thought smoothness and linearity might be unprovable, and their frightening use of logic and abstruse mathematical language was horrific. They told him also to I'm paraphrasing "go back to school" what they actually said was that he didn't know enough to advance such a posit and perhaps he should re-examine the subject in more depth. True story that. I actually did the LaTex support on the paper, because he had never used it before. it was my one shot at getting my name on a published article, and he blew it. I'm not even that good at LaTex, but life's so unfair. I have another friend who works at Imperial (London branch) as a Theoretical Mathmonerd, who said on me saying this, he's probably right, he'd been working on it for ten years and he was clueless. True story also. I'm rambling now, but science and philosophy and or maths are bastards is the point.

ETA:

And oh yeah this thread is so unfair, btw before you say that, bastard that it is.

Well, my father didn't have to go back to school. He knew more on his subject matter than that of many Ph.Ds whom he had to confront knowing they would laugh him out the door since he only had a 7th grade education. Can you see what he was up against, and still is? The false accusations as to who this man was are astounding.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to get back into that chapter because it goes in circles; they say he didn't prove anything because he didn't use empirical evidence. He was sharing his astute observations after years and years of study, but all they keep calling them are unsupported assertions. That's so wrong I could scream.

Er no it isn't it's called the scientific method. Your father was peer reviewed found wanting and failed to make an impression. He could either go back to the drawing board and try and prove his claims or he could whine about it and say people are unfair and there's a conspiracy to keep him down or x. One of which is much more likely to make an impression the other likely to peg him as a crackpot. I'll save my sympathies for the former, ie those who strive for methodology over apologetics. You have got to prove it or it means nothing.

Well, my father didn't have to go back to school. He knew more on his subject matter than that of many Ph.Ds whom he had to confront knowing they would laugh him out the door since he only had a 7th grade education. Can you see what he was up against, and still is? The false accusations as to who he was is astounding.

In that case what did he expect? People spend 10 long years studying at college, then at University, then doing a PhD and post doctorate research, plodding through the halls of academia only to be snubbed by their peers and told to basically get bent, having spent those ten years of hard graft earning their spurs, to get the finger because their hypothesis was judged rubbish by a number of Experts. Why the hell should they or the peers who review people have any sympathy for an arm chair general, and more especially why should he be afforded preferential treatment. If he had a point he would of been able to prove it, if he couldn't who cares. History is full of embittered people who lost out to better ideas, with more evidence and more erudite efficacy. Tough titties I say.

The only thing that wins the Nobel prizes is being right, or more importantly being able to prove you are. Talk is cheap.

EDIT:

By the way he does spend the first dozen or so pages trying to establish that the scientific establishment are tyrannical and overly keen to bar ideas that conflict with the establishment. This is not a good start. Whilst I might sympathise that sometimes conservatives in science do hold more sway than perhaps they should and some good areas of research are neglected because of it. I wouldn't start an argument with that fact, it tends to put people on the defensive, and ironically despite being a plea bargain to be heard, it sets off the crackpot alarm even more swiftly than the theoretical claim that there is a vast conspiracy to keep your ideas down, that tends to label you as a nut bar too, which the stalwart guardians of science are less threatened by.