A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by liminus

Hello, hello, hello.

PG, in regards to this real-time sight business.

One light-minute (18 million km) away from me is a light which can shine either red or blue.

The light switches on shining red. According to you, I will instantly see it as red even though no red light has reached me yet.

After one minute, the red light reaches me, and I will definitely see it as red whether in your real-time sight scenario or in the standard sight scenario. There is now an 18 million km-long beam of red light between me and the light source.

Now, the light switches to shine blue. What do I see? According to you, I instantly see the light shining blue. However the blue light will not reach me for one minute and for that whole minute, the beam of still-travelling red light will still be streaming into my eyes. So do I see red light? Do I see blue light?

Do I see purple light?

Thanks.

Hello Liminus, Welcome to the forum, and now for a thoroughly ridiculous and possably stupid suggestion, you could read the whole 352 pages of the thread, hopefully you could retain your sanity. Or you could read the book, same qualifier on that one. If I can figure out how I would send the PDF copy I have on my computer, but I'm not that good with the stupid machine yet.

PS, a caution don't read too much of the book or thread at one time, your brain could go blind.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hello Liminus, Welcome to the forum, and now for a thoroughly ridiculous and possably stupid suggestion, you could read the whole 352 pages of the thread, hopefully you could retain your sanity. Or you could read the book, same qualifier on that one. If I can figure out how I would send the PDF copy I have on my computer, but I'm not that good with the stupid machine yet.

PS, a caution don't read too much of the book or thread at one time, your brain could go blind.

That link you sent me by pm has a large amount of pages from the book you could link that.

To answer his question though of course since the information never travels through space or time and instantaneously arrives at your brain for interpretation any human observer will always see whatever colour the source is and that alone. A machine placed in the beam (at any point between the observer and source) would of course see either blue or red which teaches us nothing and makes the assertion still hopelessly unprovable. The fact is experiments using radio telescopes record light as blue or red shifted and light appears to attenuate according to the motion of the source, which is why peacegirls so far unsubstantiated opinion is just that. We see things not as they are in experiment but as they were, and we see effects as they are affected in real time by their motion from the source. If we did not then science is broken and all the evidence is a grand illusion. This is what she is suggesting, that science is just in its entirety utterly wrong. Problem is of course that means we cannot use the scientific method to explore this and so it has to be taken on faith. And faith is dangerously unconvincing to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You obviously don't understand what a tautology is, because yes, it is one. It's a textbook example as a matter of fact.

You are wrong LadyShea. Yes, it can be made into a tautology, but that is not the proof, so stop trying to discredit this knowledge. Give it up already.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you know this, which is why you refuse to lay out the argument syllogistically.

Because it's not a syllogistic argument.

You keep going back to epistomology, and according to you the only way to prove something is to set up a hypothesis.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Epistomology is a branch of philosophy. Are you saying Lessans employed philosophy? If so, then lets see the very sound reasoning.

No, he employed a mathematical standard.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only ways to provide evidence for a "universal law" (such as the laws of physics) is through scientific methodology or mathematical proof. If you don't have either of those, what are you left with?

Empirical testing.

THAT IS NOT HOW HE CAME TO HIS CONCLUSIONS, YET THEY ARE UNDENIABLE.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

But proving it through empirical testing (the proof of the pudding I always referred to) will make it so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you/Lessans can't argue well enough to convince me, how can you hope to convince real scientists or world leaders?

I have no clue. I believe your pseudo-scientific expertise is getting you into trouble.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no clue. I believe your pseudo-scientific expertise is getting you into trouble.

There are people here who do understand the science you are welcome to convince me if you like. Showing me some experiments would be a start. What experiments have you or anyone done?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But proving it through empirical testing (the proof of the pudding I always referred to) will make it so.

Wait a minute, not even a page ago I said:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans conclusion about mans will not being free may be absolutely true, but A)he did not present a falsifiable scientific hypothesis that can be tested

and you responded:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

according to you the only way to prove something is to set up a hypothesis. THAT IS NOT HOW HE CAME TO HIS CONCLUSIONS, YET THEY ARE UNDENIABLE.

So is it falsifiable via testing or not? If it is, there must be a scientific hypothesis that can be tested

What is the hypothesis to be tested in chapter 1, and what kinds of empirical tests could be run to demonstrate that man's will is not free because he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no clue. I believe your pseudo-scientific expertise is getting you into trouble.

You want us to swallow some unexplainable renewable consciousness but I am the one with troublesome pseudoscientific beliefs.

You want leading scientists and world leaders to read and understand this book, and put its principles into worldwide use, but their inevitable demands for evidence would be considered equivalent to asking chimpanzees to do math.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You want leading scientists and world leaders to read and understand this book, and put it's principles into worldwide use, but their inevitable demands for evidence would be considered equivalent to asking chimpanzees to do math.

It sounds like Lessans was intillectually so far above everyone else that his ideas were incomprehensable, which would explain much about the book. However I think a more apt description is that he is far out on a limb and is sawing it off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But proving it through empirical testing (the proof of the pudding I always referred to) will make it so.

Wait a minute, not even a page ago I said:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans conclusion about mans will not being free may be absolutely true, but A)he did not present a falsifiable scientific hypothesis that can be tested

and you responded:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

according to you the only way to prove something is to set up a hypothesis. THAT IS NOT HOW HE CAME TO HIS CONCLUSIONS, YET THEY ARE UNDENIABLE.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So is it falsifiable via testing or not? If it is, there must be a scientific hypothesis that can be tested

IT'S NOT A HYPOTHESIS, BUT IT CAN BE TESTED.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the hypothesis to be tested in chapter 1, and what kinds of empirical tests could be run to demonstrate that man's will is not free because he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Before you even ask that question LadyShea, you must understand his demonstration, which you have never understood. I can't talk to you because of this wedge between us. You act too good for your bridges, and you won't accept that you could be wrong. I can't deal with it, I'm sorry. I'm tired of the arrogance in here.

[Kael]

What demonstration? He never demonstrated anything. At best, he gave a description. That is not the same thing as a demonstration. Or is this like where you/he use 'mathematical' and 'scientific' when there is no math or science involved at all?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

PS, a caution don't read too much of the book or thread at one time, your brain could go blind.

That link you sent me by pm has a large amount of pages from the book you could link that.
.[/QUOTE]


These might help,

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The ... - Google Books

and this review was interesting,

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

Though obviously Peacegirl doesn't like it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Where, specifically, in Lessans book did he explain who, what, where, when or how he made these observations? Without showing the facts to the reader, the conclusions he makes are unsupported.

This has been explained to you before, but you refuse to see this.

Just pointing out the question that you seemed to have missed.....

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before you even ask that question LadyShea, you must understand his demonstration, which you have never understood. I can't talk to you because of this wedge between us. You act too good for your bridges, and you won't accept that you could be wrong. I can't deal with it, I'm sorry. I'm tired of the arrogance in here.

I know that nobody can run scientifically valid tests without a testable hypothesis. I know that "greater satisfaction" is neither measurable or quantifiable empirically. That's all I need to understand

And talk about too big for your britches arrogance! You are the one who claims to have an Undeniable Truth to bless us with and won't even consider that Lessans might have been wrong.

IT'S NOT A HYPOTHESIS, BUT IT CAN BE TESTED.

Great, HOW can it be tested?

And why isn't it a hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Webster's

a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait a minute, not even a page ago I said:

and you responded:

So is it falsifiable via testing or not? If it is, there must be a scientific hypothesis that can be tested

What is the hypothesis to be tested in chapter 1, and what kinds of empirical tests could be run to demonstrate that man's will is not free because he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction?

I told you already. Under changed conditions no one in the entire world (thus, a universal law) could desire to strike someone with a first blow. THIS CAN BE TESTED EMPIRICALLY BUT IT'S NOT EASY TO COME BY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT. IF WILL WAS FREE, THE TEST WOULD FAIL.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know that nobody can run scientifically valid tests without a testable hypothesis. I know that "greater satisfaction" is neither measurable or quantifiable empirically. That's all I need to understand

And talk about too big for your britches arrogance! You are the one who claims to have an Undeniable Truth to bless us with and won't even consider that Lessans might have been wrong.

But he isn't wrong. So should I fake it LadyShea just to please you?

IT'S NOT A HYPOTHESIS, BUT IT CAN BE TESTED.

Great, HOW can it be tested?

And why isn't it a hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Webster's

a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

IT'S NOT AN ASSUMPTION. YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT HE WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. HE WAS RIGHT WHETHER YOU SEE IT OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! IT WILL BE PROVEN ONE DAY THROUGH EMPIRICAL TESTING THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS CLAIMS WAS SPOT ON.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already. Under changed conditions no one in the entire world (thus, a universal law) could desire to strike someone with a first blow. THIS CAN BE TESTED EMPIRICALLY BUT IT'S NOT EASY TO COME BY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT. IF WILL WAS FREE, THE TEST WOULD FAIL.

So the only way to test it is to implement it worldwide? Basically the only way to prove it true is to assume it's true? That's not very practical, and certainly not scientific or mathematical.

In fact, that's absurd.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IT'S NOT AN ASSUMPTION. YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT HE WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. HE WAS RIGHT WHETHER YOU SEE IT OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! IT WILL BE PROVEN ONE DAY THROUGH EMPIRICAL TESTING THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS CLAIMS WAS SPOT ON.

No, it won't be proven. You are deluded. And now you are raving. Are you going to sue someone out of frustration?

[LadyShea]

I just think people in arrogant glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I am not wrong. Should I fake it just to please you?

[thedoc]

Q. - What would you call Lessans sitting on a tree limb with several chimpanzees?

A. - Branch manager.

And if he had a saw, it would be his retirement party.

Sorry that was the wrong answer, actually
A. - Janitor, - but the part about the saw is still good.

[Vivisectus]

Should I fake it just to please you?

uhuhu huhuhuhu uhuhuhuhuhu

[Doctor X]

* * * * *


--J.D.

[thedoc]

sorry my bad.

[liminus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hello liminus, what brings you here to ?

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hello Liminus, Welcome to the forum, and now for a thoroughly ridiculous and possably stupid suggestion, you could read the whole 352 pages of the thread, hopefully you could retain your sanity. Or you could read the book, same qualifier on that one. If I can figure out how I would send the PDF copy I have on my computer, but I'm not that good with the stupid machine yet.

PS, a caution don't read too much of the book or thread at one time, your brain could go blind.

Hey guys, thanks for the welcome!

Some spontaneous googling brought me here; I remember PG from her 10,000-post thread "New Discovery" on IIDB (now FRDB) 3 years ago. I was randomly reading bits of it the other day and thought I'd see if PG was still going on another forum, and of course discovered this latest gargantuan train-wreck. I haven't read much of it but random sampling has confirmed that the conversation is virtually identical to the one I remember.

I wasn't heavily involved in the FRDB thread but I've read the book (except for the elusive 10th chapter) and I've seen people try, over the span of about 9 months in the end, to explain to PG how light and sight work. I don't really care about the rest of it, it's the insane denial of completely understood physics (and biology) that I find fascinating.

Also, Hello Peacegirl! Dunno if you remember me but I could hardly forget you! How are you? Have you actually been doing this over and over on various forums for the last 3 years since FRDB? I know you were at it for at least 3 years before that. It's like you're frozen in time or something.

I would like you to take a look at my last post (#8799 on p352) and have a go at answering it, if you don't mind. Red light? Blue light? Purple? Ta very much.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by liminus

. . . but I've read the book (except for the elusive 10th chapter)

See there? If you HAD, then you would know sight is efferent, we see things simultaneously, and a good woman lets me boff her on the kitchen table after she has made me some bacon and eggs!

--J.D.

P.S. Welcome to
P.P.S. Two drink minimum. . . .

[LadyShea]

Seriously peacegirl, you wonder why I am concerned about your stress levels should you continue posting here?

You assume we are super angry and feeling hatred towards you, and really nobody here EXCEPT YOU is feeling any such strong emotions.

We are bemused mostly, along with some frustration at our valid questions and critiques bouncing off a stone edifice.