A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Here is Lessans original puzzle

Originally Posted by Lessans

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do understand the conditions of the puzzle.

Then name the condition you missed, and that Ceptimus was not made aware of until after the first two solutions were offered.

I had forgotten about it until I went to look up the exact quote from Lessans, which I quoted above, and that's when I notified Ceptimus he had been given incomplete instructions.

The condition is there in the quote.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the puzzle goes, I never worked on it but Lessans did.

I never tried to work a solution to the puzzle myself, but at least I made an effort to understand the puzzle. Did you even do that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with my understanding of the actual discovery. You're trying very hard to discredit me, but you can't.

Why don't you understand the puzzle now that I have brought this to your attention? It makes you look a little foolish that you can't even explain it in your own words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There have to be 105 blocks or letters divided equally between A and 0 in groups of three such that no letter is ever twice with the same letter.

Nope, you are missing a condition. And you are using Lessans confusing wording. Can you or can you not explain the terms of the puzzle in your own words?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't care. His "observation" are unobserved by anyone else. Lessans was a deluded little man who lived in his own little world.

If you can't figure out a way for people to see with "efferent vision" instead of the vision as explained by modern science then you got nuthin. And your insistence on quoting Lessans just makes the both of you look like nut jobs.

Then you're not really interested because if you were you wouldn't say what you're saying. You would want to understand his explanation. You have no clue why man's will is not free, according to Lessans. That's why you find greater satisfaction in making him the one with the problem.

[LadyShea]

You are absolutely wrong when you say he uses fallacious reasoning.

No, I am not. You don't understand the modal fallacy. Hint: understanding modal auxiliary verbs and their specific functions and definitions is a big part of it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true. Sometimes people make choices that they know aren't good for them, but they still get greater satisfaction in choosing them. We all see this when people take drugs. They know that what they're doing isn't good for them but they do it anyway because they get more satisfaction getting high than staying sober. When they go through enough misery, the satisfaction of staying sober may outweigh the satisfaction of getting high. Our choices change from moment to moment depending on our circumstances and what we're basing our choices on.

If you are telling me that when people make a choice they have a preference then so what? The exercise of a choice is the application of a preference. You can redefine this to mean there was "greater satisfaction" but this is zero information. And it is not a "discovery".

It's just obvious useless information.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then you're not really interested because if you were you wouldn't say what you're saying. You would want to understand his explanation. You have no clue why man's will is not free, according to Lessans. That's why you find greater satisfaction in making him the one with the problem.

At one time I was interested. But not anymore. I've seen enough of you and Lessans chasing your own tails. Now it is just stupid. Your stubbornness is ridiculous if not mentally deranged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is Lessans original puzzle

Then name the condition you missed, and that Ceptimus was not made aware of until after the first two solutions were offered.

I had forgotten about it until I went to look up the exact quote from Lessans, which I quoted above, and that's when I notified Ceptimus he had been given incomplete instructions.

The condition is there in the quote.

The 7 lines? That's the only thing I left out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the puzzle goes, I never worked on it but Lessans did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I never tried to work a solution to the puzzle myself, but at least I made an effort to understand the puzzle. Did you even do that?

No, I'm not interested in puzzles. This has no bearing on whether I understand the discovery. You are setting up an artificial condition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with my understanding of the actual discovery. You're trying very hard to discredit me, but you can't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you understand the puzzle now that I have brought this to your attention? It makes you look a little foolish that you can't even explain it in your own words.

You'll have to explain it. I wouldn't tell you if I knew because you are putting me on the spot for one reason only, and that is to make me look foolish.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There have to be 105 blocks or letters divided equally between A and 0 in groups of three such that no letter is ever twice with the same letter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, you are missing a condition. And you are using Lessans confusing wording. Can you or can you not explain the terms of the puzzle in your own words?

I have no idea what you want from me. There isn't much wording to rearrange that would turn it into my own words. The only thing I didn't put in there is that there are seven lines, which I thought was arbitrary.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you understand the puzzle now that I have brought this to your attention? It makes you look a little foolish that you can't even explain it in your own words.

If the puzzle is unimportant to the supposed "discovery" then why present it at all? It doesn't make Lessans look like a mathematician. At best just someone who liked puzzles. Who cares? Lots of people like puzzles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

At one time I was interested. But not anymore. I've seen enough of you and Lessans chasing your own tails. Now it is just stupid. Your stubbornness is ridiculous if not mentally deranged.

So move on natural.atheist, you're not handcuffed here. Find a different thread that is more interesting. I never did understand why people would stay if it's gotten boring.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If the puzzle is unimportant to the supposed "discovery" then why present it at all? It doesn't make Lessans look like a mathematician. At best just someone who liked puzzles. Who cares? Lots of people like puzzles.

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I am not. You don't understand the modal fallacy. Hint: understanding modal auxiliary verbs and their specific functions and definitions is a big part of it.

Please don't speak in generalizations because then I won't be able to pinpoint where his auxiliary verbs and their "functions and definitions" caused his explanation to be wrong. So be more specific.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If you are telling me that when people make a choice they have a preference then so what? The exercise of a choice is the application of a preference. You can redefine this to mean there was "greater satisfaction" but this is zero information. And it is not a "discovery".

It's just obvious useless information.

It is far from useless natural.atheist. If we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, it renders all other choices an impossibility because all of the other choices, at that moment, would have given less satisfaction, and we cannot move in this direction when a more satisfying alternative is available. But you have to remember that what I find as more satisfying may not be what others judge to be the best choice. Do you understand what I just explained? This doesn't explain why this knowledge is not useless, but we have to go step by step. First, you have to understand his definition of determinism before we can move on.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

Accurate only in his own mind. Nobody else appear to be able to see with "efferent vision". And believe me, if I could see efferently I would jump at it. The ability to see astronomical events long before they reached the earth is worth at least 2 or 3 Nobel prizes.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't speak in generalizations because then I won't be able to pinpoint where his auxiliary verbs and their "functions and definitions" caused his explanation to be wrong. So be more specific.

I'm not sure you have the mental ability to do this, but you could start with looking up the modal fallacy. And then understanding it. From there you will find hundreds if not thousands of modal errors that Lessans makes as easily as breathing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is far from useless natural.atheist. If we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, it renders all other choices an impossibility because all of the other choices, at that moment, would have given less satisfaction, and we cannot move in this direction when a more satisfying alternative is available. But you have to remember that what I find as more satisfying may not be what others judge to be the best choice. Do you understand what I just explained? This doesn't explain why this knowledge is not useless, but we have to go step by step. First, you have to understand his definition of determinism before we can move on.

Here is an example of the modal fallacy. Yes people can make choices they find satisfying. But they can also make choices that they do not find satisfying. So saying "we can only..." is wrong. Because people have and do make choices they do not find satisfying.

Lessans does this so much that it looks like he had some sort of congenital mental problem where he "could only" think in fallacies. And it appears he gave it to you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Nobody else appear to be able to see with "efferent vision". And believe me, if I could see efferently I would jump at it. The ability to see astronomical events long before they reached the earth is worth at least 2 or 3 Nobel prizes.

Exactly. Man, I'd practically kill for the ability to see the way that peacegirl thinks we see.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So move on natural.atheist, you're not handcuffed here. Find a different thread that is more interesting. I never did understand why people would stay if it's gotten boring.

I didn't say I was bored. It's become more interesting. I'm trying to verify that you are mentally deranged by spotting patterns that indicate illness. The more you post the more I have to go on. What makes it more interesting is that it could be congenital.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The 7 lines? That's the only thing I left out.

What specifically about the 7 lines?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not interested in puzzles. This has no bearing on whether I understand the discovery. You are setting up an artificial condition.

It speaks to whether you understand the words Lessans used and how he phrased things. Your interest in the puzzle isn't the issue, whether you can explain it is a big issue. Hint: it's badly written so the conditions are not clear.

How can anyone trust that you understand the discovery when you can't even parse a couple of his sentences?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to explain it. I wouldn't tell you if I knew because you are putting me on the spot for one reason only, and that is to make me look foolish.

You look foolish because you are unable to answer.

Again how can anyone trust that you understand the discovery when you can't even parse a couple of sentences?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you want from me. There isn't much wording to rearrange that would turn it into my own words.

I want you to rewrite the puzzle in clearer terms. If you understand the conditions, you should be able to do this easily. It's not about "rearranging" words...it's about using synonyms or using different phrasing. Hint: it's badly written as is so the conditions are not clear.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing I didn't put in there is that there are seven lines, which I thought was arbitrary.

There is a condition having to do with the 7 lines that is not arbitrary.

I thought it was arbitrary too, until I reread what Lessans wrote and saw what I had missed originally, or forgotten.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I didn't say I was bored. It's become more interesting. I'm trying to verify that you are mentally deranged by spotting patterns that indicate illness. The more you post the more I have to go on. What makes it more interesting is that it could be congenital.

I would think that after 400+ pages there would be plenty of material for any good psychologist or psychiatrist to work with, the specific clues and patterns are probably already hidden in the existing dialogue. If you want to keep fishing, your call, she can be pretty slippery when you try to pin her down.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't speak in generalizations because then I won't be able to pinpoint where his auxiliary verbs and their "functions and definitions" caused his explanation to be wrong. So be more specific.

Modal verb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* epistemic, concerned with the theoretical possibility of propositions being true or not true (including likelihood, and certainty); and
* deontic, concerned with possibility and necessity in terms of freedom to act (including ability, permission, and duty)

The following sentences illustrate the two uses of must:

* epistemic: You must be starving. (= "It is necessarily the case that you are starving.")
* deontic: You must leave now. (= "You are required to leave now.")
* ambiguous: You must speak Spanish.
o epistemic = "It is surely the case that you speak Spanish (e.g., after having lived in Spain for ten years)."
o deontic = "It is a requirement that you speak Spanish (e.g., if you want to get a job in Spain)."

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I would think that after 400+ pages there would be plenty of material for any good psychologist or psychiatrist to work with, the specific clues and patterns are probably already hidden in the existing dialogue. If you want to keep fishing, your call, she can be pretty slippery when you try to pin her down.

Maybe, but to verify a particular pattern of thought will take some deliberate experiments.

[naturalist.atheist]

When you think about it Lessans was a moron no matter how you slice it. If he did indeed have "efferent vision" he could have easily gotten a hearing with the president. Simply being able to spot solar flares 8 minutes before they reached the earth would be worth a fortune. The world has spent billions trying to get that information. All he would have to do is start calling flares before the fact and eventually people would figure out he was on to something and the authorities would want to speak with Lessans whether he wanted to speak with them or not. And that is just solar flares. Image having a vision that could view objects billions of light years away and see the object as if it were right in your face. Lessans could have had the recognition of scientists all over the world. And even if they didn't believe him all he would have to do is write those observations down. They would be future gold, because when science caught up to what Lessans was able to see with his "efferent vision" he would become the subject of constant speculation and everybody would read his silly book trying to figure out his confused babbling.

But either what he wrote was all nonsense, or he didn't understand what he had.

Either way, he was a moron.

[LadyShea]

Need some assistance?

Each of the 7 lines is required to have A-O

Using some form of must (compelled, can only) wrt possible choices, is fallacious reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Accurate only in his own mind. Nobody else appear to be able to see with "efferent vision". And believe me, if I could see efferently I would jump at it. The ability to see astronomical events long before they reached the earth is worth at least 2 or 3 Nobel prizes.

He wasn't interested in Nobel Prizes; just the truth.

[LadyShea]

What he is saying is that if efferent vision was observed (it hasn't been) and could be tested and evidenced, all living scientists would be on it, competing for the first to demonstrate it and win fame and fortune.

It hasn't been observed, except apparently by Lessans. If he had observed apples falling straight up you would be in the same boat.