A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, he was a deep thinker and spent most of his adult life analyzing and reanalyzing what he had discovered.

Why should we believe you? His writing is the only evidence we have for the quality of his thinking and that evidence suggests that his thinking was shallow and delusional.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never said you just need to agree with Lessans.

Actually, you have said just that, repeatedly. Again and again you have insisted that we can't move on in the discussion of his book unless we accept his claims. You want us to suspend our disbelief. Disbelief suspended is belief. This works fine if one is reading fantasy fiction, but you don't want us to put Lessans' work in that category.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see anybody taking him seriously.

There is a very good reason for that. No one is taking him seriously. I congratulate you on your astute observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to be a good prosecutor, but you have nothing that bears out what you're convicting him of.

That's alright then, because in the post to which you are responding Vivisectus is building a case against you, not Lessans. You have a remarkable inability to distinguish between criticism directed at you and criticism directed at your father. Identify much?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that was the case then this whole thread would be a total sham.

Not just a sham, but a ShamWow! Which it is, and has been, pretty much from page 1.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, he was a deep thinker and spent most of his adult life analyzing and reanalyzing what he had discovered.

But you're totally wrong Angakuk, and if you give up on this book, you'll never find another like it, nor will the answers that you so desperately are searching for. That's the sad part of all of this.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why should we believe you? His writing is the only evidence we have for the quality of his thinking and that evidence suggests that his thinking was shallow and delusional.

I'm not telling you to believe me. But you will have to study the book, and that means you'll have to buy it because I refuse to put it online and let it be corrupted the way it has. If you don't know by now, this has nothing to do with money. I make less then a buck off of this book and it's costed me thousands upon thousands of dollars to get it produced. It will take thousands of books for me to break even, so don't worry about me living off the proceeds any time soon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never said you just need to agree with Lessans.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, you have said just that, repeatedly. Again and again you have insisted that we can't move on in the discussion of his book unless we accept his claims. You want us to suspend our disbelief. Disbelief suspended is belief. This works fine if one is reading fantasy fiction, but you don't want us to put Lessans' work in that category.

I'm saying that you will need to follow the principles to see how these principles can and do work in real life, or we are at a total standstill.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see anybody taking him seriously.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There is a very good reason for that. No one is taking him seriously. I congratulate you on your astute observation.

After all my effort, I am blue in the face. If you still can't even give him an ounce of grace to just see where this leads, then leave. What I observe is your recalcitrant demeanor, and you've exhausted every avenue I have attempted in order to help you understand. So find a thread that is more to your liking. I won't hold it against you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to be a good prosecutor, but you have nothing that bears out what you're convicting him of.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That's alright then, because in the post to which you are responding Vivisectus is building a case against you, not Lessans. You have a remarkable inability to distinguish between criticism directed at you and criticism directed at your father. Identify much?

Angakuk, that doesn't fly. I am representing my father and you know it, so if someone is building a case against me, please don't play a game that they aren't building a case against him.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that was the case then this whole thread would be a total sham.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Not just a sham, but a ShamWow! Which it is, and has been, pretty much from page 1.

No, there is no other ShamWow then the actual product that bears the name:

ShamWow (Full Length) - YouTube

. Just goes to show how deceptive one can be, just so he can be called the winner.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, that doesn't fly. I am representing my father and you know it, so if someone is building a case against me, please don't play a game that they aren't building a case against him.

Go back and reread Vivisectus' post. It is almost exclusively about you and how badly you represent yourself and Lessans. He was not building a case against Lessans. He has done that successfully elsewhere. He was describing, in excruciating detail, how badly you fail at what you are trying to accomplish here. For once it is all about you. Revel in the attention.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just goes to show how deceptive one can be, just so [s]he can be called the winner.

What a marvelously apt commentary on your posting history. I again congratulate you on yet another astute observation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Dishonest and dumb. Quite an unattractive comination.

Not the sort of double-Ds ol' Seymour had in mind when he wrote Chapter 5, eh?

[Vivisectus]

No explanation given, of course.

Funny isn't it? Almost as if I am mimicking someone who does that all the time...

Not at all.

ponderous copypasta removed.

Ah I see! Lessans said it wasn't oversimplified, so that settles it for you. Not at all just like I have been trying to tell you - you treat your father as the definitive authority on everything, this is a bit of an idee fixe for you.

We are compelled to respond to an environment in a completely different way than we respond to this environment. It is 180 degree turnaround. And I never said my kids don't believe in it.

Exactly - and this new environment comes about when everyone believes Lessans. I am glad we agree.

But they don't, now do they?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That, and reincarnation. Because of personal pronouns and the way we describe time using language. If you follow the simple rules of the book.

They aren't the rules of the book; they are the rules of keen observation and sound reason.[/QUOTE]

The book claims that they are, sure. And if everyone believes it and follows it, you claim universal happiness ensues. This is the promise part that most religions have in common - they claim that universal benignity and happiness would follow, if only everyone followed the rules. Then they usually also include some excuse as to why it is not like that now.

I know exactly what "relations" mean.

In the book it is a handwaving technique. It really means "principles as defined in this book" but "relations" sounds more mathsy, so it is used to try to usurp some of the authority that your father felt Math held.

I refuse to continue this conversation if this is all you're offering. You aren't even giving valid reasons for your point of view. You're just telling me he's wrong because that's your belief.

These fallacies have been carefully pointed out, and all you had in response was "no it isn't". You have been consistently unable to refute that they ARE fallacies, so they stand. You have also admitted that the claims were unsupported - you said, and I quote, that human conscience "just works that way" and that the claims were based on "Astute observations"... observations to which we are not privy. It is not belief, it is opinion, and opinion that is well-supported and backed by reason.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just need to agree with Lessans, and has the answers to everything. Also it allows her to believe that her father was the wise, humble, saintly scholar that he liked to portray himself as, and not just a rather eccentric man who fancied himself a philosopher and scientist, but was not very good at either of those two things.

You give no explanation; just more of the same. You have no idea what logical error you believe he committed.

I have pointed out the logical errors in great detail, and you have not been able to refute them. The fact that you just stick your head in the sand and pretend it never happened is not my problem, but yours.

There is no evidence that discredits Lessans' observations that man's will is not free.

There is no evidence to discredit the idea that mans will IS free either. Does that make it true?

However, the argument in favor of unfree will that Lessans posited is flawed. It confuses that which happens with that which must happen, as I have already carefully explained.

I feel hostility toward Lessans and me. I didn't claim persecution.

You claim the hostility is the reason people do not agree. That is claiming persecution.

I've said this before but you must have conveniently forgotten. I studied this knowledge for myself. I did not just depend on what Lessans said, although in his defense I know he thought in mathematical terms and would never have made such huge claims if he wasn't sure that his premises were correct.

You just repeated that you believe he is right because you cannot imagine that he could have been wrong.

You must have missed an earlier remark that sharing this knowledge is strictly due to my own understanding. Get it?

You just repeated that you cannot imagine him being wrong about anything, ever. So you ARE aware of what you are doing. You just do not want to face that that is what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And so there is. It is about as large as the very real but also infinitely small chance that I stand of spontaneously floating towards the ceiling right now, for instance. For practical purposes we can rule it out.

Another one is to move the goalposts. This is where sight is not information, or that since nothing moves in direct sight (actually an even bigger contradiction of physics that faster-than-light sight, but that aside) information has not travelled and therefor there is no breech of causality. Also, apparently that what babies see is not real sight. The vague shapes and shadows we can generate using a camera and a specialized chip attached to the retina is not real sight either.

I did not move any goalposts; nor am I waffling, struggling, ignoring, re-defining [incorrectly], or handwaving. Once again, no explanations given, just accusations.

I have pointed out again and again just where yo waffled and moved the goalposts. If you need a reminder, just look back for newborn sight, eye-prosthetics, and cameras.

No goalposts have been moved, and no sight information gained by a bionic eye that uses a camera to send images to the brain has been perfected. You are now beginning to blather.

They do not have to be perfect to completely contradict what Lessans was saying. They merely have to work. No Blather - I can clearly and concisely explain just what I mean, like I just did.

Can't argue that reality remains the same. The question is whose?

Opinions are not all equal. Some are backed up by good reasons to believe them correct, others are not. When it turns out that newborns are born blind and cameras show a different picture than the human eye I will revise my opinion, no problem.

Again and again all you do is argue with no concrete refutation.

I have given them at length previously. Simply look them up and see if you can do better this time. If you want I can get you started on a few points that you never cleared up. In fact I think I listed a few below.

Um, I don't think so. You have decided that this book should be trashed, and all this has been for you is a case study to support your belief that I'm invested in a fairytale. So much for objectivity.

Objectivity does not mean you defer coming to a decision infinitely. Unless something comes up to support this book - though it would be hard to see how it could - my considered opinion is that it is the work of a man who considered himself a scholar, mystic and philosopher but was none of these things.

Yes it does.

This is why I am still talking to you. I have never met anyone who answers a "No! U! doesn't work" accusation with a "Does too!"

No they can't.

Never said they did.

That is yet to be determined.

No one said good and evil can be broken down into a simple yes/no statement.

No one said it could.

Only time will tell.

We have very much reason to believe that advance blame allows for advance justification.

Nice list of yes they do's. You still have not refuted any of these by the way. Shall we have another stab at getting you to understand the problem of direct sight and cameras? The one were cameras just record light?

If you are in such complete disagreement, why are you here? I really am clear on your take of me and this book. I don't need to hear more of the same. Unless you have a valid question, I am afraid that I will be skipping over any more of your posts because they offer nothing to the conversation and are taking up too much of my time.

Because you are so fascinatingly blind (or are you really? I wonder sometimes...) to the transparently dishonest way in which you try to deny the enormous pile of evidence that all point in one direction: your father just thought he was a wise scholar, mystic and philosopher. He wasn't, but he never gave up his delusion. And now here we have you, defending a dead mans delusion as if it is your own, because you have come to share it. I wish you could stop. I think you would be happier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That's alright then, because in the post to which you are responding Vivisectus is building a case against you, not Lessans. You have a remarkable inability to distinguish between criticism directed at you and criticism directed at your father. Identify much?

Angakuk, that doesn't fly. I am representing my father and you know it, so if someone is building a case against me, please don't play a game that they aren't building a case against him.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Go back and reread Vivisectus' post. It is almost exclusively about you and how badly you represent yourself and Lessans. He was not building a case against Lessans. He has done that successfully elsewhere. He was describing, in excruciating detail, how badly you fail at what you are trying to accomplish here. For once it is all about you. Revel in the attention.

I have not failed. It's humorous that people actually think they are in a position to judge this book yet no one can explain his discovery, not even in a rough draft. FYI, I'm not reveling in this kind of attention. Just another sneaky way of describing me in a negative light so everyone will snicker.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just goes to show how deceptive one can be, just so [s]he can be called the winner.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What a marvelously apt commentary on your posting history. I again congratulate you on yet another astute observation.

I will say the same thing to you as I did to Vivisectus. If you don't have a valid question, there's no point in communicating. Now that you and Vivisectus are showing your reasons for being here, there's not too many people left to keep this discussion going. If no new people come forward, this thread will close because I am not going to continue being on the defensive, with nothing to show for it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They have nothing to do with whether this discovery is genuine. Why are stooping so low LadyShea? What is it with you that you would judge this book by my children's interest?

It is my stance that ANY non insane person who read this book and believed it contains the knowledge of how to achieve world peace would be helping you in some capacity. If I believed it, I would be helping you.

Originally Posted by pecaegirl

This has nothing to do with anything. You are so off track that I am without words. My children are busy people.
They were not there when my father made this discovery so they are once removed. It's not that they aren't interested, but they have their own personal goals, and they deserve to work toward them. That being said, they would never let this discovery fall by the wayside if something happened to me, but they are not responsible for what only God (a force beyond our individual wishes) can do. I can vouch for that. That should be enough to quell your angst that my family doesn't support me, or believe in this knowledge.

Really this makes no sense. ANY non insane person who read this book and believed it contains the knowledge of how to achieve world peace would be helping you in some capacity. If I believed it, I would be helping you.

[LadyShea]

If you don't have a valid question, there's no point in communicating. Now that you and Vivisectus are showing your reasons for being here, there's not too many people left to keep this discussion going. If no new people come forward, this thread will close because I am not going to continue being on the defensive, with nothing to show for it.

You've said this a dozen times. Just either leave or stay.

[Vivisectus]

I distinctly remember linking to a detailed study into newborn sight by the way. Did you not read it so that you could continue to deny that newborns can see? The result was, perplexedly enough, that they seem to be less well able to see yellow. Why yellow? We do not yet know, but I am sure someone will try to find out.

They most certainly can see, so at least on this point Lessans was wrong, despite all his reading and analyzing. And yet you just denied it again here:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus
that babies can see, that dogs can recognize people on photographs,

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they can't.

This is one of the cases were the empirical tests ARE in, and they show that Lessans was wrong.

Cue dodging having to admit this in 1... 2... 3...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They aren't the rules of the book; they are the rules of keen observation and sound reason.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book claims that they are, sure. And if everyone believes it and follows it, you claim universal happiness ensues. This is the promise part that most religions have in common - they claim that universal benignity and happiness would follow, if only everyone followed the rules. Then they usually also include some excuse as to why it is not like that now.

This is no different than any guiding principle intended to lead someone in a positive direction.

I know exactly what "relations" mean.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the book it is a handwaving technique. It really means "principles as defined in this book" but "relations" sounds more mathsy, so it is used to try to usurp some of the authority that your father felt Math held.

You're so wrong about my father, it's disheartening. They are principles that are based on mathematical (undeniable) relations.

I refuse to continue this conversation if this is all you're offering. You aren't even giving valid reasons for your point of view. You're just telling me he's wrong because that's your belief.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

These fallacies have been carefully pointed out, and all you had in response was "no it isn't". You have been consistently unable to refute that they ARE fallacies, so they stand. You have also admitted that the claims were unsupported - you said, and I quote, that human conscience "just works that way" and that the claims were based on "Astute observations"... observations to which we are not privy. It is not belief, it is opinion, and opinion that is well-supported and backed by reason.

There are no fallacies. He explained what happens under specific conditions, and how conscience responds to those conditions. I see it happen all the time. I can easily pinpoint how one's conscience is able to rationalize one's behavior.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have pointed out the logical errors in great detail, and you have not been able to refute them. The fact that you just stick your head in the sand and pretend it never happened is not my problem, but yours.

Where are the logical errors? You keep saying this but you don't point them out.

There is no evidence that discredits Lessans' observations that man's will is not free.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is no evidence to discredit the idea that mans will IS free either. Does that make it true?

Yes there is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, the argument in favor of unfree will that Lessans posited is flawed. It confuses that which happens with that which must happen, as I have already carefully explained.

How many times do I have to say that this was not his proof. I gave you his proof, and it went right over your head.

I feel hostility toward Lessans and me. I didn't claim persecution.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You claim the hostility is the reason people do not agree. That is claiming persecution.

I didn't say hostility is the reason people disagree. All I said was I feel a lot of hostility.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just repeated that you cannot imagine him being wrong about anything, ever. So you ARE aware of what you are doing. You just do not want to face that that is what you are doing.

My father admitted when he was wrong. He was a human being, but I do not believe he was wrong as it relates to this knowledge.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have pointed out again and again just where yo waffled and moved the goalposts. If you need a reminder, just look back for newborn sight, eye-prosthetics, and cameras.

No, that's not waffling. I am trying to show where efferent vision is not impossible because there are alternative explanations, and until we get more empirical evidence for or against efferent vision, or "proof" in regard to creating a prosthetic eye that would allow for normal vision, the verdict is not in even though you believe it's no different than me saying the earth is flat, and we have to do more testing.

No goalposts have been moved, and no sight information gained by a bionic eye that uses a camera to send images to the brain has been perfected. You are now beginning to blather.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They do not have to be perfect to completely contradict what Lessans was saying. They merely have to work. No Blather - I can clearly and concisely explain just what I mean, like I just did.

It is true that they merely have to work, but they aren't working. No one can yet claim that prosthetic eyes have been successful. You are blathering.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is just what you keep telling yourself so you can deny reality. Reality, however, remains the same.

Can't argue that reality remains the same. The question is whose?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Opinions are not all equal. Some are backed up by good reasons to believe them correct, others are not. When it turns out that newborns are born blind and cameras show a different picture than the human eye I will revise my opinion, no problem.

You are lying Vivisectus. I never said babies are blind. They have the apparatus but the brain needs stimulation in order to focus. And I never said cameras show a different picture. They show the same picture but the reasons that they show the same picture are not due to the reasons you think.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But all the No! U!'s int he world will not change the fact that because something happened, that does not mean it had to happen

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is why I am still talking to you. I have never met anyone who answers a "No! U! doesn't work" accusation with a "Does too!"

Because nothing I say will make a difference anyway, so what difference does it make how I answer? I know you will not understand his explanation which I already posted. You never referred back to that excerpt. All you do is blame him for your mistaken notion that all he had to offer was a modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that babies can see, that dogs can recognize people on photographs,

No they can't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that camera's do not record something different from the human eye,

Never said they did.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that we can stimulate the retina and create visual information in the brain,

That is yet to be determined.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that good and evil cannot be broken down into a simple yes/no statement, .

No one said good and evil can be broken down into a simple yes/no statement.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that the transfer of information cannot occur faster than light,

No one said it could.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that sight is not instant,

Only time will tell.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that we have no reason to believe that blame is what allows justification, ect. etc. etc

We have very much reason to believe that advance blame allows for advance justification.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nice list of yes they do's. You still have not refuted any of these by the way. Shall we have another stab at getting you to understand the problem of direct sight and cameras? The one were cameras just record light?

They do record light as it reflects off of a light source or object.

If you are in such complete disagreement, why are you here? I really am clear on your take of me and this book. I don't need to hear more of the same. Unless you have a valid question, I am afraid that I will be skipping over any more of your posts because they offer nothing to the conversation and are taking up too much of my time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because you are so fascinatingly blind (or are you really? I wonder sometimes...) to the transparently dishonest way in which you try to deny the enormous pile of evidence that all point in one direction: your father just thought he was a wise scholar, mystic and philosopher. He wasn't, but he never gave up his delusion. And now here we have you, defending a dead mans delusion as if it is your own, because you have come to share it. I wish you could stop. I think you would be happier.

I am not deluded, and I am not blind. So something must be wrong with our communication. You are on a different wavelength, which is why you have misconstrued this work entirely. I am so grateful for having learned this knowledge. It has made me the compassionate person I am.

[Vivisectus]

These are not rules anymore than any guiding principle that is intended to lead him someone in a positive direction.

Then call them simple guidelines. The point is that you believe in the simple fairytale.

You're so wrong about my father, it's disheartening. They are principles that are based on mathematical (undeniable) relations.

It has already been shown that this rather depends on an idiosyncratic definition of "Mathematical", that no-one else shares.

I refuse to continue this conversation if this is all you're offering. You aren't even giving valid reasons for your point of view. You're just telling me he's wrong because that's your belief.

I know you wish you could quit me, darlin'. Yet here you are still.

There are no fallacies. He explained what happens under specific conditions, and how conscience responds to those conditions. I see it happen all the time. I can easily pinpoint how one's conscience is able to rationalize one's behavior.

Just saying there are none doesn't make it so! Again, just because something does happen does not mean that it HAD to happen - that remains unproven. As for your own "acute observations", just like your fathers they amount to noting more than an unsupported claim.

Where are the logical errors? You keep saying this but you don't show me.

I do all the time, but you just say "No it isn't!" and leave it at that. "That which leads to the most satisfaction" = "That what people end up choosing".

Saying that this means that people have to choose what leads to the most satisfaction is the same as saying that that which does happen, had to happen because it happened. Which is a fallacy. I really can't make it any clearer, and I have explained this to you a thousand times. You just stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

Yes there is.

If there is you have yet to share it. I dread the terrible copypasta that will follow. If philosophy 101 was too much to ask of the man, could he not at LEAST have taken a few creative writing courses?

How many times do I have to say that this was not his proof. I gave you his proof, and it went right over your head.

No, the "proof" that you gave only seems to not use this. This, however, is not the case. It does rather hinge on it.

I feel hostility toward Lessans and me. I didn't claim persecution.

You claim the hostility is the reason people do not agree. That is claiming persecution.[/quote]

I didn't say anything about the reason people disagree. All I said was I feel a lot of hostility.[/QUOTE]

You claim that people are just out to discredit Lessans. All - the - time.

My father admitted when he was wrong. He was a human being, but I do not believe he was wrong as it relates to this knowledge.

Hurried backtrack noted. The same applies though.

No, that's not waffling. I am trying to show where efferent vision is not impossible because there are alternative explanations, and until we get more empirical evidence for or against efferent vision, or "proof" in regard to creating a prosthetic eye that would allow for normal vision, the verdict is not in even though you believe it's no different than me saying the earth is flat, and we have to do more testing.

I have already shown you empirical evidence for newborn sight. And saying that you need a specific kind of sight from a prosthetic eye is moving the goalposts.

They do not have to be perfect to completely contradict what Lessans was saying. They merely have to work. No Blather - I can clearly and concisely explain just what I mean, like I just did.

It is true that they merely have to work, but they aren't working. No one can yet claim that prosthetic eyes have been successful. You are blathering.[/QUOTE]

They do work - a person can successfully recognize shapes on a card by looking at them with the prosthetic eye. Still no blather here, just a very clear and concise piece of evidence that you don't like.

Tell me, where is all the empirical evidence in favor of your point of view?

You are lying Vivisectus. I never said babies are blind. They have the apparatus but the brain needs stimulation in order to focus. And I never said cameras show a different picture. They show the same picture but the reasons that they show the same picture are not due to the reasons you think.

You said that focus is needed to see. You made a big deal about it in fact. And the book also quite categorically states that sight is not possible without enough stimulus from other senses first creating a desire to look. Hence sight is not possible in newborns until they are sufficiently conditioned.

cameras record light, and light alone. They should show a different picture than the eyes, which according to you do not record light but see the object directly and instantly.

Because nothing I say will make a difference anyway, so what difference does it make how I answer? I know you will not understand his explanation which I already posted. You never referred back to that excerpt. All you do is blame him for your mistaken notion that all he had to offer was a modal fallacy.

I never denied the pure gift to the world that are translucent robes and sexy jackets.

They do record light as it reflects off of a light source or object.

Indeed. Now what if the reflected light was reflected 3 years ago from an object 3 lightyears away? How come we cannot see that object with the eyes OR the camera for the 3 years it takes the light to get here? If your model is correct, we should be able to see it for 3 years, but not photograph it as no light from that star has yet reached us.

There are no delusions here, and I am not blind. So something must be wrong in the frequency of our communication. You are on a different wavelength. That's all I can account for this entire misconstruing of his work. I am so grateful for having learned this knowledge. It has made me the compassionate person I am.

I realize you don't notice it yourself, of course. That kind of goes with the "blind" bit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that you will need to follow the principles to see how these principles can and do work in real life, or we are at a total standstill.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is no different than any guiding principle intended to lead someone in a positive direction.

But they can't be shown to work in real life "in a free will environment" and apparently can't even be applied in an individual family according to you, so the only way to show they work is for the whole world to accept them and implement them. That is unreasonable and irrational and identical to religious promises. Surely you see this?

[LadyShea]

When you and Lessans claimed vision is instantaneous, you claimed information transfer occurs faster than the speed of light.

You are simply unable or unwilling to comprehend that fact, that piece of reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Not the sort of double-Ds ol' Seymour had in mind when he wrote Chapter 5, eh?

So funny I forgot to laugh Stephen. I like you better when you try to be objective (as a lawyer should be) rather than come in for the kill each time you think I'm going under.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When you and Lessans claimed vision is instantaneous, you claimed information transfer occurs faster than the speed of light.

You are simple unable or unwilling to comprehend that fact, that piece of reality.

We have a difference in definition, and you are not going to convince me that you're definition has anything to do with reality, so let it go LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But they can't be shown to work in real life "in a free will environment" and apparently can't even be applied in an individual family according to you, so the only way to show they work is for the whole world to accept them and implement them. That is unreasonable and irrational and identical to religious promises. Surely you see this?

It is so far from being irrational, I don't even know how to respond. Tell me, what is the risk compared to what we have now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said this a dozen times. Just either leave or stay.

I realize that I have said a dozen times out of frustration, and I maintain that if there is not someone who comes into this discussion to offer a listening ear, this thread is a done deal. I'm not faking it just to get attention, as Vivisectus believes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you keep saying you've never asked for proof is a cop out. You can weasel your way out of anything LadyShea, and to tell you the truth, I'm tired of it.

I have not lied, backtracked, moved the goalposts, asked for absolute proof and/or perfection, refused to look at data and evidence from outside sources that might support your points, or in any way waffled.

I have offered my sincere opinions, supported my reasoning for holding those opinions, offered evidence, hell I even offered business and debate advice.

Where have I weaseled?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then call them simple guidelines. The point is that you believe in the simple fairytale.

It has already been shown that this rather depends on an idiosyncratic definition of "Mathematical", that no-one else shares.

I know you wish you could quit me, darlin'. Yet here you are still.

Just saying there are none doesn't make it so! Again, just because something does happen does not mean that it HAD to happen - that remains unproven. As for your own "acute observations", just like your fathers they amount to noting more than an unsupported claim.

I do all the time, but you just say "No it isn't!" and leave it at that. "That which leads to the most satisfaction" = "That what people end up choosing".

Saying that this means that people have to choose what leads to the most satisfaction is the same as saying that that which does happen, had to happen because it happened. Which is a fallacy. I really can't make it any clearer, and I have explained this to you a thousand times. You just stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

If there is you have yet to share it. I dread the terrible copypasta that will follow. If philosophy 101 was too much to ask of the man, could he not at LEAST have taken a few creative writing courses?

No, the "proof" that you gave only seems to not use this. This, however, is not the case. It does rather hinge on it.

You claim the hostility is the reason people do not agree. That is claiming persecution.

I didn't say anything about the reason people disagree. All I said was I feel a lot of hostility.[/QUOTE]

You claim that people are just out to discredit Lessans. All - the - time.

My father admitted when he was wrong. He was a human being, but I do not believe he was wrong as it relates to this knowledge.

Hurried backtrack noted. The same applies though.

No, that's not waffling. I am trying to show where efferent vision is not impossible because there are alternative explanations, and until we get more empirical evidence for or against efferent vision, or "proof" in regard to creating a prosthetic eye that would allow for normal vision, the verdict is not in even though you believe it's no different than me saying the earth is flat, and we have to do more testing.

I have already shown you empirical evidence for newborn sight. And saying that you need a specific kind of sight from a prosthetic eye is moving the goalposts.

They do not have to be perfect to completely contradict what Lessans was saying. They merely have to work. No Blather - I can clearly and concisely explain just what I mean, like I just did.

It is true that they merely have to work, but they aren't working. No one can yet claim that prosthetic eyes have been successful. You are blathering.[/QUOTE]

They do work - a person can successfully recognize shapes on a card by looking at them with the prosthetic eye. Still no blather here, just a very clear and concise piece of evidence that you don't like.

Tell me, where is all the empirical evidence in favor of your point of view?

You are lying Vivisectus. I never said babies are blind. They have the apparatus but the brain needs stimulation in order to focus. And I never said cameras show a different picture. They show the same picture but the reasons that they show the same picture are not due to the reasons you think.

You said that focus is needed to see. You made a big deal about it in fact. And the book also quite categorically states that sight is not possible without enough stimulus from other senses first creating a desire to look. Hence sight is not possible in newborns until they are sufficiently conditioned.

cameras record light, and light alone. They should show a different picture than the eyes, which according to you do not record light but see the object directly and instantly.

Because nothing I say will make a difference anyway, so what difference does it make how I answer? I know you will not understand his explanation which I already posted. You never referred back to that excerpt. All you do is blame him for your mistaken notion that all he had to offer was a modal fallacy.

I never denied the pure gift to the world that are translucent robes and sexy jackets.

They do record light as it reflects off of a light source or object.

Indeed. Now what if the reflected light was reflected 3 years ago from an object 3 lightyears away? How come we cannot see that object with the eyes OR the camera for the 3 years it takes the light to get here? If your model is correct, we should be able to see it for 3 years, but not photograph it as no light from that star has yet reached us.

There are no delusions here, and I am not blind. So something must be wrong in the frequency of our communication. You are on a different wavelength. That's all I can account for this entire misconstruing of his work. I am so grateful for having learned this knowledge. It has made me the compassionate person I am.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I realize you don't notice it yourself, of course. That kind of goes with the "blind" bit.

You have become extremely sarcastic and I refuse to go through such a long post again with nothing to show for it. Give me a question (one question only per post) and I may make an effort to answer it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, don't put words in my mouth. They would have understood but this knowledge is once removed. They have other interests and the most important part of this book is not to be selfish by demanding people do what you want them to do for your benefit, not theirs.

Ending poverty, war, and violence is not to their benefit?

And you specifically said you didn't discuss the concept of free will with them because they wouldn't have understood. Shall I find your quote?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me, what is the risk compared to what we have now?

The risk of spending huge amounts of time and money implementing a system which is probably unworkable at best.

Arguments like the above only work if Lessans was at all convincing.

[Vivisectus]

you obviously haven't read Lessans on Economics. There is a LOT more at stake

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have a difference in definition, and you are not going to convince me that you're definition has anything to do with reality, so let it go LadyShea.

Your definition is completely idiosyncratic and created specifically to allow you to maintain your preconceived notion, your definition is NOT meant to describe reality.

In what version of reality is color, size, shape, distance, movement, speed, etc. (in other words all visual data) NOT information?

In what reality is the existence of measurable, objective separation and distance between two things not expressible as "Two points; A and B"?

In what reality is something from point A being acquired at point B not a "transfer"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is my stance that ANY non insane person who read this book and believed it contains the knowledge of how to achieve world peace would be helping you in some capacity. If I believed it, I would be helping you.

Really this makes no sense. ANY non insane person who read this book and believed it contains the knowledge of how to achieve world peace would be helping you in some capacity. If I believed it, I would be helping you.

Helping me personally? This has nothing to do with me LadyShea. You would be helping the world, not me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The risk of spending huge amounts of time and money implementing a system which is probably unworkable at best.

Arguments like the above only work if Lessans was at all convincing.

It is true that only if these principles were put into effect would Lessans be convincing. What have you shown that we don't already know?