A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did you read it? What's your source for that representation of the events? How did you vet the source for accuracy? Why is it "good enough" for you? Do you believe everything you read?

No I don't LadyShea, but I also don't feel I have to be suspicious of everything I read if I think the source is reliable.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't LadyShea, but I also don't feel I have to be suspicious of everything I read if I think the source is reliable.

peacegirl, that works fine if the only person you are trying to convince of anything is you. But others will demand more. If you are not up to providing more then you are not up to the task of convincing people about Lessans. Give it up and get help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the definition of determinism rests on the fact that we could have done otherwise had we desired. This definition does not exclude the will. That's why the conventional definition is misleading because it leaves out the will entirely, as if things happen to us, or cause us to act in ways that go against our will. The standard definition of determinism assumes that if we are free to choose, that means our will is free, but that is false. It just means that we desired to choose this over that in the direction of greater satisfaction. Had we desired to choose something else, that would have been the choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering any other choice at that moment an impossibility. this is not a tautology or circular reasoning just because any decision we make is in this direction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So every time you've said nobody could have chosen otherwise in any possible alternative world, you really meant they could have chosen otherwise in an alternative world where they desired to act otherwise?

An alternative world is pure fantasy. Yes, in a fantasy world someone could have chosen otherwise had they desired to act otherwise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why were you so adamant that there was no possible counterfactual when Lessans had a counterfactual right in his work? I had missed that sentence completely...but you shouldn't have as many times as you've read the book. And you even use the exact phrasing "chosen otherwise" in your statements.

Had he desired to, yes, he could have chosen otherwise. But he did not desire to choose otherwise, so it's a moot point. That's what Lessans is trying to say.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you not understand that what Lessans said was an alternative world counterfactual?

No, it was nothing of the sort. "Had he wanted to" does not create a counterfactual to what has already occurred. The fact that he did not desire to choose another alternative, but could have if he had wanted to, does not change the fact that he did not want to, because it gave him less satisfaction at that moment of time, making any other choice a universal impossibility.

[naturalist.atheist]

BTW, peacegirl was suspended from Project Reason for flaming. The poor girl is so far out of touch with reality that she does not realize that often she is the worse offender when it comes to insulting and improper conduct. So she didn't have the sense to keep the moderators out of it. Get help peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He disagreed, sure, but it wasn't some big public discrediting causing Mendel frustration and anguish as you seem to think. Mendel chose to only publish two papers; he did most of his work in private and consulted with his colleagues via letters without trying to convince the world of his correctness.

He didn't seem to really understand exactly what he had discovered himself, contrary to your statements, he certainly wasn't claiming to be undeniably right as Lessans did. He uses qualifiers like "I suspect...." and "I consider it likely...." not "I have absolutely proven" like Lessans. He also detailed how painstaking he was in performing his experiemtns in the utmost controlled and careful manner. He continued with his work even without Nageli's blessing.

The point is he did not have Nageli's blessings which could have gotten him the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. It took 50 years after his death for someone to recognize that he did, in fact, make a discovery. And Lessans did not just come out and say, "I made a discovery." Have you conveniently forgotten that he burned his first set of books because wasn't satisfied. It took him years to comprehend the magnitude of what he had discovered and to put it down on paper in a way that others would understand. You're completely out of line LadyShea.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

p. 1 Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
the 20th century. Though we are well into the 21st century, this
discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by leading
scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy, shortly after Hitler had
slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing
appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years
(8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction
with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind
compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis
and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two
years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind
and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others
could comprehend.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His letters are an example of how a humble man who has stumbled onto a discovery of natural laws writes.

You are getting very self-righteous in your old age LadyShea. Don't tell me how a humble man writes until you make a discovery. Then you can tell me how my father should have acted.

[naturalist.atheist]

If only Lessans was like Mendel and wrote in a clear, well thought out way. Take the paper on his experiments and theory, http://www.esp.org/foundations/genet...ical/gm-65.pdf, it is straitforward, two thirds or more of the text is not devoted in trying to convince the reader that Mendel is a great man. He clearly lays out his experiments, with clear explanations with causative chains well laid out. It has actual data, and analysis on that data. In 39 pages he lays out the foundation of modern genetics. It is nothing like the crap Lessans wrote. It is no wonder that Mendel did eventually get credit. The best Lessans can hope for in the future is derision, but only if people are reading him because he is considered the worse of the worst. This will happen if you keep flailing this dead horse. Let Lessans rest in peace, get help peacegirl.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I've said a thousand times, this has to do with how the eyes function, not light.

Since the eyes function in relation to light, then how light works is highly relevent to how the eyes function.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because light only has to surround the object does not mean, in this account, that when the eyes are looking at said object, light isn't present at the retina. This is really tough.

It is only tough because it doesn't make sense and you, rather naturally, are having difficulty trying to make sound like it does make sense. Silk purses and pigs' ears.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point is he did not have Nageli's blessings which could have gotten him the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. It took 50 years after his death for someone to recognize that he did, in fact, make a discovery. And Lessans did not just come out and say, "I made a discovery." Have you conveniently forgotten that he burned his first set of books because wasn't satisfied. It took him years to comprehend the magnitude of what he had discovered and to put it down on paper in a way that others would understand. You're completely out of line LadyShea.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

p. 1 Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
the 20th century. Though we are well into the 21st century, this
discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by leading
scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy, shortly after Hitler had
slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing
appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years
(8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction
with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind
compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis
and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two
years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind
and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others
could comprehend.

You are getting very self-righteous in your old age LadyShea. Don't tell me how a humble man writes until you make a discovery. Then you can tell me how my father should have acted.

I can tell you how a humble man writes because I have seen the writings of humble men. Lessans was not one at all.

[LadyShea]

An alternative world is pure fantasy.

So is Lessans Golden Age of translucent robes, why is imagination suddenly a problem?

Yes, in a fantasy world someone could have chosen otherwise had they desired to act otherwise.

You argued and argued against Spacemonkey in the other thread over this issue, now you are flip flopping?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the exact timeframe that the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet the requirements of efferent sight. It's not important to this discussion. What's important is that as long as the conditions of efferent sight are met, we will automatically be within visual range and the photons will reflect at the retina exactly what we see (optics). This model does not involve any delays unless, as I said, the object hasn't grown large enough for it to be within a camera's field of view or one's optical range. I know this is not going to satisfy you Spacemonkey. I don't think anything will because you are convinced that our eyes are afferent.

How disappointing. You said you were willing to discuss this with me, but so far you're still just avoiding the question. I didn't ask you for the timeframe for when the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet your requirements. That was not the question. We already know that (according to Lessans) the Sun will be big and bright enough to be seen instantly at the very moment it is turned on. You have said that at this very instant (12:00) there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the Sun. I'm asking you when they were so located. Obviously you don't know. But I am asking you to work with me to find an answer. Here are the only possibilities:

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

Obviously your claims (along with efferent vision) must be incorrect if none of these answers can be made to work. So choose the one that you think is most plausible. If it turns out not to work then we can cross it off the list and you can try another answer. But if we end up crossing them all off, then we will have discovered and proven that these photons either did not come from the Sun, or cannot be there at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. Please answer this time instead of evading.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can tell you how a humble man writes because I have seen the writings of humble men. Lessans was not one at all.

And I'm telling you, it is you who is not humble. I knew him, you did not, yet you have the audacity to tell me what kind of man he was. You are stepping way out of bounds. Why don't you get off your high horse? I do not enjoy conversing with you because of your arrogance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So is Lessans Golden Age of translucent robes, why is imagination suddenly a problem?

You are such a follower LadyShea. You're prejudices are just hidden behind the illusion of being a freethinker.

Yes, in a fantasy world someone could have chosen otherwise had they desired to act otherwise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You argued and argued against Spacemonkey in the other thread over this issue, now you are flip flopping?

I am not flip flopping so stop accusing me of things I am not doing. Had he desired, he would have chosen a different alternative. BUT BEING THAT HE DID NOT ACT OTHERWISE BECAUSE HIS DESIRE WAS NOT IN THAT DIRECTION, HE COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE.

What is it you don't understand LadyShea?

[LadyShea]

What is it that you don't understand about discussing logically possible but not actual occurrences?

That's why they are called counterfactuals, they did not actually happen, but could have happened.

You denied this in the other thread. Vehemently.

[LadyShea]

And I'm telling you, it is you who is not humble. I knew him, you did not, yet you have the audacity to tell me what kind of man he was. You are stepping way out of bounds. Why don't you get off your high horse? I do not enjoy conversing with you because of your arrogance.

LOL. I am not the one claiming to have undeniable special knowledge and demanding everyone accept my word that my "observations" are "accurate".

[sadie]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

BTW, peacegirl was suspended from Project Reason for flaming. The poor girl is so far out of touch with reality that she does not realize that often she is the worse offender when it comes to insulting and improper conduct. So she didn't have the sense to keep the moderators out of it. Get help peacegirl.

Yeah, and I just stalked off PR in support of her right to be obtuse, irritating, and insulting, as long as she is not threatening. I might be able to be convinced to support a nanny-state, but never a nanny-forum in cyberspace.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

traumaturgist, what do the theories of (literary) theory try to predict?

Oh and get used to peacegirl flipping back and forth. From time to time she will also reset.

naturalist.atheist: I wouldn't say that literary theory (and other theory, which is closely linked with philosophy: phenomenology, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, New Historicism etc) tries to predict so much as offer ways of reading a literary text (or social discourse for that matter) "otherwise" - that is, drawing out the implications of a text by viewing it through different lenses and seeing what insights it can offer on different levels. Most importantly (for me anyway), it involves reading texts against their own social/cultural grains - reading texts against the rote responses so many people love to give as kneejerk reactions and often naive reductions to texts that, more often than not, have a lot more to offer.

So a Marxist approach to a text might look at its conditions of production (sociopolitical context and relations of production - even in terms of the book's physical manufacture in a given time period), and a post-colonial approach might look at the political hegemonies at work through the interactions of characters, etc., and a psychoanalytic view of a text might look at what is "repressed" within it (whether it's blatantly Oedipal or not - psychoanalysis is a lot more than the Oedipus Complex!).

It's possible that some more "activist" readings of literature (perhaps Marxist or socialist, perhaps not) try to "predict" through reading literature as a social barometer (i.e. X is a commentary on how shitty capitalism is or how white males have screwed up the world etc etc. and Y is what we have to do about it), but I think that kind of activity is risky - as I get older, I find it harder and harder to judge what life and Nature are going to do next! And I guess you could say that some theories (like depth psychology in a clinical/therapeutic setting) try to predict things from the standpoint of helping a patient with certain compulsive behaviours, etc., but even then it sounds a bit strange to me. I don't think any half-decent psychotherapist or analyst is going to try and prophesy anyone's life - you really only see that in TV shows like Dexter and In Treatment, and that's just for the sake of the plot.

The (literary) theory I do revolves around the idea that a text can never be reduced to any one of its possible interpretations; it is less a concrete statement of a canonical fact and more of an "event" - a meeting of a book, street sign, ad billboard, discourse, etc. and its interpreting subject, a meeting which never culminates in a final interpretation but is always provisional and subject to revision. Psychoanalysis calls this "interminable analysis" - the fact (somewhat unsettling to Freud, who resisted this fact of his own theory even as he endorsed it) that one never really arrives at "The Truth" in analysis, because there is always interpretation, always revision, always "further to go" in an analysis. Freud once remarked playfully, if sardonically, that a treatment ends "when the money runs out!" Similarly, a discussion of a text or its interpretation ends once people get tired .

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is it that you don't understand about discussing logically possible but not actual occurrences?

That's why they are called counterfactuals, they did not actually happen, but could have happened.

You denied this in the other thread. Vehemently.

It's not what you are asking; it's your arrogance. Why can't you apologize LadyShea instead of changing the subject. You have blatantly accused Lessans of not being humble. He was the most humble man that walked the earth, other than Jesus. JUST KIDDING ANGAKUK! So spare your comments until you make some kind of restitution. It's too easy to dismiss your unfair comments and move on, as if all is well. Well, all is not well on my end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

Yeah, and I just stalked off PR in support of her right to be obtuse, irritating, and insulting, as long as she is not threatening. I might be able to be convinced to support a nanny-state, but never a nanny-forum in cyberspace.

I'm not sure what a nanny-state is, but I am very grateful that you see my side of things. I really thought they were fixing the website due to mechanical issues. They gave me no explanation as to why they cut me off the way they did. I don't want you to leave on account of me, but I have to say that you are the most honest person over there, and you defended me by not allowing them to dismiss me the way they did. What grounds did they have other than they didn't like what I had to say? I really don't get it. We're in an age where prejudice is suppose to be a thing of the past, but I don't see it that way. I went there because it's suppose to be rational debate. I think Sam Harris would be horrified. Anyone who read that thread could see that I was the one being bullied, not them. Kudos to you Sadie for being the strong person you are, and being true to yourself!

[peacegirl]

If people look back in time, they will see that this no different than a modern day witch-hunt. Prove me wrong.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason he predicted this is because people cannot move against what they believe is in their best interest. That's why mankind has developed to the degree it has; we improve on things, we don't go backwards. Yes, sometimes we go one step forward and two steps back, but many times civilization takes great leaps forward.

This is a massive and absolutely unprovable assumption (i.e. arbitrary interpretation) which falls under the blanket philosophical term "idealism." Hegel was probably the one who codified the belief that humanity was moving "up and to the right" (as financial analysts say, even in this day an age) and that we are inevitably moving toward the revelation of Absolute Spirit in time. Which is fundamentally the same position you are taking. Was the hydrogen bomb a leap forward? Is Montsanto? Is Mitt Romney? Unanswerable questions which are a matter of interpretation. In order for you to successfully corroborate your idealism as universally valid you have to somehow prove to everyone that all these historical factors are ultimately working for "the improvement of things." No religion in history has or will ever be able to do that, and yet you claim to have the answer.

Yes, man's will is not free, but if you don't understand his definition (because you haven't read the book), you won't be able to understand what he means by that. Doing what one wants to do, or of one's own free will (without constraint), does not actually mean one has free will. There is no way I can actually have a productive conversation with you if you refuse to read the chapters necessary. It's like there's no communication whatsoever.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 54 The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Leaving aside his vague distinction between logic and mathematics (which perhaps he addresses elsewhere....but perhaps not): there is no analysis here: all the author does is state a definition of fre-will using terms that in themselves need philosophical delineation. What is "preference"? What is the "general ignorance that prevailed"? What you quote is simply a statement of opinion - not a philosophical investigation or rigorous inquiry.

How demeaning can one be when "this guy" has made a discovery that can prevent war and crime, and all the other evils plaguing mankind. That's gonna put a real damper on our ability to communicate in any positive way.

How can you corroborate this when you assume that 1) war and crime are "evil" in that they have no place in the natural order and must be done away with, and 2) well, you use vague terms like "evil" that don't reeally mean anything in this context?

Even Nageli, the leading authority, disagreed with the very core of his discovery? If the leading authority couldn't understand his discovery and, therefore, discredited Mendel, what chance do you think my father has even in his death? It's the same situation.

The not-so-subtle assumption here is that people who disagree with the author simply "couldn't understand his discovery," which leads right back into the Tarot-Card conundrum I mentioned before: "see, once you understand you will agree completely!" You refuse to accept the idea that one can understand and yet still disagree with your author.

What ad hominem am I using as a copout? This knowledge has the power to prevent war and crime, if it is applied globally. I can have the raw material to build a bridge that is so strong it has no chance of corroding or collapsing, but I haven't built it yet. That does not mean I cannot make a solid prediction that when it is built, my prediction will come true because I have enough evidence to support what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

Which is precisely why he believes, but cannot know that this "new world" will come.

Not true. This is not about belief. But it is true that it may take another century for democracy to spread before this knowledge will be taken seriously. I cannot predict when it will occur, but I can predict that it will occur and be very confident in that prediction.

1) Define "democracy." It is not a term that can be taken for granted.
2) if it isn't about belief, then you find yourself in the paradoxical situation of making an "absolutely certain prediction," which makes no logical (non-religious) sense.

I am sorry that just because he was certain of his knowledge, you are just as certain that he must be wrong. His prediction is solid and remains so. But you will not understand why unless you have an understanding of why this new age of peace and prosperity cannot be stopped. It is an inevitability, which is based on the untapped knowledge that lies behind the door marked "man's will is not free."

The language of smoke and mirrors, without analysis.

First you say you haven't stated anywhere that Lessans is wrong, and in the next breath you state that his prediction is as close to being valid as winning a future lottery. The odds are a lot more in Lessans' favor than winning the biggest lottery, but as I stated, exactly when this knowledge will come to light cannot be predicted with complete accuracy.

1) Why talk about odds when this new age of peace and prosperity is inevitable?

2) Religious beliefs aren't "wrong."

3) What you say in your last sentence is precisely the Tarot-Card Conundrum.: "It's definitely gonna happen....oh, we just don't know when...but it WILL happen...oh...didn't happen just now? No matter...cos it's definitely gonna happen!!" Logically this is no different from a staunch Christian belief in the return of Jesus: no matter if it doesn't happen...it will happen!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people look back in time, they will see that this no different than a modern day witch-hunt. Prove me wrong.

LOL, how on Earth can we prove that something won't look like something else to people in some undetermined future time?

And no, there is no witch hunt. You are using that histrionic term for something that is not all that dramatic and something that is your very own doing and completely within your control to stop at any time.

It completely diminishes the horrors of the real witch hunts- where tens of thousands of real women were actually tortured and killed- when you use it like that.

[LadyShea]

Did you appeal to the PR moderators to somehow intervene or act, peacegirl? There was a statement to that effect.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not what you are asking; it's your arrogance. Why can't you apologize LadyShea instead of changing the subject. You have blatantly accused Lessans of not being humble. He was the most humble man that walked the earth, other than Jesus. JUST KIDDING ANGAKUK! So spare your comments until you make some kind of restitution. It's too easy to dismiss your unfair comments and move on, as if all is well. Well, all is not well on my end.

His writings were not that of a humble man and that's all I have to go on. If he was humble, it sure didn't show in his book. I am not going to apologize, I am just describing what I see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, how on Earth can we prove that something won't look like something else to people in some undetermined future time?

And no, there is no witch hunt. You are using that histrionic term for something that is not all that dramatic and something that is your very own doing and completely within your control to stop at any time.

It completely diminishes the horrors of the real witch hunts- where tens of thousands of real women were actually tortured and killed- when you use it like that.

You are so out the door, it's hard for me to contain myself. This knowledge is exactly what puts these horrors to end, but you don't see it LadyShea. You are blind because you want to be the one that does it. You are a phony.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by sadie

Yeah, and I just stalked off PR in support of her right to be obtuse, irritating, and insulting, as long as she is not threatening. I might be able to be convinced to support a nanny-state, but never a nanny-forum in cyberspace.

From what I could tell, she brought it on herself since she was the one complaining to modrrators.