A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

She has fixed a few obvious typos and blatant errors based on what people here have said: my own 'contributions' (unattributed naturally) were to get the part about the sound from the jet plane arriving changed from 'nearer' to 'further away', and providing the correct answers for the alphabet and shopping puzzles.

I gave you credit for finding that typing error (and that's all it was; don't make more out of this than needs to be), and I also credited you for answering the puzzle. Did you figure it out on your own, or did you go to one of the puzzle sites? Just curious.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

If peacegirl could accept that Lessans' main argument is unaffected whether vision is efferent or afferent, then she could remove all the demonstrably scientifically wrong parts concerning light. The other errors in the book are hardly more remarkable than in many other works on philosophy or ethics, though the writing style is certainly different.

Ceptimus, there is an important reason behind this claim of efferent vision, otherwise I wouldn't mind removing it. But I can't because this new understanding of vision plays a vital role in the new world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL and you dare to call it science. That is a statement of religious faith if I ever heard one.

You always seem to conveniently forget how many times I have said that genuine discoveries can be demonstrated, and this is no exception. I don't need you though to confirm 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 LadyShea. You are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. You place yourself on some kind of intellectual pedestal. It's no wonder you call everyone who is not like you "woos". You are also unjustifiably condescending to some of the most spiritually enlightened people on the planet.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why is that all you can tell me? Is it because you don't have the faintest idea of how efferent vision could possibly work?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Understanding photons was not even how Lessans came to his conclusions. He didn't need to be a physicist to know that objects do not reflect the world; light reveals the world. That is its function, just like conscience has a specific function. You can try and try to figure this out using your logic, but if your premises are off, then your conclusions will be off as well. To undertand the exact mechanism is secondary to understanding his reasons as to why he did not put the eyes in the same category as the other senses. All your effort to try to make this claim look contradictory is just wasted breath as far as I'm concerned. We are no better off than thousands of posts ago, and you are no closer to proving that Lessans was wrong in regard to any of his discoveries.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You always seem to conveniently forget how many times I have said that genuine discoveries can be demonstrated, and this is no exception. I don't need you though to confirm 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 LadyShea. You are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. You place yourself on some kind of intellectual pedestal. It's no wonder you call everyone who is not like you "woos". You are also unjustifiably condescending to some of the most spiritually enlightened people on the planet.

And how many times have you, Peacegirl, conviently forgotten that you have never provided any valid evidence of these discoveries, nor demonstrated and of them. And just because you claim it is a discovery, does not make it so, all we have is your's and Lessans unsupported claims and assertions. The fact that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 is completely irrevelant and has no relationship to Lessans claims. Lessans claimed to have made observations that lead him to certain conclusions, but failed to provide those observations and his examples usually did not lead to the conclusions he claimed. Most of the time there was no relationship from one thing to the next, just a lot of unrelated assertions that lead nowhere. I did read the book, and I understood the individual points he was trying to make, but these points were often unrelated and did not support each other.

You need to wake up Peacegirl, wake up from your fathers dream fantasy world. Unfortunately you don't seem to have the 'Ruby Slippers' of rational thought to bring you home to reality. You are still on the wrong side of the 'Looking Glass'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are no better off than thousands of posts ago, and you are no closer to proving that Lessans was wrong in regard to any of his discoveries.

Spacemonkey doesn't need to prove Lessans wrong. Science, physics, optics, and biology, all do that easily enough. We just need to point out the relevant data to you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You always seem to conveniently forget how many times I have said that genuine discoveries can be demonstrated, and this is no exception.

So let's see the demonstration! Edison had working prototypes of every invention. Mendel had his detailed notes of all experiments and results as well as his actual plants.

Einstein couldn't empirically demonstrate relativity, and he was refuted big time, as various scientists did their damnedest to prove him wrong. That's how discoveries are addressed in science.

I don't need you though to confirm 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 LadyShea.

I am very glad I don't need to confirm for you that X=X. It is not a scientific discovery, you see, that .5 is the same as .5

You are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. You place yourself on some kind of intellectual pedestal.

.
Nope, I don't place myself on any pedestal. You and I are on equal footing, here presenting our arguments and making our cases. I do think I am right though just as you do. If I am arrogant then you are equally so.

It's no wonder you call everyone who is not like you "woos"

I reserve the label woo for a specific type of credulous person who accepts psuedoscience as reality without any credible evidence.

You are also unjustifiably condescending to some of the most spiritually enlightened people on the planet.

OMG, you found some woos to talk to now, and are trying to convince yourself that these are important people to get this knowledge out...am I right?

Anyway, WTF does spiritual enlightenment have to do with scientific discoveries?

Originally Posted by Skepdic

woo-woo

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Here's a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

woo or woo-woo - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

[Vivisectus]

Vivisectus, I really do suggest you read over the first three chapters. His observations are so spot on it's ashame that you are going to dismiss this work and let it go without a second thought when I leave this thread.

Indeed: you believe them to be spot on, even though you agree that there is no evidence (in the book or outside of it) that conscience works that way.

No, that's not why I came to these forums. I came because I wanted to share a discovery. True discoveries don't need to be disputed. They need to be heard, and because of the type of venue this is (everyone's opinions are equal), you and others didn't like that you couldn't assert your opinion as being equal to Lessans. That's why you call him arrogant. It's very clear to me.

Exactly my point: you came to proselytize.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

People react to that badly, and we cannot blame them for that. Your approach not only disparages their ability to think and reason, but it is also a very dishonest way of arguing a point. As long as you persist in doing it, you will never earn the respect of the people you converse with.

I am sorry if you don't like that your opinion doesn't count as much as his knowledge. That's why you won't read the book in earnest. The only way you will be happy is if I say I'm not sure if Lessans is right but I cannot lie; I believe he was right. I also realize that his claim about light and sight has turned people off from pursuing anything he might say. What ashame!

Why, we are barely worthy of licking his boots aren't we?

I think we are in perfect agreement: you do not treat the ideas in these books as philosophic or scientific material, but as absolute truth. Like religions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At the same time, you are expecting everyone to just take your word and your fathers word for it and wait for some future evidence to emerge. More: you expect people to experimentally try the things explained in the books, at considerable expense and perhaps even risk, to see if things works the way the book says.

No, his observations and his reasoning are epistemologically sound, but if you want more evidence, you'll have to wait until the new world is here. It's really not necessary to set up a simulation of the new world, but it could be done on a smaller scale.

But you already admitted that there is no evidence in the book regarding the way conscience works. If I am wrong, go ahead and show me it, and I will happily admit I was wrong.

As for his reasoning being epistemologically sound, why don't you submit it to the philosophy forum I gave you the link to? They will be able to confirm or deny easily if you are right, and there is no fallacy in it, or if they agree with everyone else.

The critics have been way too critical but part of the problem was my fault, for coming online (which I wouldn't have known until after the fact) and giving little excerpts of the book that can only cause more confusion and more questions. My father would have have understood why I attemped this as a means of getting the knowledge out there. But it backfired. How can this be a fair representation of what the book is about when the book has not been thoroughly studied, and don't you dare tell me that you, or anyone here, have thoroughly studied this work? It's no wonder people are being overly critical. And I'm not even talking about the eyes. That's a different ballgame altogether because it's already been established that the eyes are a sense organ, so it's that much harder to even open people's minds even a little bit.

*Sigh* as usual you take no responsibility whatsoever and blame it all squarely on other people. Some example of the brave new world you are!

And for your information, I HAVE actually gone through the whole book and carefully read it. I even kept notes. It is tedious work because the style is so messy and rambling. It just do not think it is any good.

You cannot imagine that such a thing can be, so you imagine I must be lying, or stupid, or biased, or just plain mean. You complain "no one reads the book!". Then when someone DOES read it, you complain "They did not read it properly because they disagree!" To you, understanding the book means you must agree with every word. But hey - nothing I can say will ever change that, I can see.

Because I don't like the way you have rewritten history Vivisectus. How many times do I have to tell you that my father was not arrogant. And I cannot stand the way people don't ask questions with an open mind, but rather they tell me that all this is is an assertion, as if it's nothing. That is why I have to go elsewhere even if it's to woos; people who won't rush to judgment and won't call me names; they will give this book a chance. It makes my blood boil when I hear people telling me, in so many words, that this book is valueless when it is anything but.

Re-written history? Hardly. You do that all the time - even now.

When people say it is an assertion, they mean it is just your father saying something is a certain way without backing it up, without providing any reason to assume he is correct. I am afraid they have him bang to rights on that front. Unless you can show me a reason to believe conscience works as described int he book?

It is like saying the moon is a certain distance away from the earth without showing how you calculated it: pretty much useless.

But hey, do keep going the way you have. The result will be the same regardless.

Let it go Vivisectus. This was never meant to be an argument. I came here to share what I know to be true, 100% true.

My point exactly. The book is absolutely correct and there can be no argument about that: it is the final and absolute truth.

If observing reality seems to conflict with the book, then we are just looking at reality in the wrong way. "Something else must be going on".

You are a fundamentalist.

Each one of his discoveries is valid and sound; he just observed certain things that others didn't. But he always said that someone in the world might be making the same discoveries because these observations are based on reality, and, as such, are part of the real world.

Personally I prefer to follow the evidence. It is not perfect, but it is better than to accept truth based only on the authority of some prophet, as you want me to do.

Now that you have apparently accepted that you are peddling a religion, and not sharing a scientific discovery, does it change your point of view in any way?

[Vivisectus]

OMG, you found some woos to talk to now, and are trying to convince yourself that these are important people to get this knowledge out...am I right?

Anyway, WTF does spiritual enlightenment have to do with scientific discoveries?

If this is the case, then it should be entertaining to see the results. You will find some kindred spirits there: they enjoy claiming anyone who thinks they are full of it is biased too. Problem is, they proselytize right back at you, as many of them have their own beliefs which they feel are just as 100% true as you believe your book is.

However, the chances of finding a sympathetic ear for your beliefs is much higher there, and you may enjoy it better than your time here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Understanding photons was not even how Lessans came to his conclusions. He didn't need to be a physicist to know that objects do not reflect the world; light reveals the world.

Who has ever claimed that "objects reflect the world"?

That is its function, just like conscience has a specific function.

"Function" implies a purpose or intent. Light (and all energy) exists as a product of a process. It has no purpose or intent.

You can try and try to figure this out using your logic, but if your premises are off, then your conclusions will be off as well.

The premise is that light has immutable properties, and that any idea or theory that includes light must be in accordance with those properties. Your explanations of efferent vision are not in accordance with the known properties of light.

To undertand the exact mechanism is secondary to understanding his reasons as to why he did not put the eyes in the same category as the other senses.

If there is no plausible mechanism in accordance with the known properties of light, then the idea or theory that includes light cannot be plausible either.

All your effort to try to make this claim look contradictory is just wasted breath as far as I'm concerned. We are no better off than thousands of posts ago, and you are no closer to proving that Lessans was wrong in regard to any of his discoveries.

You aren't any closer to proving Lessans right after all these posts, but plenty of evidence has been presented to convince any rational person that he was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Bump. I am curious as to what you were referring to.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which discovery of Edison's are you talking about? What do you mean "last minute"?

He lit up a whole street amid much public interest less that 2 years after taking on the challenge of developing a bulb that was practical. He was only 33 at the time. So surely you don't mean the incandescent bulb.

[Vivisectus]

understanding his reasons as to why he did not put the eyes in the same category as the other senses.

He seems to have forgotten to include those reasons in the chapter on sight. He says he will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but then there seems to be no proof in any of the paragraphs that follow.

Can you explain them to me, or post the proof or the reasons for thinking it is so?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And how many times have you, Peacegirl, conviently forgotten that you have never provided any valid evidence of these discoveries, nor demonstrated and of them. And just because you claim it is a discovery, does not make it so, all we have is your's and Lessans unsupported claims and assertions. The fact that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 is completely irrevelant and has no relationship to Lessans claims.

It has everything to do with it doc.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans claimed to have made observations that lead him to certain conclusions, but failed to provide those observations and his examples usually did not lead to the conclusions he claimed. Most of the time there was no relationship from one thing to the next, just a lot of unrelated assertions that lead nowhere. I did read the book, and I understood the individual points he was trying to make, but these points were often unrelated and did not support each other.

You are so confused it is not worth spending time with you. All you ever do is tell me what this knowledge is not, which just highlights your ignorance. You are not capable of grasping what has been written, so your comments hold no weight.

Originally Posted by thedoc"

You need to wake up Peacegirl, wake up from your fathers dream fantasy world. Unfortunately you don't seem to have the 'Ruby Slippers' of rational thought to bring you home to reality. You are still on the wrong side of the 'Looking Glass'.

No, you need to wake up and instead of telling me what this discovery can't do, learn what it can do by understanding the principles. You don't understand squat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He seems to have forgotten to include those reasons in the chapter on sight. He says he will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but then there seems to be no proof in any of the paragraphs that follow.

Can you explain them to me, or post the proof or the reasons for thinking it is so?

You know that he doesn't have the data that you are looking for, but that does not mean his observations and description were inaccurate. I'm not posting this online because I am not going to keep talking about the eyes. I want to end my stay here discussing the most important of his discoveries. It's unfortunate that no one is that interested in his discovery on determinism, because it is this very knowledge that is going to lead us to an age of peace and prosperity for all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who has ever claimed that "objects reflect the world"?

"Function" implies a purpose or intent. Light (and all energy) exists as a product of a process. It has no purpose or intent.

The premise is that light has immutable properties, and that any idea or theory that includes light must be in accordance with those properties. Your explanations of efferent vision are not in accordance with the known properties of light.

If there is no plausible mechanism in accordance with the known properties of light, then the idea or theory that includes light cannot be plausible either.

You aren't any closer to proving Lessans right after all these posts, but plenty of evidence has been presented to convince any rational person that he was wrong.

There you go again spouting off your prejudices by saying that anyone who is interested in this claim must be irrational. I know I won't convince you of Lessans' claims because you are as fundamental as those you call fundies. I'm not saying it's wrong to question (I was taught to take everything with a grain of salt) but what you have failed to do (as a free thinker) and what new age thinkers (or woos as you call them derogatorily) have in their favor is an open mind. You think you have an open mind and you've given this discovery enough time, but you haven't. You seem to think your determination of what is scientifically valid is the only method, and this has actually backfired on you as a result. Of course, you can't see it which is why we've made no progress. I have absolutely no faith that even if you read the first three chapters with a sincere intention to learn these principles, that you would grasp them because you have a block that is preventing this knowledge from penetrating (and I'm not even referring to the eyes). You have already committed yourself to how right you are and how wrong he is and, therefore, you have lost your objectivity.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that he doesn't have the data that you are looking for, but that does not mean his observations and description were inaccurate. I'm not posting this online because I am not going to keep talking about the eyes. I want to end my stay here discussing the most important of his discoveries. It's unfortunate that no one is that interested in his discovery on determinism, because it is this very knowledge that is going to lead us to an age of peace and prosperity for all.

I am not talking about data, even. Just a description of the reason he assumed the eyes worked that way. You keep saying there was a really good reason for it, but so far I have not come across any reason at all.

The way you act all cagey about it makes me suspect it is outlandish even by your rather extensive standards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So let's see the demonstration! Edison had working prototypes of every invention. Mendel had his detailed notes of all experiments and results as well as his actual plants.

Einstein couldn't empirically demonstrate relativity, and he was refuted big time, as various scientists did their damnedest to prove him wrong. That's how discoveries are addressed in science.

I am very glad I don't need to confirm for you that X=X. It is not a scientific discovery, you see, that .5 is the same as .5

.
Nope, I don't place myself on any pedestal. You and I are on equal footing, here presenting our arguments and making our cases. I do think I am right though just as you do. If I am arrogant then you are equally so.

I reserve the label woo for a specific type of credulous person who accepts psuedoscience as reality without any credible evidence.

OMG, you found some woos to talk to now, and are trying to convince yourself that these are important people to get this knowledge out...am I right?

Anyway, WTF does spiritual enlightenment have to do with scientific discoveries?

All I'm saying is that the people who will consider the possibility of all things (even things that appear flimsy at first sight; some of which turn out to be just that), are the same kind of people that would be open mindeded enough to give this knowledge the same courtesy. You have not done that. You refuse to consider the possibility that Lessans could be right because you actually think you have proved him wrong. You can't be more wrong LadyShea, and this is the irony. These people you call woo woos are probably going to be the people that will bring this knowledge to light, and it will meet scientific scrutiny in the end. You throw the word assertion around without ever understanding why this is not an assertion, and why the satisfaction principle is not flimsy. I can't talk to you in a way that doesn't make my blood pressure go up because of your premature rebuttals. Instead of asking questions, you tell me he's wrong. That is the epitome of extreme arrogance, and to tell you the truth, you are the kind of person that really should not be reading this book. It's no wonder we've made no progress. If you had even said, I'm not at all convinced he is right, but I will consider it, and I will read more carefully before telling you that he is wrong, I would have been able to deal with that, but not the kind of arrogance that oozes out of you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that he doesn't have the data that you are looking for, but that does not mean his observations and description were inaccurate. I'm not posting this online because I am not going to keep talking about the eyes. I want to end my stay here discussing the most important of his discoveries. It's unfortunate that no one is that interested in his discovery on determinism, because it is this very knowledge that is going to lead us to an age of peace and prosperity for all.

We have shown we will discuss determinism, but then you want to end those discussions as well. Shall we move back to your "part II" thread and pick up where you left off?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also credited you for answering the puzzle. Did you figure it out on your own, or did you go to one of the puzzle sites? Just curious.

Thanks.

I figured the puzzles out myself. I like puzzles. But after solving the 'arrange the letters puzzle' I did subsequently discover that it is the famous Kirkman's schoolgirl problem stated in a different form.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not talking about data, even. Just a description of the reason he assumed the eyes worked that way. You keep saying there was a really good reason for it, but so far I have not come across any reason at all.

The way you act all cagey about it makes me suspect it is outlandish even by your rather extensive standards.

You can't be serious Vivisectus. Cagey? Suspect? I have put this book online for everyone to read. I have shared just about everything he's written. I have cut and pasted after explaining in my own words what he was trying to say, until I'm blue in the face. Today, I even uploaded the latest version of the first three chapters. I went through his books trying to add anything that would help people to understand these important concepts. Do you think anyone cares or has taken the time to read it? I doubt it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Thanks.

I figured the puzzles out myself. I like puzzles. But after solving the 'arrange the letters puzzle' I did subsequently discover that it is the famous Kirkman's schoolgirl problem stated in a different form.

I think my father would have enjoyed talking to you, and maybe would have taken you up on a challenging chess game.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that people that consider things that may be flimsy, usually have the kind of open mindededness that is required to give this knowledge the time of day, which you have not done. You refuse to consider the possibility that Lessans is right because you actually think you have proved him wrong.

You have failed to provide any evidence or reasoning convincing to me. If others accept assertions and fallacious reasoning then yay for you that they exist.

You can't be more wrong LadyShea. You throw the word assertion around without ever understanding why this is not an assertion, and why the satisfaction principle is not flimsy.

You haven't demonstrated that it is not an assertion, so I will call it what it is unless I am convinced otherwise. Your failures to provide convincing arguments or evidence are not my problem. If you can find a credulous group of people who are convinced by poor argumentation and zero evidence, again yay for you...quit wasting your time with me.

I can't talk to you in a way that doesn't make my blood pressure go up because of your premature rebuttals.

They are valid rebuttals. You can offer arguments and evidence to support your claims, or throw a hissy fit and blame me. You choose the latter. I am not going to change to accommodate your unreasonable expectations...why should I? Either you can make your case or you can't. Not my problem.

Instead of asking questions, you tell me he's wrong.

I've asked plenty of questions that you've refused to answer or you've answered with non-sequiturs.

That is the epitome of extreme arrogance, and to tell you the truth, you are the kind of person that really should not be reading this book. It's no wonder we've made no progress.

What kinds of people should read the book? A bunch of idiots who believe everything they hear without applying any critical thinking? Go find them then. Best of luck to you.

If you had even said, I'm not at all convinced he is right, but I will consider it, and I will read more carefully before telling you that he is wrong, I would have been able to deal with that, but not the kind of arrogance that oozes out of you.

I've not made a single argument where I didn't provide my valid reasons for holding that opinion. You are the one who has posts stating only "you're wrong" or "he's right" and nothing further. Every one of mine explains why I think Lessans was wrong or why I think you are wrong.

That you don't like me or how I approach debates is irrelevant to anything. Whether or not I am arrogant is irrelevant to anything. You can choose to ignore me any time you want, you choose not to do so. You choose to make it about me and my mindset...which fine, who cares? How does this attack on me further your goal? Does it further your goal? Why do you care what I think or say or do?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking a question regarding efferent vision. You are weaseling. Nothing changes, huh?

Hows about you answer the pertinent questions about efferent vision?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again spouting off your prejudices by saying that anyone who is interested in this claim must be irrational.

I said nothing about interest.

I know I won't convince you of Lessans' claims because you are as fundamental as those you call fundies. I'm not saying it's wrong to question (I was taught to take everything with a grain of salt) but what you have failed to do (as a free thinker) and what new age thinkers (or woos as you call them derogatorily) have in their favor is an open mind.

I have an open mind, meaning that I am perfectly willing to change my position when I am convinced that a different position is correct. What it takes to convince me of one thing over another, is superior evidence in favor of that thing. You have been unable to convince me. Others may have different criteria than I do and you may convince them. Good luck with that.

You think you have an open mind and you've given this discovery enough time, but you haven't.

I have given you every opportunity in the world to provide a convincing argument. You have failed to do so for me. Again, there are people in this world who accept/believe things that I don't.

You seem to think your determination of what is scientifically valid is the only method

It's the only method by which I can personally be convinced of a scientific claim, sure. I can only speak to myself and my own criteria for believing things.

and this has actually backfired on you as a result.

Backfired how? Because I don't believe you, do you think I am experiencing or will experience something bad?

Of course, you can't see it which is why we've made no progress.

I can't see what exactly?

I have absolutely no faith that even if you read the first three chapters with a sincere intention to learn these principles, that you would grasp them because you have a block that is preventing this knowledge from penetrating (and I'm not even referring to the eyes).

Nope, I have no block. I do have high standards of reasoning and evidence though. I've told you that from the beginning.

You have already committed yourself to how right you are and how wrong he is and, therefore, you have lost your objectivity.

Nope still as objective as I've ever been, just waiting for you to make a well reasoned argument or present any kind of evidence. I have no expectation of that happening, of course, as my experience with you indicates that would be a most ridiculous expectation to have.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These people you call woo woos are probably going to be the people that will bring this knowledge to light, and it will meet scientific scrutiny in the end.

Oh !

This I am very interested in seeing! I can't wait until the woos start bringing it to light! Are you already in contact with some of these instrumental people?