A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He does lots of constructive things in his personal and professional life. As do the rest of us participants. This is an amusing or interesting diversion for him, and many of us.

Diversion? I don't think this is amusing at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Don't you have more constructive things to be doing, like marketing the book?

Actually I am in the process of reading the book. I'm on Chapter Five. After I'm done and the book is for sale, I will begin marketing. I am just not sure how to go about it on a small budget. This will be another big undertaking.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god LadyShea. It's amazing how a woman who is trying so hard to be objective is so unobjective. How can you equate the fact that he was a salesman to being a liar. You are the one full of shit woman.

Who said anything at all about lying? I do the same exact thing, tailor my language and reference points to the customer's comfort zone, for my customer service and sales work, without lying at all. It's part of the professions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now see? Here's a perfect example of your sublime ignorance.

No one who understands anything at all about what science is and how it's done could have written that sentence.

I feel perfectly justified in calling this a scientific discovery. When this knowledge is finally recognized for its contribution to humanity, you will too. The worse case scenario is that people will call it a discovery and leave out scientific. Who cares?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything at all about lying? I do the same exact thing, tailor my language and reference points to the customer's comfort zone, for my customer service and sales work, without lying at all. It's part of the professions.

You were accusing him of using the word God in an underhanded way; to satisfy the Judeo-Christian mind. Why else would you bring this up?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel perfectly justified in calling this a scientific discovery. When this knowledge is finally recognized for its contribution to humanity, you will too.

Don't you mean 'If this knowledge is finally recognized for its contribution to humanity...' ? It shows no signs of ever doing that to me.

And even if it did, why would it be called a 'scientific discovery'? Lots of things have contributed in large or small ways to humanity - works of literature, songs, paintings, garden gnomes, ... but no one in their right mind would call any of those things, 'scientific discoveries'.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were accusing him of using the word God in an underhanded way; to satisfy the Judeo-Christian mind. Why else would you bring this up?

Because that's what he did and you said he didn't, though I wouldn't use the word underhanded. Definitely strategic. See my recent post (click here) for explanation

[LadyShea]

The laws of the Universe do not reward people for their faith, nor do they perform miracles, nor do they have a will, nor can they be labeled an Intelligence. Only beings can do those things or have those traits. These passages were strategically meant to make religious people comfortable

Originally Posted by Lessans

Would you like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with
religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded
with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil?

Originally Posted by Lessans

They should be simply thrilled at the miracle God is about to perform, even though it means putting them out of work.

Originally Posted by Lessans

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not
far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts
pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is
God’s will.”

Originally Posted by Lessans

Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance? Do you believe that
your faith in God has been in vain?

He also states that God is meant as a metaphor for universal laws and is somehow "mathematically proven" so as not to turn off the scientists. But this use is far less common, at least in the first few chapters

Originally Posted by Lessans

this book is not a religious or philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the word God seem incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will understand immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical
reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

On the one hand God is performing miracles through Lessans, and on the other Lessans is just stating scientific and mathematical "facts"

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel perfectly justified in calling this a scientific discovery. When this knowledge is finally recognized for its contribution to humanity, you will too. The worse case scenario is that people will call it a discovery and leave out scientific. Who cares?

Aaand once again, you've managed to completely miss the point. It's hard to believe that it isn't deliberate on your part.


Let me break it down for you:

You claimed that you understand what the words "science" and "scientific" actually mean -- as opposed to Lessans' bogus, deliberately construed to be misleading, completely made-up definitions.

Then you claimed that "scientific" = "undeniable," which isn't just wrong, it's ludicrously wrong.

No one who knows anything at all about what science is and how it's done could have made such a claim. To borrow the analogy given earlier, it would be like someone insisting that they know perfectly well what a square is, and then talking about how a square is round.


This neatly demonstrates that you were lying when you claimed that you understand what the words "science" and "scientific" actually mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, that's what I was proving. You said to "show you" where he berated people, so I showed you.

I want to call you on your dishonesty and weaseling and see if you'll own up to it. And, I am learning a lot, all the time.

Thanks for admitting it. Whether his reasons were "good" is a matter of opinion of course.

He wasn't owed an audience, or an open door, or anything of the sort...nobody is owed those things. Why did he expect an audience? Do you think every person with an idea should expect to be given an audience for them?

This is more than an idea. You haven't the slightest conception of the problem, and I refuse to discuss it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You then claimed this was not berating, but showing faulty reasoning. What reasoning was he refuting and whose reasoning was he showing as faulty in the quoted passages?

I was referring to the body of his discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you refer to that when that wasn't at all what we were discussing?

I was referring to the book in general. Would you let up already?

I don't call it berating either. He wasn't scolding anyone.

definition

berate: Scold or criticize (someone) angrily

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not berate anyone even if they didn't understand him or if they had questions. He would try to help clarify what he meant. As far as the introduction, you can call it what you want. You can make it appear that I am a weasel and a liar when I said he didn't berate anyone. That's your intention anyway; to make me fail in everyone's eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not making it appear like anything.

You most certainly are. You have an agenda here, and it's very clear to see.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are a weasel.My intention is to challenge your bullshit in all its various forms. "Everyone" thinks I am just as crazy as you for continuing to engage you so I am not doing it for their eyes.

Challenge my bullshit? Uh huh. The fact that I don't consider his words berating? Your doing it for yourself because you think you're right in your analysis of him. Everything you conjure up is wrong. He didn't berate anyone. He explained what people did to him, and he wanted people to know. You won't let go of this just like Maturin won't let go of the complaint he wrote. None of this has anything to do with the validity of this discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How on Earth is it "unfounded"? You made a statement, I refuted it using Lessans own words. Now you are weaseling.

Do you think I'm going to keep arguing over this nonsense?

Because I wasn't referring to the introduction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why not? That's what I quoted, you should have referred to the passages I put up for discussion.

You won LadyShea. Are you happy now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to find anything you can to discredit this man, and it's amazing how you twist things to make his writing appear the way you want it to.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't twist anything, I quoted passages word for word.

You twist the meaning of his words. I don't know why you're doing this. We're so off track as usual.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't twist anything. I posted quotes. Do they have a meaning other than what the words say?

What is your point????? Why are you grilling me on the most superficial stuff? I don't care if you call his words berating, accusing, condemning or anything else, okay? He explained what he went through to preclude people doing the same thing 50 years later. It didn't help obviously. Let it go already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, and that's what they are. He was telling the truth. He wasn't berating everyone, but if the shoe fits, they need to wear it and own it so that they recognize in themselves what they are doing. This is a serious problem in academia, and he is not the only one who has felt it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And he was arrogant and self righteous himself, the quoted passages show that clearly as well...if the shoe fits why not make him wear it too?

Boy do you know how to manipulate. Is this what you call objectivity?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's what they were, so call it what you want. They were obstructing his ability to bring his discovery to light because they were the top echelon and he couldn't make headway.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Obstruction? He had freedom of speech, nothing was blocking him from publishing his ideas.

He did self-publish, but he couldn't get conventionally published. You really don't understand what he was up against, or even care. All you do is judge him without truly understanding the seriousness of his plight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were too proud to even hear what he had to say.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the arrogance. He had no reason to expect to be listened to by anyone. Nobody owed him an audience...why did he expect one?

He didn't expect anything. He wanted to demonstrate a discovery. If you made a discovery that is this significant you wouldn't want to sit on it either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Aaand once again, you've managed to completely miss the point. It's hard to believe that it isn't deliberate on your part.


Let me break it down for you:

You claimed that you understand what the words "science" and "scientific" actually mean -- as opposed to Lessans' bogus, deliberately construed to be misleading, completely made-up definitions.

Then you claimed that "scientific" = "undeniable," which isn't just wrong, it's ludicrously wrong.

No one who knows anything at all about what science is and how it's done could have made such a claim. To borrow the analogy given earlier, it would be like someone insisting that they know perfectly well what a square is, and then talking about how a square is round.


This neatly demonstrates that you were lying when you claimed that you understand what the words "science" and "scientific" actually mean.

You are assuming that this knowledge has not lived up to scrutiny. That's why you are nitpicking about the word, for if you knew that this was a new discovery, I doubt very much if it would bother you that he used the word scientific.

Scientific Discovery

a new achievement arrived at through knowledge of nature and society. Scientific discovery forms the basis of the scientific and technological revolution, giving new direction to the development of science and technology and revolutionizing social production. Discoveries have a special significance at the contemporary stage of scientific and technological progress, when the period of time between a discovery and its practical application is being greatly reduced.

Soviet legislation recognizes discoveries as objects of special legal protection, regarding them as the establishment of previously unknown, objectively existing laws, properties, and phenomena of the material world that bring about a radical change in the level of knowledge (Statute on Discoveries, Inventions, and Efficiency Proposals, 1973; Collected Decrees of the USSR, 1973, no. 19, art. 109).

Scientific Discovery definition of Scientific Discovery in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

[The Lone Ranger]

Point 1: It is not "nitpicking" to point out that to redefine a word to mean its exact opposite is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do. There's only one reason for Lessans to have done so: because he was trying to deceive people into thinking that his work was scientific, when it was not. Otherwise, there's no reason to call what he did "scientific." It only confuses people. Which, of course, is exactly what was intended.


Point 2: Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, claimed that Mars has two moons. At the time, no one knew how many (if any) moons Mars had. Later, it was discovered that Mars does indeed have two moons. Does this mean that Swift had made a scientific discovery? No. He simply made a claim that later turned out to be correct.

What does this have to do with Lessans? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that his claims are actually true. Does this make them "scientific"? No it doesn't, because he didn't use scientific methodology -- as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out. Therefore, by definition, his claims are not scientific, and it's fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise.



And deliberate deception is the entire reason you and Lessans insist on calling his claims "scientific." And you know it. You know perfectly well that Lessans' claims aren't scientific by any legitimate definition of the word, so you've invented a bogus definition and you hope that the readers are too stupid to notice.

Your problem, as with your father before you, is that people aren't as stupid as you need them to be.

[Vivisectus]

Hahah maybe we can ask Mike the Health Ranger if germs and viruses are just a condition for certain infectuous diseases, but not the cause?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you take that to mean that you can just claim something and leave it at that? Because right now, all we have is your fathers word that it is so, and nothing else.

No, you don't just have his word; you have his reasoning based on his careful observations. And they make sense.

What matters in any scientific endeavor is finding out what is true. The round earth theory is much more compelling than the flat earth theory. You don't know enough about my father's claims to understand why he came to the conclusions he did, yet you're so sure he's just another flat earther. That's just not the case so stop making this comparison.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You don't know enough about how flat-earth theory to understand how they came to their conclusions, yet you are so sure they are just another Lessans! That's just not the case, so stop making the comparison.

No, and I don't care what their reasons are. I care about my father's discovery. I am not going to get distracted.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And indeed - we should find out of sight is efferent. Let us do a test: let us take a picture of the night sky with a camera and then look at it. If we see the same constellations on both, then that means it is not: it is an observation that is not compatible with efferent sight, and that proves sight is afferent. Job done!

Of course we would get the same constellation because cameras work the same way as the eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Talk about getting old! I have read the book several times. That is how I know it contains no evidence. You know it too: that is why you can STILL not produce it.

I don't believe you for a second. You know nothing about this book except your ridiculous analogy: blame doesn't cause crime just as firemen don't cause fires. What's the two-sided equation Vivisectus? You really don't understand anything because you won't let yourself.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

]Believe what you want: it really does not matter. I did indeed read the wretched book, and now look at the thanks I get for putting myself through that eyebleedingly bad and clumsy prose.

No you didn't Vivisectus. You're out and out lying now. You may have read the first two chapters once, but you did not read the whole book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, do you remember how, if you use that standard, your own opinions on a wide range of subjects become worthless?

My opinion fares just as well as any other person's opinion. But I'm not discussing opinions when it comes to the book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know enough about the book to know that he promises, in chapter 4, to prove once and for all that sight is efferent. However, I am unable to find any such proof. Or any reason to assume it is so at all. The same is true for the book's stance on conscience: there is just as strong a case made for blame being what ultimately allows people to do bad things because it allows them to justify it, as there is for firemen being the root cause of fires.

You're so lost here it's incredible. This just shows me your lack of understanding. You haven't understood anything I've posted regarding the way in which people are able to come up with reasonable excuses when they know they will be blamed or questioned. Does that ring a bell at all?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I also know that the book explicitly promises that it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eyes are not a sense organ... and then just keeps talking about how the eyes are not a sense organ without ever proving a thing.

He demonstrated why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. Can you repeat what he was trying to explain?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

First off: you are bullshitting again. He did no such thing. He just claimed that sight works a certain way and left it at that. Worse: he promised to prove sight works like he said, beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he never does.

So you're saying that the entire chapter is a claim that the eyes are not a sense organ without any explantion or reason given as to why he came to this conclusion? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, explaining what he tries to say about sight is hard to do because it makes so little sense and is poorly written, even by the standards of the book. There are many words and phrases which have idiosyncratic meanings, and he never establishes his definitions. At one stage he seems to be saying that when we first start to look at things as infant, we are reacting to other stimuli first, almost as if the brain needs to be alerted to the presence of something first in order to look at it.

He explained this very clearly.

p. 115 Did you ever wonder why the eyes
of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around
him, although the other four senses are in full working order?
“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”
And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof
room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is
a prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently
removed, he could never have the desire to see. Consequently, even
though the eyelids were removed, and even if many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking.

Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.
We need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is also a part where he feels we project words outward, like slides in a slide-machine, onto "A screen of undeniable essense", another of those wonderful phrases with absolutely no meaning. What is that screen of undeniable essence supposed to be?

All that means is real substance, substance that exists in the external world. Tables, chairs, lamps, people, cars, animals, trees, houses, these are all bits of material substance. If you had carefully read this you would understand why he made a distinction between real substance and what is just a projection of one's realistic imagination.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And all this to come to the conclusion that what we do is project words on to reality, and that this is what sight is. A tortuous and rather silly excercise.

That's not even close to what he said.

p. 116 “Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel
any different, and I still see you just as before.”

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it
makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

<snip>

p. 120 The knowledge revealed thus far although also hidden behind
the doormarked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I
referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to
me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused
because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture.
What does mean a great deal to me, when the purpose of this book is to
remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of
hurt that exists in human relation), is to demonstrate how certain
words have absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused
the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we have
never understood our true relationship with the external world which
is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is this
injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the human race
because of physiognomic differences and this judgment takes place the
moment we call one person beautiful and another one ugly, handsome
and homely, good looking and bad looking.

“But I have been taught that sticks and stones will break my bones
but names or words will never hurt me. Isn’t that a true statement?”

Actually, I’m not referring to those names. To be called the N
word, or any name used in an effort to make a person feel inferior, is
actually not a hurt if this does not lower ourselves in our own eyes
because we allow for the source. But when we believe we are inferior
productions because of words that have told us so, the expression,
‘Sticks and stones will break my bones…’ is completely erroneous
since we have been unconsciously hurt.

This unconsciousness has its
source in the failure to understand how the eyes function which is
revealed by the fact that they are included as one of the five senses.
When someone is judged an inferior production of the human race by
others as well as himself, all because of words that have no relation to
reality although he sees this inferiority as if it is a definite part of the
real world, then he is seriously hurt and God is going to put a
permanent end to the use of these words.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To get to that, he invokes the example of the sun being turned on, and explaining that we would see the sun immediately, but we would have to wait for the little molecules of light to reach the earth before we can see one another, because light is just a condition for sight, but not the cause of it. How and why this is so? Not a clue. It is once again not explained, just claimed and left at that.

Why are you making fun by using the term "molecules". Is that what you resort to when you have no real answers?

Not true. You don't know what you're talking about. You're a liar when you say you read the book. Tell me how the new economic system will work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not going to re-hash the whole book, as it is tedious in the extreme.

That's the biggest excuse if I ever heard one. What do think rehashing this book to help people undertand is for me? A day at the park? But I'm at least trying. You're not even doing that, which makes you look ignorant in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

the new economic system considers raising prices a hurtful action. There will be a baseline income for all that will allow people to live: if they want more they can work.

You don't understand a thing, not a thing. This chapter is over 100 pages, and two sentences are what you got out of it? I don't believe you read it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now, about this evidence in favout of conscience? Why don't you get your copy out and find this evidence that you say is in there? But you cannot, can you?

It's not the evidence that you want. He carefully describes how conscience works. It's easy to see how people rationalize in our society. They can easily shift the blame for their actions to someone or something else. Again, my posts don't seem to be penetrating.

p. 68 Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child
says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you didn’t make
him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and
not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to
shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why
else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also
true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished
for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him
think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and
punishment he doesn’t want.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you think I am going to be the only person to realize that this seems to have been forgotten?

Nothing has been forgotten.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So - why don't you produce the evidence you keep alluding to? The answer, as we both know, is that there is none, or you would have produced it a long time ago.

I have. He described in extreme detail how conscience works, just as in the example of a person describing an unknown animal to a person who has never seen this animal before. And you can see that he is right in his observations if you read it carefully, which you haven't done.

He provided evidence by correctly describing what he observed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I have described to you, in great detail, how the earth is flat! How it falls upward through space at a steady acceleration of 32 feet per second, creating the effect we call gravity. How the moon and the sun hover over it, and are much smaller and much closer than we think.

No Vivisectus. His observations are based in reality, they are not based on flying monsters, and fairies.

As in the analogy I gave, I am describing in great detail this animal to you that you have never seen. You keep telling me prove it. Show me the evidence. I can't show you anymore evidence until you see this animal for yourself. Then you will say my description was spot on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. And until you produce your winged unicorn, I have no reason to assume it exists other than your belief that it exists. Only in this case, you have heard about the winged flying unicorn from someone else: your father. He said he saw a strange, far away country, and that this unicorn was in it. You like the story, and you want to believe him. Personally I take it with a grain of salt big enough to cause immediate dietary concerns. Afterall: all we have is his word on it. He could be hallucinating or lying.

He was an observer of reality. One of his observations is that we cannot see this world through anybody else's consciousness but our own. Can you not see this for yourself? His observations can be understood and recognized for what they are because they are true.

By the same token, there's no other way to prove to you that what Lessans has described regarding conscience (and the eyes) is accurate until you see the validity of his observations for yourself. He also said that his observations regarding the eyes could be scientifically tested.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At least you have admitted there is no evidence. Are you sorry for lying?

I'm so sick of this word. Please stop using it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point 1: It is not "nitpicking" to point out that to redefine a word to mean its exact opposite is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do. There's only one reason for Lessans to have done so: because he was trying to deceive people into thinking that his work was scientific, when it was not. Otherwise, there's no reason to call what he did "scientific." It only confuses people. Which, of course, is exactly what was intended.

But you're wrong about his motivations Lone Ranger, 100% wrong. He did not do anything for underhanded purposes. He was an honest man, and you're not going to ruin his reputation because you want to find a way to portray him in an unflattering light. That's a deceptive thing to do Lone.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

Point 2: Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, claimed that Mars has two moons. At the time, no one knew how many (if any) moons Mars had. Later, it was discovered that Mars does indeed have two moons. Does this mean that Swift had made a scientific discovery? No. He simply made a claim that later turned out to be correct.

What does this have to do with Lessans? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that his claims are actually true. Does this make them "scientific"? No it doesn't, because he didn't use scientific methodology -- as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out. Therefore, by definition, his claims are not scientific, and it's fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Then take out the word scientific if you don't like it. What he has discovered is uncharted and has social benefit. Call it what you want. Maybe back then the definition wasn't as clearcut. This is still a discovery that needs to be given recognition. It doesn't surprise me that you say he only made a claim, and it will be others to confirm it that should get the credit. You don't want to give him any credit for anything. You know what? He wouldn't have cared. All he would want, if he was still alive, is that this knowledge get brought to light, and not thrown into a scrap heap, so that we can finally achieve what we never thought was possible: world peace.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And deliberate deception is the entire reason you and Lessans insist on calling his claims "scientific." And you know it. You know perfectly well that Lessans' claims aren't scientific by any legitimate definition of the word, so you've invented a bogus definition and you hope that the readers are too stupid to notice.

Your problem, as with your father before you, is that people aren't as stupid as you need them to be.

Please stop it. I'm not going to keep defending myself day after day with this kind of junk. It's such a waste of your time and mine.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're wrong about his motivations Lone Ranger, 100% wrong. He did not do anything for underhanded purposes. He was an honest man, and you're not going to ruin his reputation because you want to find a way to portray him in an unflattering light.

There is no alternate explanation. The only reason for you and Lessans to call his work "scientific" when you know perfectly well that it's not is that you want to deceive people into thinking that it's something that it's not.

Then take out the word scientific if you don't like it.

That's not my job. It's yours.

What he has discovered is uncharted and has social benefit. Call it what you want.

Conceivably. It's still lying to call what he did science.

Please stop it. I'm not going to keep defending myself day after day with this kind of junk. It's such a waste of your time and mine.

Then stop lying.

I am a professional scientist. And I take great exception to your and Lessans' dishonesty when you try to pretend that what he did was science.

Call it philosophy, if you want, or call it mental masturbation. But stop lying and pretending what he did was science.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you don't just have his word; you have his reasoning based on his careful observations. And they make sense.

We only have his word that he made any observations or that his observations were either careful or accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we would get the same constellation because cameras work the same way as the eyes.

And you still have no idea at all of how either eyes or cameras work, either in reality or in your and your father's efferent fantasy world. Last time you tried to explain it you had photons coming from the Sun which had never been located there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So you're saying that the entire chapter is a claim that the eyes are not a sense organ without any explantion or reason given as to why he came to this conclusion? Is that what you're saying?

He gave some reasons, but they do not amount to the conclusive proof he said he would provide. And his reasons were all (i) unsupported; (ii) false; & (iii) not even relevant to the mechanism of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not the evidence that you want. He carefully describes how conscience works. It's easy to see how people rationalize in our society. They can easily shift the blame for their actions to someone or something else. Again, my posts don't seem to be penetrating.

We understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is that you have absolutely ZERO evidence to show that his description of conscience (along with the assumption he makes regarding the innate potential perfection of conscience) is accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have. He described in extreme detail how conscience works, just as in the example of a person describing an unknown animal to a person who has never seen this animal before. And you can see that he is right in his observations if you read it carefully, which you haven't done.

You can't know a description to be correct just by reading it carefully. It needs to be compared against reality, which is something neither you nor your father have ever bothered to do. If you had done then you would have evidence instead of mere descriptions. Descriptions are not evidence of their own accuracy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You see it happen all the time, even when a child
says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you didn’t make
him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and
not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to
shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why
else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also
true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished
for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him
think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and
punishment he doesn’t want.

No this diesn't happen "All the Time", only with children who have been taught to try and get out of what they have done. Most children are taught to be honest and tell the truth, especially if their parents are honest and tell the truth. The usual method is to make the punishment worse when they try to hide something and are found out and little or no punishment if they tell the truth. Dishonest and deceitful parents raise dishonest and deceitful children by example. If the above is what Lessans believed to be true, perhaps it indicates his own upbringing and attitude towards others, lie, cheat, and steal, when you can.

[LadyShea]

Of course we would get the same constellation because cameras work the same way as the eyes.

Then why do you keep saying the brain is the most important part of efferent vision if no brain is even necessary and cameras work the same?

Remember, we know 100%, without question, how cameras work. They focus incoming light onto photosensitive film or a photosensitive sensor and the image is created based on the properties of that incoming light, such as wavelength. There is no possibility that cameras work any other way. So are you saying that is how eyes work?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't want to give him any credit for anything.

You are aware that if you can't blame people for anything you can't credit them for anything either. They are flip sides of the same coin, to use a phrase of yours.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are aware that if you can't blame people for anything you can't credit them for anything either. They are flip sides of the same coin, to use a phrase of yours.

This is one of the many contradictions of Lessans "Golden Age", that people are expected to get credit for doing good, but are not blamed for doing bad thengs. Perhaps Lessans had a lot of experience with negtive reinforcement and wanted to eliminate it from his new world order, and now Peacegirl can only accept negative attention. It makes one wonder what the father / daughter relationship was really like?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He demonstrated why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. Can you repeat what he was trying to explain?

Explaining why one believes something to be true is not the same thing as proving that what one believes is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He provided evidence by correctly describing what he observed. As in the analogy I gave, I am describing in great detail this animal to you that you have never seen. You keep telling me prove it. Show me the evidence. I can't show you anymore evidence until you see this animal for yourself.

The description of a thing is not evidence for the existence of that thing. If you can't provide anymore evidence for the existence of the thing being described than the description itself, then you have not provided any evidence at all.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you knew that this discovery was genuine and will one day change our world for the better, you wouldn't be speaking this way.

You are probably right about that. I don't think they provide internet access to people in the secure ward at the mental hospital. That is probably where Maturin would be committed if he claimed to know that this discovery was genuine.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The term "frivolous" describes Lessans' lawsuit perfectly. It was utterly bereft of legal merit. Here's a description of frivolousness that I've always found kinda amusing:

That almost reads like the author was writing with Lessans in mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far, we have seen that if we apply the standards that are required for the book to be considered plausible to other ideas, then the belief in a flat earth, the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are also plausible.

The only difference is that there is no proof that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster actually exist. You are, one again, making it appear that Lessans' claims have nothing to do with a real world observation, which is not true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But now we have an important new piece of Lessanese science to consider: the description or demonstration as evidence. If I describe something, and do so correctly, then this description counts as evidence for the correctness if the description!

Of course it does. You cannot prove everything empirically. Lessans stated from observation that we cannot see this world through anybody else's consciousness but our own. Anyone can see that this is an accurate observation, and it does not have to be proven through empirical testing that this is the case.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

He provided evidence by correctly describing what he observed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now most people consider this problematic, because you end up in rather a loop: how do you determine if a description is correct? You look for evidence. But the description, if correct, IS the evidence? But there can also be incorrect descriptions... how can we tell the correct ones, which are evidence for themselves, from the incorrect ones, which are not evidence for themselves?

You have to follow his explanation carefully because you will begin to see the truth in what he's saying for yourself --- just like you can see the truth for yourself that you cannot see this world through anybody else's consciousness but your own.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, of course, has the answer. She just checks if they are "spot on". Or "Astute".

That's exactly what they are, but in order for you to see that they are, you have to stop arguing and debating, and read with the intention to learn. Do you see why he had to put this in the introduction?

Introduction

In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah, and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words. “But what is truth?”
you might ask. “Let us say it is that which cannot be denied by anyone
anywhere.” “But,” you might reply, “that’s just common sense;
everyone knows that.” Well it is just this common sense; that sense
common to us all that I am making the very foundation of this book.

It is for this reason that what I write will be understood not only by
those who can read the English language, but by the entire literate
world. There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is dreamed up in
philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear undeniable
explanation about facts of man’s nature never before understood.
Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If you are
coming along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking
caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon to be
revealed which permit you to see this miracle.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The rest of us will just have to take her word for it that the description of the Loch Ness Monster as a large creature with a long neck and four flippers is incorrect and the description of sight as efferent is correct, and hereby also proven to be correct.

This was an accurate observation. I understand the dilemma, but you cannot put everyone's observations in the same basket because nothing that they are claiming to be true has proven to actually exist. All they have are a bunch of theories and conjectures. Eventually, you will see that Lessans' observations have a basis in reality. His observations can also be verified through further testing, which I've stated numerous times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah wait - let us not forget we have also established that unless you are conversant with all of the literature on a subject you are not capable of understanding any part of it as it has been explained to you, and you cannot have a reasonably informed opinion on it. This is important, as this means that because I am not up to speed on the latest works on werewolf-research means that my strong conviction that there is no such thing is completely out of left field.

I never said or implied that. As in Lessans' case, he didn't have to be a biologist to reject science's explanation regarding light and sight due to a different way of seeing what is going on.