A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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


Do you know what you are saying? Lessans said 105 lettered square, now you are saying 105 combinations, Is a combination a group of 3, do you even know? And what the hell difference would it make if it did get on the internet? If his proof was right it would prove at least that that part of his book was correct. YOU DON'T HAVE A PROOF, this is just more of you stalling, because you have nothing at all to offer. I'm begining to think this is just another one of your made up fictions to fool people.

No, if people could care less about this book, they aren't going to care if he is right about the math problem. I don't think they are interested at all. He was talking about the PROOF of the math problem. The proof had 105 combinations. He went down the list from A to O vertical, and next to each letter he wrote 7 combinations. That's how he found his answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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


Do you know what you are saying? Lessans said 105 lettered square, now you are saying 105 combinations, Is a combination a group of 3, do you even know? And what the hell difference would it make if it did get on the internet? If his proof was right it would prove at least that that part of his book was correct. YOU DON'T HAVE A PROOF, this is just more of you stalling, because you have nothing at all to offer. I'm begining to think this is just another one of your made up fictions to fool people.

No, if people think he is a crackpot, being right about the math problem isn't going to change their opinion. He was talking about the PROOF of the math problem. The proof had 105 combinations. He went down the list from A to O vertically, and next to each letter he had 7 combinations on each line. Here's an example.

A -- BC - DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FO
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Lone Ranger is a biologist, but I don't think you've explained Lessans model of how sight works well enough for him to even begin to map it out.

He already mentioned way back that one of the nerves in question is one way only to the brain, rather than away from it. So that may be pertinent, depending on exactly what Lessan's model is and what it states.

And I said that this knowledge has to be included in Lessans' mapping. If the optic nerve is afferent, we're not going to change the fact that the fibers are afferent. But there are other ways to map what could be going on using all of the components of the eye. I would like to talk to him or someone else who has expertise in this area to see how efferent vision could actually be a workable model.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, if people think he is a crackpot, being right about the math problem isn't going to change their opinion. He was talking about the PROOF of the math problem. The proof had 105 combinations. He went down the list from A to O vertically, and next to each letter he had 7 combinations on each line. Here's an example.

A -- BC - DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FO
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O

Lessans instructions said groups of 3, you are showing groups of 2, which is it. Can you even comprehend that it is different? In a previous post you said the first 5 combinations were ABC, DEF, GHI, JKL, MNO, now you are changing your story again.

[LadyShea]

A -- BC - DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FO

I think this means

ABC ADG AJM AEK AHN AIL AFO

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are 35 sets, 3 in each set. You have to figure out the arrangement such that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter. It's easier said than done. I wouldn't even attempt it. The top line begins:

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

There are 6 more lines to go.

There is your post, now you are not only contradicting reality you are contridicting yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think this means

ABC ADG AJM AEK AHN AIL AFO

Still doesn't work, there are only 29 combinations of 3 letters with 15 different letters useing each letter in a group with another letter only once. However there are 455 if you can use letter combinations more than once.

[Awareness]

It does seem that the standard of what is beautiful is becoming more and more universal.

Beauty on the outside means totally nothing, dead eyes only works for playfull dolls.

Everyone is trying to live up to Western standards.

Western standards: (M)a back like an ironing board with full of hair,
(F)a face with too many corners, and no lips to kiss.

Children don't know what's going on, so when they are not called beautiful, they are hurt.

Yeah , eleven year olds buying make-up with their mother
My daughter plays "Panfu" and has tremendous grades.

They grow up believing they are not as pretty as the next one, and it is confirmed by what they see in the mirror.

Try an honest smile instead of looking like a zombie.

This has serious ramifications, as if you didn't know. We all see how girls grow up to hate their bodies and their faces.

What you like, what you are good at, what you love, what your hobbies are what you are disgusted with, what your qualities are, how you are with people, what your concerns are, what your convictions are etc........
and what you look like

We can tell our children until the cows come home that they are beautiful inside, if not on the outside. That doesn't always help because people who are considered more beautiful get the guys, get the jobs, and get the respect.

From enduring or suffering comes wisdom.

The source of the problem comes from the words themselves, and is not easy an easy problem to solve unless we recognize what we're doing and stop using these words in reference to people's physical characteristics.

You sound like a commercial Peace girl.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Awareness

Western standards: (M)a back like an ironing bord with full of hair,
(F)a face with too many corners, and no lips to kiss.

[LadyShea]

Last edited by Awareness; Today at 06:13 PM. Reason: ironing board

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A child might like a certain food but feel pressured to go along with his friends. That's called peer pressure.

When I was in elementary and middle school, and we brought lunches to school, sometimes I would get liverwurst (Braunschweiger) and cucumber sandwiches. Liver and cucumber is a popular combination in Sweden.

The other kids thought it was gross. But that only made me like it more.

Also just post your damn proof. What bad thing is going to happen if we find out your dad was actually right about something?

You're hiding this like it's the recipe for Coca-Cola or something.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by erimir

When I was in elementary and middle school, and we brought lunches to school, sometimes I would get liverwurst (Braunschweiger) and cucumber sandwiches. Liver and cucumber is a popular combination in Sweden.

The other kids thought it was gross. But that only made me like it more.

Also just post your damn proof. What bad thing is going to happen if we find out your dad was actually right about something?

You're hiding this like it's the recipe for Coca-Cola or something.

She's hiding it because she doesn't know and can't figure out if its correct or not, either that or she doesn't have a proof at all and is just stringing everyone along. Many years ago I did a quiz for a prize, I won. When I collected the prize the author of the quiz admidted that the one question was just 'fishing' for the answer, which I got correct, but no-one else knew the answer, not even the author of the quiz. Peacegirl is just fishing for the answer, which she will than claim was Lessans answer, congratulate the one who discovered it, and then claim that this goes to validate the rest of the book and Lessans theory. Big fishing trip, she's dangeling the bait, and we are the suckers.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, if people think he is a crackpot, being right about the math problem isn't going to change their opinion. He was talking about the PROOF of the math problem. The proof had 105 combinations. He went down the list from A to O vertically, and next to each letter he had 7 combinations on each line. Here's an example.

A -- BC - DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FO
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O

I'm seeing a problem here, though. As you go down the list, you run out of letters to make 7 combinations. Even just considering the first and last lines of your example, the A line and the O line:
A -- BC -- DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FO
O -- BC -- DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FA
See the problem? O has already been paired with F, in the set with A. So you can't get 7 sets with O like you could with A, there aren't enough letters to go around. Even scrambling the letters of the O line into some other order, like:
O -- GM -- JI -- KL -- EB -- CH -- DA -- NF
we still have the problem of F, as well as A, which O has already been in a set with. This problem is present in all the lines after the first. How does Lessans address this problem in his solution?

As I said I'm not very good with puzzles. Could you post your dad's solution at some point? Perhaps I am missing something, or perhaps your dad didn't really find a solution.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

I'm seeing a problem here, though. As you go down the list, you run out of letters to make 7 combinations. Even just considering the first and last lines of your example, the A line and the O line:
A -- BC -- DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FO
O -- BC -- DG -- JM -- EK -- HN -- IL -- FA
See the problem? O has already been paired with F, in the set with A. So you can't get 7 sets with O like you could with A, there aren't enough letters to go around. Even scrambling the letters of the O line into some other order, like:
O -- GM -- JI -- KL -- EB -- CH -- DA -- NF
we still have the problem of F, as well as A, which O has already been in a set with. This problem is present in all the lines after the first. How does Lessans address this problem in his solution?

As I said I'm not very good with puzzles. Could you post your dad's solution at some point? Perhaps I am missing something, or perhaps your dad didn't really find a solution.

You have also paired B with C twice, which is not allowed, as well as the next 5 pairs are all repetes which is not allowed. As I said before She is fishing for a solution, so she can go to the next forum with this much proof of anything Lessans wrote, to launch a thread with 'proof'.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl is just fishing for the answer, which she will than claim was Lessans answer, congratulate the one who discovered it, and then claim that this goes to validate the rest of the book and Lessans theory. Big fishing trip, she's dangeling the bait, and we are the suckers.

DING!DING!DING!DING!

Or she will just keep telling everyone they are "wrong" by changing the rules of the puzzle as she has done HERE.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As I said before She is fishing for a solution, so she can go to the next forum with this much proof of anything Lessans wrote, to launch a thread with 'proof'.

And, even if he WAS right about this, it would not make the eye an efferent organ.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Doctor X, have you tried to solve the puzzle? or are you smart enough to not bother? Some of us are actually dumb enough to try, and this after reading a good part of the book, that was another really dumb thing to do.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

And, even if he WAS right about this, it would not make the eye an efferent organ.

--J.D.

Yes but she could use this as 'guilt by associaton', if one thing can be shown as true then other things could also be true. Daddy was right about the puzzle, why can't you accept that he was right about 'free will' 'Eyes' etc.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

or are you smart enough to not bother?

That.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes but she could use this as 'guilt by associaton', if one thing can be shown as true then other things could also be true. Daddy was right about the puzzle, why can't you accept that he was right about 'free will' 'Eyes' etc.

No, I tried that on Nicole Kidman. Her bodyguards poured A1 Sauce© on me then used me to exercise the fucking guard dogs. I HATE FUCKING GUARD DOGS!

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From a peer reviewed scientific journal

These are interesting results. I believe there are cues a dog can use to identify certain scenes or faces. For example, they are being rewarded for picking the right face. That is definitely a type of training that would influence the dog. I don't think that his choosing the face that he is being rewarded for choosing is proof that he really would really recognize his master in a situation where it is not contrived. I am not discounting this test at all, but I would like to do a number of different tests such as the one I suggested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this discovery is valid and sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unsupported assertion.

Absolutely incorrect. I think the problem goes back to epistemology, and how knowledge is acquired. If you believe that the only way we can get proof of the real world is through empiricism, then it would be an assertion. But his observations were absolutely accurate, whether you see this yet or not.

It's not some off the wall theory that has no basis in reality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unsupported assertion

I'm sorry if that's what you think. I can try to confirm his observations through empirical testing to back his claims up, but that doesn't mean they are mere assertions. It took him years of reading and very careful observations of human nature to come to these conclusions. He did not merely state an assertion. It's ridiculous what you are saying.

The evidence comes from his observations and his reasoning.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His observations and reasoning are not very good evidence. More is needed.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating LadyShea. If it doesn't work, obviously it would be wrong. But this knowledge does work in all cases. That's why it is a psychological law. If you don't believe it yet, don't give up, because that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And this would be very unfortunate.

That was proof, but if you don't see it, then there needs to be more empirical evidence, which I believe will be in his favor.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then provide it.

I'm doing my best.

Some things cannot be proved empirically, but that doesn't mean they are any less valid, such as his discovery on death.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't mean they're valid either. Without empirical evidence they are just notions.

You are so wrong. I'm sorry but pure reason wins the day when it comes to Chapter Ten. Thank goodness because it's a very comforting chapter, and it's undeniable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, If you have Lessans notes on his 'observations' posting them would be helpful to validate his claims. If his observations were accurate and valid there should be no problem, and others could try to repete them for further validation. As it is you claim there were observations but do not specify what they were, only the conclusions on which they were based. If Lessans was any kind of a mathetician or scientist he would have kept notes, no scientist worth anything works just from his memory in his head.

I will repeat: Lessans was not an empiricist. But his observations hold up to scientific scrutiny. He asks each person to become his own guinea pig. Test this knowledge on yourself first. If you see that under these new conditions, you could never strike a first blow, then that's a beginning. What everyone seems to be doing is looking at what he is saying is true and comparing it to how people act in a free will environment. You can't do that. It's impossible because how people react today is based on so much hurt that when he says murderers and rapists won't act that way in the new world, it's hard to believe. But before they will stop doing what they are doing, all of the hurt to them and others must first be removed. Then and only then will there be no justification to strike a first blow to anyone under any circumstance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mentioned his discovery about death, but that chapter is only available in the book form so we don't know what it is. However, his introduction mentions "trillions and trillions" of babies having been born. If he meant human babies, he is incredibly wrong with that number.

Where does he say that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

None of these senses feature direct input to the brain. And the sense of hearing least of all. The process by which sound waves are transduced into neural impulses is considerably more convoluted than the process by which photons are transduced into neural impulses.

The exact mechanism of the other senses, even if it's convoluted, still starts at point A and ends up at point B based on input from the external world. The eyes, if Lessans is correct, goes from point B (the brain) which uses the eyes (with light which as a necessary condition), and ends up at point A (seeing the external world in real time).