A revolution in thought - Page 1153

The Lone Ranger · #**28801** 07-07-2013, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

Bingo!

The only "evidence" we have for Lessans' claims is peacegirl's insistence that he made (conveniently unspecified) "astute observations."

But given how often she flat-out lies, why on Earth would any sane person take her at her word?

peacegirl · #**28802** 07-07-2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled here and there, changed the goalposts unintentionally, and even gotten histrionic due to frustration.

This is an interesting statement that should be remembered by everyone.

I admitted that I felt pushed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts. But nothing I said was meant to deceive. I never said to myself, "I really tricked them this time."

Then you really, really need to look back at your posts again.

I don't need to.

peacegirl · #**28803** 07-07-2013, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

The only "evidence" we have for Lessans' claims is your insistence that he made (conveniently unspecified) "astute observations."

But given how often you flat-out lie, why on Earth would any sane person take you at your word?

Would you please stop saying I lie? I don't. If people have gotten this impression, I'm really sorry, but I will not apologize for my honest efforts in presenting this book to online forums, although I must admit it was a bad move on my part.

naturalist.atheist · #**28804** 07-07-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

The only "evidence" we have for Lessans' claims is your insistence that he made (conveniently unspecified) "astute observations."

But given how often you flat-out lie, why on Earth would any sane person take you at your word?

Would you please stop saying I lie? I don't. If people have gotten this impression, I'm really sorry, but I will not apologize for my honest efforts in presenting this book to online forums, although I must admit it was a bad move on my part.

peacegirl, I know you are not a liar. Dishonesty just doesn't apply to someone who is insane.

thedoc · #**28805** 07-07-2013, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled here and there, changed the goalposts unintentionally, and even gotten histrionic due to frustration.

This is an interesting statement that should be remembered by everyone.

I admitted that I felt pushed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts. But nothing I said was meant to deceive. I never said to myself, "I really tricked them this time."

Then you really, really need to look back at your posts again.

I don't need to.

Thats OK, other people will still quote your posts and remind you of what you have said before. Especially when you change your story.

thedoc · #**28806** 07-07-2013, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled here and there, changed the goalposts unintentionally, and even gotten histrionic due to frustration.

This is an interesting statement that should be remembered by everyone.

Peacegirl, I'm especially going to keep track of this post when you deny that you weasel, or move the goalpoasts, or are having a histionic fit.

peacegirl · #**28807** 07-07-2013, 08:00 PM

Intermission: This is one of those videos you won't likely forget.

Why Do Dogs Bury? (with video) | Care2 Healthy Living

peacegirl · #**28808** 07-07-2013, 08:04 PM

Here's another one. I think I may have posted this one already.

Lost Generation - YouTube

Vivisectus · #**28809** 07-07-2013, 08:10 PM

Quote:

I admitted that I felt pushed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts.

Right - so basically everyone else is making you use dishonest tactics, by accident. Is there anything that you do not blame on other people?

thedoc · #**28810** 07-07-2013, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission: This is one of those videos you won't likely forget.

Why Do Dogs Bury? (with video) | Care2 Healthy Living

The dog probably uses it's nose to cover something, so it can remember the scent of the place where it is buried

peacegirl · #**28811** 07-07-2013, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

I admitted that I felt pushed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts.

Right - so basically everyone else is making you use dishonest tactics, by accident. Is there anything that you do not blame on other people?

I didn't say anyone is making me do anything. I answered the best way I knew how given the type of questions that were thrown at me, many of which were unfamiliar. These were not dishonest tactics. Why are you so vindictive toward me Vivisectus? Anyone who thinks I am being underhanded in my interactions with this group can leave. The door is open.

Spacemonkey · #**28812** 07-07-2013, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled here and there...

LOL. Understatement of the century, but I guess this is progress?

peacegirl · #**28813** 07-07-2013, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission: This is one of those videos you won't likely forget.

Why Do Dogs Bury? (with video) | Care2 Healthy Living

The dog probably uses it's nose to cover something, so it can remember the scent of the place where it is buried

There were a lot of different theories. If you look on the bottom of the page you can vote as to what you think the dog's motive was. I believe he was grieving for the dead puppy and was showing compassion by burying him.

The Lone Ranger · #**28814** 07-07-2013, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

The only "evidence" we have for Lessans' claims is your insistence that he made (conveniently unspecified) "astute observations."

But given how often you flat-out lie, why on Earth would any sane person take you at your word?

Would you please stop saying I lie? I don't. If people have gotten this impression, I'm really sorry, but I will not apologize for my honest efforts in presenting this book to online forums, although I must admit it was a bad move on my part.

While it's entirely possible that you have a pathological inability to see it, this doesn't change the fact that you lie -- a lot. Maybe more to the point, there's considerable evidence that you're incapable of distinguishing between what you want to be true and what is true: in your mind, what you want to be true is true.

This doesn't change the fact that you frequently make false claims. Frequently. And this is easily demonstrated, as has been done many times, by many different posters.

So it's possible that you aren't consciously lying. That doesn't change the fact that you're amazingly hypocritical and dishonest. Perhaps pathologically so.

Spacemonkey · #**28815** 07-07-2013, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't do anymore than I'm doing...

Of course you could. You could stop weaseling and start actually answering questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The dialogue that I chose was criticized to the point where LadyShea didn't believe this friend of the family actually went to an expo and saw the sign that said "Come inside and let us show you that the eyes are not a sense organ."...

And with good reason. That was fictitious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand the problem with his claim regarding the eyes.

Do you? Perhaps then you could explain what you understand the problem (or rather problems) to be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care whether we see the past or the present, although this also has a bearing on his discovery regarding death and why we're born again and again.

Shall we discuss that? Is this a topic you're actually willing to answer questions on instead of evading?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only people who will not open their minds even a little bit are the ones who have all kinds of conflicting theories crammed in their head to the point where they are criticizing this knowledge based on these other theories, which don't hold water.

Like the crazy non-water-holding theories that light can't be somewhere unless you can explain where it came from and how it got there, and that it can't teleport or be in two places at once?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, his first discovery is not a modal fallacy, nor is it a tautology, not is it an assertion. These are all false charges.

No, we don't believe you. You've been shown to be wrong.

Spacemonkey · #**28816** 07-07-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LOL. I've highlighted the problematic parts for you.

If efferent means to be conveyed outwards, and vision is an efferent experience, then what is conveyed outwards in efferent vision?

I have no problem with saying "conveyed outward", but nothing shoots out of the eyes!!

So then what is it that is "conveyed outwards" in your allegedly efferent account?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28817** 07-07-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, according to Lessans, no image of the object will show up at the retina or film from light alone because there is nothing in the light itself that is bringing anything.

Strawman. There doesn't have to be anything in the light itself or which the light is bringing. All you need is the light. As I explained to you in a previous post which you have completely ignored several times already...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected.

Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.

Bump.

naturalist.atheist · #**28818** 07-07-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

The only "evidence" we have for Lessans' claims is your insistence that he made (conveniently unspecified) "astute observations."

But given how often you flat-out lie, why on Earth would any sane person take you at your word?

Would you please stop saying I lie? I don't. If people have gotten this impression, I'm really sorry, but I will not apologize for my honest efforts in presenting this book to online forums, although I must admit it was a bad move on my part.

While it's entirely possible that you have a pathological inability to see it, this doesn't change the fact that you lie -- a lot. Maybe more to the point, there's considerable evidence that you're incapable of distinguishing between what you want to be true and what is true: in your mind, what you want to be true is true.

This doesn't change the fact that you frequently make false claims. Frequently. And this is easily demonstrated, as has been done many times, by many different posters.

So it's possible that you aren't consciously lying. That doesn't change the fact that you're amazingly hypocritical and dishonest. Perhaps pathologically so.

The problem for peacegirl is that her insanity is of a type that gives her just enough presence of mind to allow her to appear more or less sane. However, as has been made abundantly clear, when she is questioned on the details in any depth it becomes clear that she has mental problems involving her memory, reasoning and cognition. They are not so severe that she is completely shutdown, but they are bad enough that there is no point in discussing much more than the weather and family with peacegirl. It doesn't make sense to accuse her of anything that would require deliberate malice on her part. She isn't doing it on purpose, she just can't help herself. This should be obvious 10,000's of posts later.

I am surprised that so many people insist on continuing to beat the very dead horse that is peacegirl.

The Lone Ranger · #**28819** 07-07-2013, 09:09 PM

She has shown on a number of occasions that she's perfectly capable of remembering things when she wants to. But given her apparent inability to remember -- for example -- what a scientific theory is, despite the fact that it has been explained to her many, many times, it's very clear that her memory is very, very selective.

She appears to have an onboard filter (kind of like Morton's demon) that instantly dismisses anything that conflicts with her "Lessans is infallible" worldview.

Whether her lying is deliberate or pathological is unclear, but a very good case could indeed be made that it's pathological and unconscious.

Spacemonkey · #**28820** 07-07-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It makes no difference how he came to his findings. You still can't plausibly claim photons will be somewhere without any possible explanation for where they came from or how they got there. What exactly is wrong with this analysis, Peacegirl? Do you think it is plausible to say light will be somewhere when you can't explain where it came from or how it got there?

I don't know why you close your ears when it comes to my explanation. I keep telling you that when we are looking outward at the object itself (not just light), the light that is being [reflected] from the object (regardless of the fact that it has not reached Earth yet), puts our retina or lens in optical range, which means that the photons are at the eye instantly. This is the polar opposite of traveling photons, which takes time to get where they're going.

You've just put the light in two places at once again. You've just said light which is not yet at the Earth is also at the eye... on Earth! That's flatly contradictory. Also, how can you maintain both that all photons travel and that your account involves "the polar opposite of traveling photons"? That also is flatly contradictory. Plus you are describing photons getting from one place to another without traveling or taking time - which is the very definition of teleportation. These are all exactly the same problems you've run into every single time you've tried to explain this account. When will you admit to yourself that it makes no sense?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Regarding the light instantly at the eye in Lessans' newly ignited Sun scenario...

1) Where did this light come from?

2) When was it located at wherever it came from?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28821** 07-07-2013, 09:11 PM

Peacegirl, now that you've admitted to weaseling, are you going to make any effort to stop doing it?

naturalist.atheist · #**28822** 07-07-2013, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

She has shown on a number of occasions that she's perfectly capable of remembering things when she wants to. But given her apparent inability to remember -- for example -- what a scientific theory is, despite the fact that it has been explained to her many, many times, it's very clear that her memory is very, very selective.

Not just very selective but very sporadic. She has trouble remembering her own posts on a forum no less.

Quote:

She appears to have an onboard filter (kind of like Morton's demon) that instantly dismisses anything that conflicts with her "Lessans is infallible" worldview.

No disagreement there.

Quote:

Whether her lying is deliberate or pathological is unclear, but a very good case could indeed be made that it's pathological and unconscious.

She has exhibited more nuanced behavior than that. From time to time as you have pointed out, she has remembered errors she has made, but eventually she does forget what they are. And doesn't seem to be able to recognize them again even if they are pointed out to her. If peacegirl came across as a very clever and quick witted person then a case could be made for dishonesty on her part. However dishonesty requires a deliberate knowing act of deception, and I don't think peacegirl has enough presence of mind to pull off such a thing.

After all these years she comes across as a very sad, patheic and insane person who is not so insane that help would be forced on her. She appears doomed to remain in her state until she dies or her mental problems get so bad she is unable to function and then maybe the county or city will get involved.

Vivisectus · #**28823** 07-07-2013, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

I admitted that I felt pushed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts.

Right - so basically everyone else is making you use dishonest tactics, by accident. Is there anything that you do not blame on other people?

I didn't say anyone is making me do anything. I answered in the best way I knew how given the type of questions that were thrown at me, many of which were unfamiliar. These were not dishonest tactics. Why are you so vindictive toward me Vivisectus? Anyone who thinks I am being underhanded in my interactions with this group can leave. The door is open.

I see - it was honest weaselling was it? And moving the goalposts all those times, just happened to accidentally all be in favour of what you wanted to believe? Because you were so confused by all these questions that were just thrown at you. And then, colour you embarrassed, you acidentally said a whole bunch of things that were not true, but suited what you were trying to achieve. All perfectly innocent and accidental. Not at all intentional: we can tell by how you accidentally weasel and move the goalposts against yourself all the time.

And really, how were you to know? No-one, at no single point in the past year, has ever pointed out your basic lack on integrity where the discussion of this book is concerned. Ever.

And then when someone calls you on it, then that is vindictive.

It is funny that your entire belief system, which is supposed to be rather down on blame, requires enormous amounts of it to protect it from reality. Massive piles of evidence against your idea about sight? Blame it on science. Get caught arguing in a dishonest way? Blame it on "being pushed against the wall". Someone calls you on your nonsense? Blame it on vindictiveness. Book full of textbook examples of fallacies? Blame it on the readers!

Without this layer of excuses, your idea does not even stand up to your scrutiny, which is why you need to blame everything on other people. Do you not notice how every single facet of your belief system needs excuses?

Vivisectus · #**28824** 07-07-2013, 09:38 PM

Oh come on. If that kind of behaviour was insane then quite a lot of religious people would classify. She isn't nuts: she just lies for Jesus. Which she believes is all for the best, so there cannot possibly be any bad intent, so it is not really bad lying, as we have just had explained to us.

LadyShea · #**28825** 07-07-2013, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You might think scientists know all the answers, but light continues to surprise them.

HowStuffWorks "What Is Light?"

I don't think science has all the answers. But I did find this interesting:

Quote:

Arab scholars took these ideas and honed them even further, developing what is now known as geometrical optics -- applying geometrical methods to the optics of lenses, mirrors and prisms. The most famous practitioner of geometrical optics was Ibn al-Haytham, who lived in present-day Iraq between A.D. 965 and 1039. Ibn al-Haytham identified the optical components of the human eye and correctly described vision as a process involving light rays bouncing from an object to a person's eye. The Arab scientist also invented the pinhole camera, discovered the laws of refraction and studied a number of light-based phenomena, such as rainbows and eclipses.

Did Lessans read Ibn al-Haytham? Did you read that whole link, BTW? Was there anything in there you believe was not explained well or is unsupported by hard data and evidence?