Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #29651  
Old 07-18-2013, 03:49 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.
For example, when you suggest that someone should read your work, and they demonstrate that they have by asking articulate questions about it, including quoting of relevant passages from the Holy Text -- it's rude to suggest that people are lying why they claim to have read the book.

Similarly, it's rude to blame any and all misunderstandings on the reader. If no one can make sense of the book, that means it's badly written.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), ChristinaM (07-18-2013), Spacemonkey (07-18-2013), thedoc (07-18-2013)
  #29652  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:05 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXCI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Clark agrees with you and Lessans. So if he participates in this thread, it will be to support you.
Then what's the point of bringing him here? To help me? How is he going to help me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Er, by helping lay out the argument, and supporting your contentions and those of Lessans, maybe? :shrug:
I hope so, but somehow I doubt it. How could you after all the horrible things you have said to me? You think that you can easily slip by and not account for your disgusting actions?
:rofl:

The only time anyone here started saying horrible things to you is when you behaved horribly, as you do 99 percent of the time -- behaved like the lying, dishonest, wilfully ignorant weasel that you are.



Quote:
Quote:
And what's your motive David. Somehow, I don't get the feeling that you are on my side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Yes, everyone has to have an anti-peacegirl/Lessans motive, according to you.
Stop playing this sick game, will you? You tried to destroy Lessans in every post for the last year. Why should I all of a sudden think you are warm and fuzzy for any other reason than to destroy Lessans?
1. I don't give a fuck about "destroying Lessans." How can one destroy a dead man, anyway? (Oh, wait, he's still alive, just a different person).

2. I'm not warm and fuzzy toward Lessans or you, either. This is how retarded you are, how peurile your thinking is. You think philosophy and science is a matter of personal say so, and that people are either FOR or AGAINST some person who makes a claim, for personal reasons. You can't fathom that the reason you and Lessans are opposed here is because what Lessans said about light and sight in particular is demonstrable bullshit, and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be bullshit. You know it just as well as everyone else, and your repeated denial of the facts is why all of us find yiou to be contemptiable. Deal with it, asshole.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
My motive is I would like to discuss with Tom Clark his generic subjective continuity, which is identical with Lessans' claims,
You are wrong right there. You are making subjective continuity personal,
No, I am NOT doing that you little fool. Did you forget my post in which it was discussed how, under this idea, we must use pronouns like "I" in the loose sense only, recognizing that the "I" does not refer to a personal subjectivity across iterations? Did you not read my extensive detailed examination of the difference between personal subjective continuity and generic subjectivity continuity, according to Clark. Hell, can you even remember your OWN POST from yesterday, in which you pleaded that you were using the word "You" in the loose sense only, not intending to convey that the "you" referred to personal continuity between two different people? This kind of behavior is why people here disdain you. It's contemptible. You're a liar. However, we do not disdain you (or Lessans) because Lessans' ideas are wrong. They're just wrong, regardless of his or your personal traits.

Quote:
But you won't hear me because you are determined to crush Lessans at all costs.
:rofl: You are just insane. I couldn't care less about Lessans, and his ideas on light and sight in particular are just laughable.

Quote:
You know why? You can't stand that special relativity and clocks don't mean time bends.
:rofl:

Quote:
Please be honest David, or you will be looked at as the biggest liar of this thread.
There is only one liar in this thread, a serial liar, and everyone knows who it is.


Quote:
I don't trust you with a ten foot pole. It would have been nice if you alerted me of your motives, since I'm involved. Talk about selfishness. :doh:
Don't forget to fuck off. :wave:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-18-2013)
  #29653  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.
For example, when you suggest that someone should read your work, and they demonstrate that they have by asking articulate questions about it, including quoting of relevant passages from the Holy Text -- it's rude to suggest that people are lying why they claim to have read the book.

Similarly, it's rude to blame any and all misunderstandings on the reader. If no one can make sense of the book, that means it's badly written.
Not necessarily. There is already bias against it, and that would influence the way it is received. I have done everything in my power to make it clear, and if I failed, then someone else should come forward and help me explain it better, not criticize me, because my ability to explain has no bearing on the validity and soundness of these claims.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29654  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I wasn't as concerned with protecting Clark as protecting myself from a debate that I'm not interested in. I told everyone that I've gotten off onto another tangent, and if someone else comes on board, that will keep me here defending my father's 3rd discovery, which could take who knows how long. I want to start marketing my books, which is coming soon. I am trying to work on an outline of what to do to jumpstart the process.
You need not participate, you need not visit :ff: at all. Go do what you prefer to do.
Thanks for the reminder.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2013 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29655  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I can understand your wanting to protect yourself from Tom Clark's participation, as he is someone well known and would add an air of credability (at least in your eyes, as he is a bit of a celebrity) to the arguments against Lessans. The truth is that you do want to debate it, in the sense that you present the material and everyone is just so overwhelmed with the awsomeness of it that they agree at once. You are more afraid that Tom Clark, as one crackpot, will recognize and expose Lessans as another crackpot.
Not sure I follow your comments here. I think Clark would support Lessans' claims, and make the case for them as ably as possible.

That would depend on how much of the thread, and book, Clark read before joining the debate.

I think that Peacegirls biggest fear is that Clark will not support Lessans, since she probably doesn't understand what Clark wrote.
Well, Clark's claims are identical to those of Lessans, even though he articulated them in different words, so he will support Lessans' claims.

I don't think he needs to read the rest of the book, or any of this thread, if he wanted to join the discussion. The other claims in the book are irrelevant to the claims on being born again.

Of course it's doubtful he'll show up in any case, but in my e-mail message to him, I forewarned him that the thread was some 1,200 pages long, and made it clear he didn't have to bother wading through all that in order to join this particular discussion on death and birth. In any case, no one in their right mind is going to read a 1,200 page thread, no matter how interesting it is, and no one can be expected to.
He probably thinks you're a troll. :giggle: :laugh:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29656  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:20 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.
For example, when you suggest that someone should read your work, and they demonstrate that they have by asking articulate questions about it, including quoting of relevant passages from the Holy Text -- it's rude to suggest that people are lying why they claim to have read the book.

Similarly, it's rude to blame any and all misunderstandings on the reader. If no one can make sense of the book, that means it's badly written.
Not necessarily. There is already bias against it, and that would influence the way it is received. I have done everything I can in my power to make it clear, and if I really did fail, then someone else should come forward and help me, not criticize me, because my ability to explain these claims has no bearing on the validity of these claims.
People have tried to help you, and you complain about that too.

Spacemonkey tried to help you create a plausible model for efferent vision, Christine has tried to help you come up with a summary that doesn't look crazy, we have all asked specific questions that, when answered, would clarify the issue and you've refused to answer them or responded with deflection, non-sequitur, goalpost moving, histrionics, and other weaseling.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), ChristinaM (07-18-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-18-2013)
  #29657  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But you are forgetting that these evils are coming to an end. We will no longer live in the middle ages, and we will have developed to a point where there will be no poverty so how could there be paupers? No one will be on a higher pedestal than another when we learn the truth of our intrinsic equality, and there will be no dictators running our lives. You have projected your life now into the future, which makes being born as I, with no relation to me as I am now, rather risky.
This all assumes that the Golden Age has been instantiated. In the meantime, there are significant class distinctions, substantial gaps in wealth, dictators and all kinds of misery. Therefore, this "I", that "I" and the other "I" are all being born, right now, into a world that is far from perfect. How is that comforting?
Because God is in charge and as we develop there will be no class distinctions, no gaps in rich and poor (this is not to say that there won't be people who have more wealth than others in a competitive market; but no one will be poverty striken, and there will always be room to improve one's standard of living so no one will be locked into a position where there is no room for change), no dictators of any kind because the world will have progressed to where all authority and control has been eliminated.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29658  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:26 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.
For example, when you suggest that someone should read your work, and they demonstrate that they have by asking articulate questions about it, including quoting of relevant passages from the Holy Text -- it's rude to suggest that people are lying why they claim to have read the book.

Similarly, it's rude to blame any and all misunderstandings on the reader. If no one can make sense of the book, that means it's badly written.
Not necessarily. There is already bias against it, and that would influence the way it is received. I have done everything I can in my power to make it clear, and if I really did fail, then someone else should come forward and help me, not criticize me, because my ability to explain these claims has no bearing on the validity of these claims.
People have tried to help you, and you complain about that too.

Spacemonkey tried to help you create a plausible model for efferent vision, Christine has tried to help you come up with a summary that doesn't look crazy, we have all asked specific questions that, when answered, would clarify the issue and you've refused to answer them or responded with deflection, non-sequitur, goalpost moving, histrionics, and other weaseling.
There is a problem though, and that is everyone is helping me with an attitude that they take pity on me. They don't believe Lessans has anything of value. This presents a major stumbling block because people cannot get out of their own way. They cannot allow themselves to agree with anything he writes or that would be an admission of defeat.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2013 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29659  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:27 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Indeed. peacegirl was rude and insulting from literally her first day here -- to people who had been nothing but polite and helpful up until then.

So it's more than a little hypocritical of her to lecture others on civility.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), ChristinaM (07-18-2013), Spacemonkey (07-18-2013)
  #29660  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:46 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by pissypants View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
The only continuity is that individuals refer to themselves as I. It really is nothing more than that hot new game Playing With Pronouns.
HERE YE HERE YE: ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LADYSHEA WHO IS THE SMARTHEST WOMAN ON EARTH

SHE SAYS: IT IS REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN HOT NEW GAME PLAYING WITH PRONOUNS.

IF YOU BELIEVE HER, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO LEAVE RIGHT NOW, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. IF YOU STAY, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE OF HER EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA. PLEASE BE CLEAR OF THE REASON FOR THIS POST SO YOU WON'T WEASEL, BACKTRACK, OR HAVE HISSY FITS ON HER BEHALF. :sadcheer:

Oh my, Little Miss Pissy Pants is throwing a hissy fit, stamping her little feet, and screaming that she is going to take her ball (the thread) and go home. NEWS FLASH FOR PEACEGIRL! You don't own the thread. You don't own the forum. You don't ge to tell others what to do. You don't get to set conditions for people staying or leaving.

Lady is well versed in this area and I am quite sure of her expertise in this area, and I am staying to participate in the thread till I get tired of it, but so far Peacegirl is providing entertaining fodder, and everyone else is providing interesting information and opinion.

One other thing, I'm quite sure there is little, if any, respect here for you or Lessans, since respect should be earned and neither of you have done anything to earn anyone's respect.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), ChristinaM (07-18-2013), Spacemonkey (07-18-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-18-2013)
  #29661  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:59 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I can understand your wanting to protect yourself from Tom Clark's participation, as he is someone well known and would add an air of credability (at least in your eyes, as he is a bit of a celebrity) to the arguments against Lessans. The truth is that you do want to debate it, in the sense that you present the material and everyone is just so overwhelmed with the awsomeness of it that they agree at once. You are more afraid that Tom Clark, as one crackpot, will recognize and expose Lessans as another crackpot.
Not sure I follow your comments here. I think Clark would support Lessans' claims, and make the case for them as ably as possible.

That would depend on how much of the thread, and book, Clark read before joining the debate.

I think that Peacegirls biggest fear is that Clark will not support Lessans, since she probably doesn't understand what Clark wrote.
Well, Clark's claims are identical to those of Lessans, even though he articulated them in different words, so he will support Lessans' claims.

I don't think he needs to read the rest of the book, or any of this thread, if he wanted to join the discussion. The other claims in the book are irrelevant to the claims on being born again.

Of course it's doubtful he'll show up in any case, but in my e-mail message to him, I forewarned him that the thread was some 1,200 pages long, and made it clear he didn't have to bother wading through all that in order to join this particular discussion on death and birth. In any case, no one in their right mind is going to read a 1,200 page thread, no matter how interesting it is, and no one can be expected to.

Clark probably will support Lessans claims based on what you have reported about his writings along with Stewart. I have no reason to doubt what you have said about him. My point was that Peacegirl probably does not understand what Clark has written, in fact I doubt that she understands what Lessans has written, but her persecution complex will kick in and anyone participating in this thread will be seen as in opposition to her fathers ideas. That seems to be Peacegirl's MO and I don't see it changing any time soon.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (07-18-2013)
  #29662  
Old 07-18-2013, 05:06 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Now we can all start talking in the third person, like :richardnixon: :D
* Angakuk thinks that this would be very awkward.

Thedoc thinks that would be very awkward. Thedoc thinks that what Angakuk thinks is very awkward. Thedoc thinks that DavidM thinks that what Paeacegirl thinks is very awkward. Thedoc thinks that Peacegirl really doesn't think.

'Tricky Dick' was not a crook.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #29663  
Old 07-18-2013, 05:08 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.
For example, when you suggest that someone should read your work, and they demonstrate that they have by asking articulate questions about it, including quoting of relevant passages from the Holy Text -- it's rude to suggest that people are lying why they claim to have read the book.

Similarly, it's rude to blame any and all misunderstandings on the reader. If no one can make sense of the book, that means it's badly written.
Not necessarily. There is already bias against it, and that would influence the way it is received. I have done everything I can in my power to make it clear, and if I really did fail, then someone else should come forward and help me, not criticize me, because my ability to explain these claims has no bearing on the validity of these claims.
People have tried to help you, and you complain about that too.

Spacemonkey tried to help you create a plausible model for efferent vision, Christine has tried to help you come up with a summary that doesn't look crazy, we have all asked specific questions that, when answered, would clarify the issue and you've refused to answer them or responded with deflection, non-sequitur, goalpost moving, histrionics, and other weaseling.
There is a problem though, and that is everyone is helping me with an attitude that they take pity on me. They don't believe Lessans has anything of value and you know it. I can see right through all of you. It's not that difficult because your motive is so obvious, anyone can see it who doesn't have an agenda.
It shouldn't matter matter what people's motivations are for saying things in this thread. If you can benefit from it, learn from it, or improve your situation with it you have the opportunity to do so. Whether you take the opportunity is up to you. This is true in much of life.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), ChristinaM (07-18-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-18-2013)
  #29664  
Old 07-18-2013, 05:16 PM
ChristinaM's Avatar
ChristinaM ChristinaM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Gender: Female
Posts: DLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
IF YOU STAY, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE OF HER EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA. PLEASE BE CLEAR OF THE REASON FOR THIS POST SO YOU WON'T WEASEL, BACKTRACK, OR HAVE HISSY FITS ON HER BEHALF. :sadcheer:
I'm staying and I'm more than comfortable with accepting that she knows what she's talking about and that you don't. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, especially when you're shouting it in caps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There is a problem though, and that is everyone is helping me with an attitude that they take pity on me. They don't believe Lessans has anything of value and you know it. I can see right through all of you. It's not that difficult because your motive is so obvious, anyone can see it who doesn't have an agenda.
Of course I was trying to help you because I felt sorry for you and not because I agree with this gibberish and I was completely clear about that from the beginning. It's just not any fun to help someone who pitches this many hissy fits and refuses to admit that there are things that they don't know or understand. I'll give you a few freebies though. "So" and "no" only have one "o" in them and appending 'girl' to your name at your age is not an asset in terms of the first impression that you create.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), LadyShea (07-18-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-18-2013)
  #29665  
Old 07-18-2013, 05:24 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have done everything in my power to make it clear, and if I failed, then someone else should come forward and help me explain it better, not criticize me, because my ability to explain has no bearing on the validity and soundness of these claims.

If you cannot explain the book, that is a good indication that you do not understand the book, and that would mean that you are not a reliable witness as to the validity of the book. The book is an empty vessel with no support, no buoyancy, it will sink.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29666  
Old 07-18-2013, 05:29 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's exactly what I will do if I feel that my part in all of this is being ignored.

Your part is certainly not being ignored, it is the source of much amusment.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29667  
Old 07-18-2013, 06:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But you are forgetting that these evils are coming to an end. We will no longer live in the middle ages, and we will have developed to a point where there will be no poverty so how could there be paupers? No one will be on a higher pedestal than another when we learn the truth of our intrinsic equality, and there will be no dictators running our lives. You have projected your life now into the future, which makes being born as I, with no relation to me as I am now, rather risky.
This all assumes that the Golden Age has been instantiated. In the meantime, there are significant class distinctions, substantial gaps in wealth, dictators and all kinds of misery. Therefore, this "I", that "I" and the other "I" are all being born, right now, into a world that is far from perfect. How is that comforting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The confusion with pronouns is what he is trying to clarify.
He failed. Rather spectacularly :(

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's out of the question because it is coherent...
Is not!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have to focus on Lessans' other discovery...
Why don't you do that then? BTW, what discovery was that again? It couldn't be one of the other discoveries that you have already said you aren't going to discuss anymore, could it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There's nothing more I can say, just as there's nothing more I can say about light and sight, and there's nothing more I can say about determinism. Actually, there's a lot more I can say about determinism and how a no blame society will change the landscape of our world, but you wouldn't let me continue.
No one here has ever prevented you from saying whatever you want to say.
Yes they have, and now it's too late.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29668  
Old 07-18-2013, 06:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Would you please stop telling me I'm weaseling?
No. When you weasel instead of answering I will point out that you are weaseling. You are a self-confessed weasel, and you are once again weaseling. If you don't like this being pointed out then stop doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The reason you are numerically 100 and not 101 is because there is no numerical difference between the YOU that was 100 who just died, and the YOU that is now being born, which is not 101 (as if you're still here), but 100.
That's not a supporting reason. You've just repeated what I asked you to show his reasoning for. Did Lessans not actually support this point with any reasoning? Is this just another assertion from him? Or is the problem just that you don't understand what his reasoning was?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Our Posterity

p. 499 Now that mom and dad have you they decide to have another
child, and when it is born it is not you because you already exist.
Soon mom gives birth to a total of ten. Then several years later you
get married and give birth to two children, making a total of 14 in
your family. Before long there are 50 family members in all. After
reaching a ripe old age of 100 years you drop dead from heart failure,
so this body, this bubble of consciousness is gone which makes it
impossible for you to say that the next child born is him or her
because this relation must pass through your consciousness which is
no longer here.

If you, the 50th member of your family said ‘I’ just
before your death, and the remaining members of your family are still
alive at the time that you died; and if it is impossible to be born and
not say ‘I’ because everything must be seen through your
consciousness, the next infant born cannot possibly be him or her,
number 51, but YOU, number 50. In other words, since your family
just lost YOU, which decreased the population to 49, and since these
remaining 49 members are not you because they have their own
consciousness, but they still want YOU, when you are born YOU will
not be him or her, number 51, but you, number 50, who will grow,
develop and become conscious of your existence.
Where is the reasoning here? He points out that it is impossible for you to be reborn while you are still alive, but then simply asserts without any supporting reasoning that once you die the next born individual will be you.

Where is his reasoning to support this claim?
He is explaining his observations, just like his other discoveries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Why are you not listening? I told you I'm doing the best I can but I am not going to continue the discussion on death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What a crock of shit. Refusing to even continue the conversation is obviously not doing the best that you can to explain things or answer questions.
You don't believe that this man has anything worthwhile, which is why I have no desire to continue. And for you to demand that I explain things or answer questions makes you sound like a big bully, and I don't respond to bullies.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2013 at 07:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29669  
Old 07-18-2013, 06:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Clark agrees with you and Lessans. So if he participates in this thread, it will be to support you.
Then what's the point of bringing him here? To help me? How is he going to help me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Er, by helping lay out the argument, and supporting your contentions and those of Lessans, maybe? :shrug:
I hope so, but somehow I doubt it. How could you after all the horrible things you have said to me? You think that you can easily slip by and not account for your disgusting actions?
:rofl:

The only time anyone here started saying horrible things to you is when you behaved horribly, as you do 99 percent of the time -- behaved like the lying, dishonest, wilfully ignorant weasel that you are.



Quote:
Quote:
And what's your motive David. Somehow, I don't get the feeling that you are on my side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Yes, everyone has to have an anti-peacegirl/Lessans motive, according to you.
Stop playing this sick game, will you? You tried to destroy Lessans in every post for the last year. Why should I all of a sudden think you are warm and fuzzy for any other reason than to destroy Lessans?
1. I don't give a fuck about "destroying Lessans." How can one destroy a dead man, anyway? (Oh, wait, he's still alive, just a different person).

2. I'm not warm and fuzzy toward Lessans or you, either. This is how retarded you are, how peurile your thinking is. You think philosophy and science is a matter of personal say so, and that people are either FOR or AGAINST some person who makes a claim, for personal reasons. You can't fathom that the reason you and Lessans are opposed here is because what Lessans said about light and sight in particular is demonstrable bullshit, and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be bullshit. You know it just as well as everyone else, and your repeated denial of the facts is why all of us find yiou to be contemptiable. Deal with it, asshole.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
My motive is I would like to discuss with Tom Clark his generic subjective continuity, which is identical with Lessans' claims,
You are wrong right there. You are making subjective continuity personal,
No, I am NOT doing that you little fool. Did you forget my post in which it was discussed how, under this idea, we must use pronouns like "I" in the loose sense only, recognizing that the "I" does not refer to a personal subjectivity across iterations? Did you not read my extensive detailed examination of the difference between personal subjective continuity and generic subjectivity continuity, according to Clark. Hell, can you even remember your OWN POST from yesterday, in which you pleaded that you were using the word "You" in the loose sense only, not intending to convey that the "you" referred to personal continuity between two different people? This kind of behavior is why people here disdain you. It's contemptible. You're a liar. However, we do not disdain you (or Lessans) because Lessans' ideas are wrong. They're just wrong, regardless of his or your personal traits.

Quote:
But you won't hear me because you are determined to crush Lessans at all costs.
:rofl: You are just insane. I couldn't care less about Lessans, and his ideas on light and sight in particular are just laughable.

Quote:
You know why? You can't stand that special relativity and clocks don't mean time bends.
:rofl:

Quote:
Please be honest David, or you will be looked at as the biggest liar of this thread.
There is only one liar in this thread, a serial liar, and everyone knows who it is.


Quote:
I don't trust you with a ten foot pole. It would have been nice if you alerted me of your motives, since I'm involved. Talk about selfishness. :doh:
Don't forget to fuck off. :wave:
Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.

“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”

Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29670  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It would have been nice if you alerted me of your motives, since I'm involved. Talk about selfishness
A) We are all "involved". You are not special.

B) This is an open public discussion forum, and inviting people to it is not any kind of imposition warranting notification of participants.

C) davidm is the one who introduced Tom Clark's work to the discussion, obviously because he was interested enough to already be familiar with it. He need not justify his wanting to talk with the man to you, or anyone. It's not your business.
I never said I was special, but I have been a major player in this thread considering that I started it. If he comes here I will just back out. No problem.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), ChristinaM (07-18-2013)
  #29671  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:13 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Not completely true. I was thinking that he would be too busy to come here, but I also didn't appreciate that David took it upon himself to invite him to this debate without asking if I wanted to be a part of it. I am part of it, ya know.
As are we all. David should certainly have consulted each one of us before inviting some stranger to the party. That was so rude. He should have started a poll thread or something. But what else can you expect from the meanest man in the world?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (07-18-2013)
  #29672  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:15 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't trust you with a ten foot pole.
Another one for the list, or is it already on the list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You are not special.
I beg to differ. Peacegirl is very special.

:shortbus:
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChristinaM (07-18-2013), thedoc (07-18-2013)
  #29673  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.
For example, when you suggest that someone should read your work, and they demonstrate that they have by asking articulate questions about it, including quoting of relevant passages from the Holy Text -- it's rude to suggest that people are lying why they claim to have read the book.

Similarly, it's rude to blame any and all misunderstandings on the reader. If no one can make sense of the book, that means it's badly written.
Not necessarily. There is already bias against it, and that would influence the way it is received. I have done everything I can in my power to make it clear, and if I really did fail, then someone else should come forward and help me, not criticize me, because my ability to explain these claims has no bearing on the validity of these claims.
People have tried to help you, and you complain about that too.

Spacemonkey tried to help you create a plausible model for efferent vision, Christine has tried to help you come up with a summary that doesn't look crazy, we have all asked specific questions that, when answered, would clarify the issue and you've refused to answer them or responded with deflection, non-sequitur, goalpost moving, histrionics, and other weaseling.
There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns. It's amazing how you have completely disregarded everything he has written with a very smug attitude. That's what makes this experience the most difficult for me, and why I am turned off to the scientific community, which you could care less, so don't respond.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013)
  #29674  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:17 PM
ChristinaM's Avatar
ChristinaM ChristinaM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Gender: Female
Posts: DLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
... and I don't respond to bullies.
I need a smiley for this but that library is kind of daunting when you don't know what's in it. It would be facepalming itself while rolling on the floor laughing and shaking its head in amazement all at the same time.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-18-2013), thedoc (07-18-2013)
  #29675  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is numerically identical, but there is no connection to anyone who just died.
Numerical identity is a connection.
Sure, numerical identity has a connection to itself: A=A. Didn't you understand the example with the hydra?

p. 500 To draw up a comparison for a still better understanding, if we let
A and B, that which is carried along from generation to generation
equal a huge, live, headless body that never dies but from which
human heads begin to grow, the first head will say, “I am the only
human alive.” When the second head appears he will say — “I am
alive and I see you, my Siamese brother, and we are the only two
humans alive.” When the third head appears she says, “Our family
consists of my two brothers and myself and I am alive, conscious of
my existence.” If God chopped off one of these heads, and like a
hydra another one appeared instantly in its place, the new head would
say — “I am alive, conscious of my existence, and there are only three
heads in our family.” This is exactly what happens when you die, your
head is chopped off from the body of A and B which continues in
existence from generation to generation, and when a boy and girl
mate they create you, C, a body that grows and develops and says —
“I am alive, conscious of my existence. I have brothers and sisters, a
mother and father.” But when you die your body and consciousness
are gone only to be born again. If you examine all the facts you will
find them undeniable.


Please don't respond because this is the last post I'm making on this topic. If anyone has any ideas on marketing, I will be willing to stay a little longer but I am done talking about the book.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 29 (0 members and 29 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.37795 seconds with 14 queries