A revolution in thought

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl seems to think that she can unwrite something she has posted by going back and deleting it, but when others quote her post it is preserved and there is nothing she can do. But other users often remember what was posted.

Peacegirl, you might not even know this but do you know that on these kinds of boards people frown upon substantially changing your posts after the fact because it's revisionist? Other than quick changes right after posting people expect you to let your posts stand as they are, warts and all and not hide the evidence of your blunder even if no one quoted it. I had never thought about it before that because I hung out on small forums and we were just BSing and yelling about politics and not being serious and no one ever went back and read old threads again or even cared. Once you've typed it the harm is already done and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. It's easier to take a deep breath, wait until your heart stops pounding, go out for a walk if necessary and don't blast off with the first thing that comes into your mind when someone makes you mad. I have to do it at least once a day or everyone I know would hate me for being an unbearably snarky bitch.

ETA: - Check out the links right above this post - it's about the thing with consciousness and pronouns I think.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His concepts are God's, they are not his Angakuk, and they are perfect because they are not his. You, as a minister, should understand this, but it seems to have eluded you.

Wow! The book is the Word of God. Did I not already call it The Bible, Part 2: Son of Bible? But it sure is not religious!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There have been very few critical questions, only a lot of accusations. You think you found errors with the right-of-way system, in his explanation of blame as being partly responsible for easing conscience, and of course his claim regarding light and sight. I am not expecting uncritical admiration of any of his ideas, but where is the critical examination? There hasn't been any, even when I offered the first three chapters online.

As I have pointed out, and as you have agreed, the one way system requires special circustances in order for it to work: people need to already not want to do selfish things. As a method for determining what is selfish and what is not, it is utterly useless: this has been clearly demonstrated, and your only answer to this has been "Ah but people would not want to do selfish things".

The same sort fo thing happened when we asked "Why should we assume conscience works as the book describes".

Or when it was shown that if you follow the reasoning of the book, then it pretty much states "That which people end up choosing is that which people end up choosing" since the only way to find out what led to the "greater desire" is to see what people choose... you simply denied this too, even though the denial itself is your only real answer: you are unable to support it in any way.

Then there are the mountains of evidence that disprove efferent sight: we have already demonstrated that if you apply the standards required to uphold efferent sight in the face of this evidence is the kind of standard that treats flat earth theory as plausible and that is unable to dismiss the existence of fairies as unlikely.

But no - no critical examination here! Hardly any critical questions at all!

Your ability to stick your head in the sand and just dismiss any criticism that you cannot answer is amazing.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=Vivisectus;1142471]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ah - so do any of these characteristics transfer from one "I" to the next? If so, how and in what way? And what is the difference between these "I"'s that have had (or have not have) some of these characteristics transferred, and brand new ones that did not have existence before?

There is also this critical question to add to the list.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the meanest, full of crap liar that I've ever talked to. What's your fuckin problem Maturin? This man did not have a bigoted bone in his body. You can't stand it, can you? He was perfect. He taught me compassion, love, kindness, and most of all he taught me that we're all equal in intrinsic value. He was the most unprejudiced man you ever want to meet, and I feel lucky to have had him as a father. While other people were using the N word in the 60's and 70's, he was teaching me to have respect for all people. When people your nasty tirade against this man, they will look at you as a nutcase, which you are. You really need help.

You are a slow learner, Maturin. Saying that Homosexuality is one of the problems that will be solved by letting young people fall in love with one anothers genitals the way God intended them to is not bigoted, because Seymour was an unbigoted person who was the only person in the 60's and 70's who did not call black people niggers.

Thus, anything he said about homosexuals was unbigoted by default: it is probably for their own good that Seymour proposed to cure them.

By the same token, we have already been assured that he worked a long time on the book, so if there were mistakes in it, he would have spotted them and fixed them, so there cannot be, so the book must be right in all respects.

Besides, we have recently discovered the book is the Word of God, and perfect. So really you are calling God a bigot! This is very arrogant of you. Fortunately it is not arrogant of PG and Lessans to claim this: you see, Lessans was very humble as well as unbigoted, so anything he claimed or wrote must also be humble.

[LadyShea]

Wayne Stewart is, along with Tom Clark, one of the people davidm has talked about as having a similar idea to Lessans about the consciousness thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wrong! It is not necessary to go back in time and reverse the choice, it is only necessary that either A or B could have been chosen at the time the choice was made. The nonsense about going back in time is just a smoke screen to obscure the real meaning of free will, and that is that at the time of choosing either a or B could have been chosen.

You missed the whole point of the conversation; it went right over your head thedoc. He was showing that it can never be proven that someone could have chosen otherwise. It cannot be done. You can believe he could have chosen B instead of A, but you cannot prove it. There is no smokescreen here, as you're trying to imply so you can be right and Lessans wrong. But it will fail every time because it's you that's wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is just another assertion by Lessans that Free Will and Determinism are opposites and has not been proven or accepted by everyone. It is also only an unproven assertion that proving Determinism will disprove Free Will, facts not in evidence, as they say.

It is interesting how the non-thinking boot-licker in these imagined conversations concedes so easily to Lessans arguments. No real thought on the other side.

No real thought? Why do you think I wrote the book in a dialogue format to begin with? So there would be questions. The questions invite answers, which you don't like because the answers aren't what you want to hear. duhhhhh

Originally Posted by thedoc

It's a pity that Peacegirl didn't learn to be as polite and conceding as they are.

That's because your thoughts are a mishmash. You're attacking Lessans without analyzing his explanations because you WANT him to be wrong. You're committed to this. These non-thinking boot lickers concede because he is right in his explanation as to why determinism and free will cannot exist together, and it is made clear as to why this is true in the dialogue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, but when you insist that pretty-much everything we know of physics, astronomy, Relativity theory, visual anatomy, and neurophysiology must be wrong, because they conflict with Lessans' wholly unsupported claims -- while demonstrating that you understand exactly nothing about any of those fields -- you look like an idiot and world-class hypocrite.

I really don't care what you think of me Lone Ranger. You have stooped pretty low yourself to tell me I look like an idiot and world-class hypocrite when I have shared with you his findings which came from outside of the field, and are compelling whether you think so or not. Therefore I will continue to argue that what science believes is true may be mistaken, and that Lessans' claim regarding the eyes may be right after all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I have no problem at all with admitting that you're more conversant when it comes to determinism than I am and probably about lots of other philosophical concepts too. I think that I've posted in about 4 Philosophy threads in my life and they were all lightweight ones. I like to think about it but not talk about it. I'm only speaking about myself obviously and not anyone else in the thread.

What you don't seem to understand is that the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism is history making. That's why I am so focused on his first discovery.

I understand the problem with the eyes. It appears I don't know enough about physics or optics to answer intelligently, but that's also unfair because this finding did not come from the study of physics or astronomy. That does not mean he automatically must be wrong.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

We've been through this one too. No matter how many times I told you that the sky was purple you wouldn't believe me because when you look up the evidence of your own senses would tell you that I was obviously wrong. I could say it a thousand times and swear that it was revealed to me by god on high and you still wouldn't believe me, right? We're both observing as best we can and reporting what we see but wouldn't you be more likely to believe everyone else in the world and what you see with your own eyes instead of just me? Maybe I'm just colorblind. That's how it is with you and scientists when it comes to vision. You're telling them that the sky is purple and they're never going to believe it. Even most Christians are willing to admit that the Bible isn't literally true but find truth in it despite its inconsistencies and mythologies.

The only way they're going to believe what Lessans is claiming is through more empirical testing. You're right in that I would most likely take the side of the majority, but sometimes the majority is wrong, and I believe this is one of those times.

Originally Posted by Christina

But I have earned the right to talk about this discovery, subjects that I am familiar with. I did not ask for this responsibility, but I have it, so I need to do what I can to bring this knowledge to light.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Why do you feel like you have this responsibility and can't put it down? I don't like poking at people's personal lives so is it rude to ask why you feel that you must while your kids, siblings and other relatives don't?

It's a very difficult mission, and they are not in the position to do what I have done. To compile these books has taken me over 10 years. Luckily, I had the time to do it. When I look back I'm amazed at my determination to get it done. Each of us is given a job to do in life, and this was mine. What can I say? I was also the one that had spent the most time asking questions of my father, which is why I was better prepared to write this book. I only have one sister and she's in business for herself. My brother died in 1987, so I was the only one that could do this. As far as my children, they are one generation removed. They have their busy lives, but they are looking forward to reading the book when it comes out and getting more involved.

I don't know how to answer you. What does give an inch mean? Surrender? Tell people he was wrong? Say I'm not sure if he is right? That's what people want to hear but I can't say that, or I would be lying.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Don't you see that you're asking that very thing of everyone here? Do you expect them to surrender? Tell the world that everything that they and the scientific community know is wrong without any evidence? If they did that they would be lying.

I don't expect that. I only asked people not to dismiss his observations regarding the eyes as if it means nothing. Keep an open mind. Isn't that what science is about? My father didn't just assert things and make stuff up. He was a deep thinker and his observations should be carefully investigated, which has not occurred in over 50 years.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

"I'm not sure" is one of my favorite phrases in the English language so don't go picking on it. Knowing what you don't know and figuring out what you'll have to learn in order to know it is a very useful skill. I would be willing to bet that if your dad were alive today and saw the tremendous backlash against his ideas about vision he would have rethought them using current levels of knowledge and found another path through a softer science to get to the next chapter.

Maybe he would have. Maybe scientists are so self-righteous that the thought that someone outside of their field could come up with something new is too difficult to accept. Maybe he should have addressed this differently, but the good news is that the truth always wins, one way or another. I have confidence in this.

Chapter Four, Words, Not Reality

p. 112 Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a
discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with
this comment as was made to me, “What difference does it make what
we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether
we call them 5 senses, or 4 senses and a pair of eyes is certainly not
going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really
have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise
we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this
knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a
difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that
man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door
for a thorough investigation, so likewise my second discovery is not
that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies
hidden behind this door. Many years later we have an additional
problem which is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious
observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered
genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute
fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms,
so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have
come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear
any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful
the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would
do it in the name of justice and truth.

Funny! You certainly have done a lot of fundraising. You're the expert here, I'm not. I would value your opinion in this area. I'm really not that hard to get along with.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Fundraising is kind of subject matter dependent and I really only know how to do it for human services and housing and high drama emotional and politically charged moments of opportunity with guilty politicians. I'm not sure what Kickstarter is but people seem to be able to raise money for all sorts of odd things there.

Working in human services and housing and dealing with guilty politicians is a big area to cover. You sound very self-effacing, almost like the parent who says, I am just a mother. I hope you give yourself credit for what you are able to do. I couldn't do what you do.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You missed the whole point of the conversation; it went right over your head thedoc. He was showing that it can never be proven that someone could have chosen otherwise. It cannot be done. You can believe he could have chosen B instead of A, but you cannot prove it. There is no smokescreen here, as you're trying to imply so you can be right and Lessans wrong. But it will fail every time because it's you that's wrong.

What I demonstrated is that Lessans "Proof" is wrong and the question of free will remains, and anything that follows is invalid. Lessans did not prove that we can't prove free will, the questionis still open.

[Vivisectus]

Right then - so are we to throw the question

"What distinguishes an "I" that is the same "I" as a previous "I" from a completely new "I" that has never existed before?"

on top of the heap of other questions you have no rational answer for?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe scientists are so self-righteous that the thought that someone outside of their field could come up with something new is too difficult to accept. Maybe he should have addressed this differently, but the good news is that the truth always wins, one way or another. I have confidence in this.

Scientists are generally not 'self-righteous', but are evidence driven to their conclusions. They ask a question, then do an experiment, when several experiments and tests all point to the same conclusion, the response is 'this must be true'. If you have another test or experiment that gives a different result, propose it and some scientist will try it, but you must have some justification for believing it may be true. That Lessans wrote it in a book with a lot of other wild claims is not justification enough.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Working in human services and housing and dealing with guilty politicians is a big area to cover. You sound very self-effacing, almost like the parent who says, I am just a mother. I hope you give yourself credit for what you are able to do. I couldn't do what you do.

I couldn't do what moms do either and I can more easily babysit for 200 crazy homeless people than I could get through 24 hours with 3 kids. There's a flip side too and not everyone was impressed with my ability to raise funds and they called me a shark and accused me of being politically manipulative if I got money that they were trying to get too. They were probably right.

I'll look at the rest of your post later because I just woke up. In the meantime I think that there are a few people waiting for you to reply to them

[davidm]

peacegirl, since wayne stewart (wstewart) has arrived, why don't you explain to him Lessans' ideas on what happens when we die, and see if he agrees?

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wayne Stewart is, along with Tom Clark, one of the people davidm has talked about as having a similar idea to Lessans about the consciousness thing.

That's true, but it is not exact because it talks about "existential passage", or "shifting". This is not in accordance with Lessans at all, and to say that it is is pretentious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, since wayne stewart (wstewart) has arrived, why don't you explain to him Lessans' ideas on what happens when we die, and see if he agrees?

Mr. Stewart is here? Welcome. I will read your essay as soon as I have a free moment. I believe you will be interested in Lessans' observations because your observations and his are so close. I hope you stick around. Could you tell us a little more about yourself?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mr. Stewart is here? Welcome. How are you? I truly believe you will be interested in Lessans' observations because your observations and his are so close. I really do hope you stick around.

You responded to his post just now telling him not to be obstinate and defensive...pre-emptively, I guess?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not met you. However you got here, here you are. You seem to be serious in your intentions to understand what happens after we die. I hope you find comfort in Lessans' observations. If not, no one here is telling you how to feel or what believe in regard to death, so there is no reason to be defensive or obstinate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow! The book is the Word of God. Did I not already call it The Bible, Part 2: Son of Bible? But it sure is not religious!

Actually this would be the new gospel, the new truth. I know this is hard to take in, but if this knowledge is true, we have to give it the credit it deserves. I know thedoc can't deal with this, and neither can others in here, but try to be objective.

p. 199 However, when theologians fully realize not only that
they were teaching something false and that God’s will, the truth, was
hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will
be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the
pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic
boom. They will strongly desire to spread word of the new gospel that
will soon put an end to all evil, even if this puts them out of business.
Although we must enter this new world of our own free will because no
force will be used, the comparison of what we now have with what is
now possible gives us no choice because our will is not free to move
against what we believe is better for ourselves. This will compel us to
desire studying for the examination (which will only require the very
basic understanding of these principles) so we can become citizens as
quickly as possible after the transition has been officially launched.

[LadyShea]

The guy did go to the exposition and saw a sign that read: The eyes are not a sense organ.

Dave, right? I don't think that happened at all, and you have no evidence that it did. What are the chances that someone else used exactly the same words as Lessans "The eyes are not a sense organ", but neither you nor Lessans cared to follow up to see who these people were or what they were claiming, and no trace of any group or book or research (other than Lessans) can be found?

It sounds like one of those bullshit anecdotes like Mormon undergarments protecting people from flames and such.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You responded to his post just now telling him not to be obstinate and defensive...pre-emptively, I guess?

I almost pointed that out but I'm starting to feel like Miss Manners.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Peacegirl, you might not even know this but do you know that on these kinds of boards people frown upon substantially changing your posts after the fact because it's revisionist? Other than quick changes right after posting people expect you to let your posts stand as they are, warts and all and not hide the evidence of your blunder even if no one quoted it. I had never thought about it before that because I hung out on small forums and we were just BSing and yelling about politics and not being serious and no one ever went back and read old threads again or even cared. Once you've typed it the harm is already done and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. It's easier to take a deep breath, wait until your heart stops pounding, go out for a walk if necessary and don't blast off with the first thing that comes into your mind when someone makes you mad. I have to do it at least once a day or everyone I know would hate me for being an unbearably snarky bitch.

ETA: - Check out the links right above this post - it's about the thing with consciousness and pronouns I think.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but the problem here is that I am making claims on behalf of my father, and anything I say is going to be a reflection on him. That's why I will change a sudden outburst or kneejerk reaction if I can, but I do agree with you that it's better to prevent the outburst than to have to correct it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dave, right? I don't think that happened at all, and you have no evidence that it did.

Nope I don't, this is about trust which you can't handle. You have no trust at all; you are a very suspicious person which works in some situations but can backfire in others.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are the chances that someone else used exactly the same words as Lessans "The eyes are not a sense organ", but neither you nor Lessans cared to follow up to see who these people were or what they were claiming, and no trace of any group or book or research (other than Lessans) can be found?

I could contact this guy, but he would be hard to find since there are many Daves with the same last name. Your accusation (as if this disproves Lessans' claims) is off the beaten track. This is your last ditch effort to make yourself look like you have defeated him. You have done no such thing. LadyShea, you are great at details (which you are trying to use against him) but terrible at understanding the general concept, which cannot be disputed. You think your refutation proves him wrong, which it doesn't, and that's what makes our communication unproductive and not worth continuing. As I have said all along, you are way too sure of yourself, and this poses a serious problem.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It sounds like one of those bullshit anecdotes like Mormon undergarments protecting people from flames and such.

That is the chip you hold on your shoulders. I see it so clearly. You are seeing the world from your perspective, which is skewed. I also have skewed perceptions so I don't mean to single you out. But it doesn't surprise me in the least that you are working even harder to hold onto your position in this thread. Let's face it: ego it hard to let go of. We are all trying to tread water in this dog eat dog world.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I almost pointed that out but I'm starting to feel like Miss Manners.

Christina, peacegirl doesn't really understand forums still. I have quoted people, like Dr. Ruth, by putting their name in the quote, and she thought they were really here, then she didn't put together that "wstewart" who linked to Wayne Stewart's (his own) essay, was actually the very Wayne Stewart davidm has linked us to several times.

What's funny is that she chit-chitted us to be on our best behavior if Tom Clark showed up, but then proactively scolded Wayne Stewart, who is well respected in his field and could be helpful to her.