A revolution in thought

[ChristinaM]

Peacegirl, the most immediate problem that I see with your economic theory is that you state that people will come over into the new world paradigm at the same income levels that they're at prior to the cutover. I'm pretty sure that isn't working too well for us right now and that gross income disparities are the cause of any number of inequalities and injustices. Why on earth would we as a civilization want to start anew by carrying over some of the most problematic issues that we already have? If I were going to go for a utopia I would at least start out with everyone being able to meet their basic needs in an equal fashion. It sounds to me like you're dismissing the very real consequences of being at the lower end of the income scale.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with Lessans' discovery. I hope that someone will start a different thread so Lessans and Stewart's explanation as to what happens after death don't get confused. David, since you had the idea, why don't you start a new thread? I will visit from time to time.

Yes, and later on, I explained to thedoc that he was misinterpreting, in the quoted post, the claims of Lessans and Stewart, which are indeed identical. So there is no "mixing up" of their claims, since they are the same. Why must you be so incontrovertibly dense?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was wrong on all of these things. I was trying to make it fit so that people would not reject Lessans' claims outright. Now that you know me, my hope is that you will not reject Lessans' claims outright, but if you do, I can understand why. I made big blunders, and you are entitled to hold them against me.

Oh, wonderful! What a perfectly astonishing admission! At last, after ten years of hawking this crackheaded nonsense on the Internet, you admit you were wrong. Of course, in admitting you were wrong, you are admitting Lessans was wrong as well. Or did you not notice that connection?

[Stephen Maturin]

Oh man, Wayne Stewart is here and discussing existential passage. That is well and truly awesome. Thus does a thread born of peacegirl's stupidity and dishonesty continue producing worthwhile discussions and information. God is good indeed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are a slow learner, Maturin.

It's true. My germinal substance is defective.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

I stand corrected! I totes forgot that the Holy Book is self-proving, not to mention the glorious God-given fact that "very young" boys and goils fall in love with sexual organs rather than actual human beings.

I also forgot how Lessantology completely does away with premarital sex. How, you ask? Why, through the miracle of idiosyncratic redefinition of course. When the word "marriage" is redefined as synonymous with sex ("same difference" in the words of the Anointed One), having sex is automatically a marriage! To the extent premarital sex was a problem at all, problem solved!

I know, the system may look a bit clunky. For instance, if marriage and sex are synonymous, then the "marriage" ends when the rumpy pumpy is over and doesn't resume until the rumpy pumpy recommences. Buy hey, who are we to question God's plan?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

I agree. If ipso facto inerrancy is good enough for God's holy yet 100% nonreligious prophet on Earth, it's good enough for me!

And I'm sure that in wanting to cure homosexuality, Seymour was in no wise like unto the "pray away the gay" male Christian fundy preachers who so often find that their weiners have accidentally become stuck in the bummy-wums of male prostitutes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Yes, I am indeed calling God a bigot. However, the fact that God Himself exhibits such bigotry automatically means that bigotry is A-OK! I'm gonna go oppress me a colored boy right now!

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a chicken and egg question, and I think the egg came first.

<snip>

No, it's really not. The cat just got your tongue, is all.

You make me laugh so much before I finish my coffee. The first time I realized that these guys actually had scientific explanations for what we lay folks think of as a figures of speech or dumb jokes I LOLed for half an hour. Eventually I came to love the precise way that they think but at first it was funny as hell to me. They probably know why the chicken crossed the road too.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously don't understand what this idiom means. A chicken and egg situation IS a situation in which it is impossible to say which of two things existed first and which caused the other.

Literally it is a very poor idiom as the literal question has an obvious answer, as a representation of some sequence where the cause and effect are unclear, I would suggest you find another idiom. In this thread your actions caused the animosity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.

This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.

This entire discussion is not my expertise, and you know it. This has nothing to do with the soundness of his observations. I was being pressured to come up with an answer, and it made me look like a weasel. Now it's much more clear to me why a photograph would be the same as what we see with the naked eye. Vivisectus said it's because light travels at a certain speed and strikes the eye and camera at the same exact time. That's the afferent account. The efferent account is that the object must be in the field of view, whether it's the eye or a camera. That would put the light at the film instantly, just like the retina. It would be no different.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.

I don't question the relevant science when it comes to the basics. I do question whether it offers a complete understanding of what's going on with the brain.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.

Here again I am not arguing that scientists know the difference between an afferent and efferent neuron, but this in itself does not prove that impulses are decoded into images that allow for normal vision. I'm not convinced. You may think I am trying to weasel again, but I'm really not. I just believe there is something to Lessans' claim and I won't give up. The brain and eyes are one entity, therefore the structure of neurons might not even play a part in the direction the brain sees.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Would you like to read the chapter on economics? PM me.

Thedoc, that's not the way. He needs to read the first three chapters. You're ruining it for this guy, don't you understand?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

People use it in different ways but sometimes it refers to the way that a person tries to distract everyone when they've argued themselves into a corner. I'm not sure if it was because you didn't want David and Wayne to talk about existential passage or you wanted to divert people back onto the dog video thing in a roundabout way or you just wanted us all to take a break to look at the cute puppy but it sure looked like an attempt at a distraction.

That's not it. I like intermissions because it gives everyone a break from this tiring conversation. I like to share videos that I like.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"Something else is going on".

I'll never live it down, will I?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thedoc, that's not the way. He needs to read the first three chapters. You're ruining it for this guy, don't you understand?

Calm down peacegirl. Nothing is ruined for anyone, all LD has seen is what you've posted in public and it's unlikely that he'll participate in a discussion of economics with no meat to it anyway. He's been around for a long time and he probably has seen you go through it before in other places. It doesn't make any more economic sense if you do read the first 3 chapters so if he chooses to participate I'm sure that he'll do just fine without having to prepare for your class first.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This entire discussion is not my expertise, and you know it.

No shit! Because it wasn't Lessans' expertise, either.

This has nothing to do with the soundness of his observations.

I was being pressured to come up with an answer, and it made me look like a weasel.

If it looks like a and weasels like a it's a

Now it's much more clear to me why a photograph would be the same as what we see with the naked eye.

Oh, is it really?

Vivisectus said it's because light travels at a certain speed and strikes the eye and camera at the same exact time. That's the afferent account. The efferent account is that the object must be in the field of view, whether it's the eye or a camera. That would put the light at the film instantly, just like the retina. It would be no different.

Isn't that fascinating.

OK. So let's revisit Lessans' scenario. We have two people standing on earth, one of them holding a camera. It's noon, and God turns on the sun. According to Lessans, both people see the sun immediately, but would not be able to see each other for eight and a half minutes, because the photons have not arrived.

QUERY: If the photons have not arrived at the face of the man holding the camera, and will not do so for eight and a half minutes, how could they arrive instantly at the camera lens that is pressed against the man's face?



Yup, you've really thought this one through, haven't you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

It depends on its length. But I don't see why someone in the know cannot address my questions here.

If you really want to understand this discovery, go to my website and read the first three chapters. Then you can read Chapter Six. If you do it out of order, it will appear like a fairy tale, thanks to thedoc.

Untitled Document

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Er, but I AM giving you a brief account.

As to the rest, subjective awareness created ex nihilo happens under EP, as does merger: One, two, three or many people die, and subjective continuity from all those people continues in only one future person. There can also be splits: subjectivity continuity continuance from dead x to newborn twins y and z, for example.

This does not relate to Lessans' concepts on death at all. There are no mergers. You're going to confuse people. Why can't you start a new thread like you said David?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

That sounds rather utopian thinking to me, but it does address the first issue I raised. But it doesn't address the 2nd situation of " suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right".

Laughing dog, this is about the Golden Age of Man; a utopian age where all war and crime will be a thing of the past and people will no longer desire to hurt another when the justification to do so has been removed. That is what this discovery is all about.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not relate to Lessans' concepts on death at all. There are no mergers. You're going to confuse people. Why can't you start a new thread like you said David?

Why don't you go play in traffic?

BTW, if there were no mergers or splits, the entire concept is mathematically incoherent, as there are, I believe Lady Shea noted, 19 births for every eight deaths. If there are no mergers of splits, where do the extra 11 new "I"s come from?

You are just ... ugh. inconceivably boneheaded. Like your father. As noted many times by me and others, you are a chip off the old blockhead.

[davidm]

It just amazes me that you, peacegirl, have someone here, wstewart, who agrees with Lessans' third claim, but actually does the spade work to flesh it out, mathematically and metaphysically, and you are too thick-headed to realize this!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So did you explain how it is perfectly cromulent to go fishing when your significant other is giving birth?

This is not about whether an action is legitimate or not. Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you actually think judging someone angrily because they don't want to do what you want them to do, and blaming them as a consequence, is going to help the situation? Let's get practical.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And did you notice that you are, right now, trying to respond to a critical question? We shall call it critical question 1 for convenience.

You're going to have to take my word for it then. This observation took years and years of study, seeing patterns in human behavior, and finding commonalities that show that conscience works in a very predictable way. This is scientific even though he didn't write his findings down since he didn't plan on making a discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right - just like you will have to take my word for it that flight is not something that has anything to do with wings flapping, which is also scientific, even though I did not use the scientific method or conduct any kind of test to arrive at my conclusion, because I was just studying stuff at random and not planning on making any kind of discovery.

And you know you can trust me, because it took me years of study to reach this conclusion, spotting patterns in animal behaviors and finding commonalities between things that fly.

This totally makes up for any evidence to the contrary, lack of evidence in favor, complete absence of even a reason to think it might be so, and at times utter incoherence of my account.

Please note that this is also a response to a critical question: number 2 so far. In this post alone.

What you just described is one of the basic fallacies. It is a textbook example, in fact.

There is no fallacy Vivisectus, and saying it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

and this is critical question number 3. Look how they rack up!

In your imagination they are racking up, not in reality.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I use it as a way to show what kind of ideas fit inside the standard of truth that is required to make your idea seem even remotely plausible, a fact that seem to consitently go over your head.

The standards are high. Each claim has to be judged on its own merit. There is more proof that the earth is a sphere than the earth is flat. There is not conclusive proof that light without the object brings the pattern of the object to the eye after traveling through space/time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And thus you yourself show the double standard you apply:

and yet

One notion does not require absolute proof, the other one does. Any evidence in against one is easily accepted, but any evidence against the other is held to a different standard.

No it is not held to a different standard. The proof for a round earth is much greater than the proof for efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your idea requires a special standard of evidence that is much, much lower than the one you apply to ideas you are not similarly attached to. It really is pretty obvious.

4 critical questions in one post! My goodness. It is almost as if you are just claiming that is the case so you can pretend this idea makes sense!

You are being very sarcastic and none of your analysis applies, none. His observations were sound. The least people can do is read the book and see for themselves. You have so destroyed the content that I'm relieved you are not the one that I have to count on to help me bring this discovery to light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It just amazes me that you, peacegirl, have someone here, wstewart, who agrees with Lessans' third claim, but actually does the spade work to flesh it out, mathematically and metaphysically, and you are too thick-headed to realize this!

It is not the same because, according to Lessans, there is no connection between a person who is in a coma or sleeping, and the next person born. I admit I have not read his work, but from what you just wrote, they don't relate except for the claim that death isn't the end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why don't you go play in traffic?

BTW, if there were no mergers or splits, the entire concept is mathematically incoherent, as there are, I believe Lady Shea noted, 19 births for every eight deaths. If there are no mergers of splits, where do the extra 11 new "I"s come from?

You are just ... ugh. inconceivably boneheaded. Like your father. As noted many times by me and others, you are a chip off the old blockhead.

You're disgusting. Why don't you go walk on a train track.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, I am not at all philosophically literate Christina, don't follow me!

She finally admitted it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not it. I like intermissions because it gives everyone a break from this tiring conversation. I like to share videos that I like.

there are threads for videos that are not on topic, otherwise you are trying to distract others from the mistakes you are making.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, the God of the Gaps!

"There are things we do not know everything about yet. Therefor God exists!"

Peacegirl, we do not know everything about physics yet either. Maybe one of the things we are yet to learn is an explanation for why wings are not a cause for flight in birds!

You can make these ridiculous comparisons forever; it doesn't change the fact that Lessans' observations were sound.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not the same because, according to Lessans, there is no connection between a person who is in a coma or sleeping, and the next person born. I admit I have not read his work, but from what you just wrote, they don't relate except for the claim that death isn't the end.

Jesus. Christ. In. A. Cracker.

YES. There is no personal connection between the deceased and the next born. This is also what Clark and Stewart write. How many times have I explained this to you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

there are threads for videos that are not on topic, otherwise you are trying to distract others from the mistakes you are making.

Who do you think you are, Mr. Big Stuff?

Big Stuff - Jean Knight - Lyrics - YouTube