A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not the boss thedoc, and I never claimed to be.

Since you admit that you are not the boss, why do you keep trying to order others around? And BTW many of your orders are not phrased as polite requests, more like a Drill Sargent barking orders at a bunch of new recruits. But then you see yourself as the master if this information, talking down to everyone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

LOL did you read the article? It completely disproves Lessans claims.

What a weasel. You can't even admit that you're wrong when you are wrong. At least I do that much. The retina is part of the brain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rejection? I never talked about his chapter on death. I am reading what you both are discussing and it doesn't sound similar. If he wants to know more, he can speak for himself. Why are you speaking for him?

Not quite true, when the chapter was avilable on the internet at one of the book sites, there was some discussion of the chapter on this thread, before you closed the link. The pity is that I didn't think to save it on my computer, like I did for the rest of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Since you admit that you are not the boss, why do you keep trying to order others around? And BTW many of your orders are not phrased as polite requests, more like a Drill Sargent barking orders at a bunch of new recruits. But then you see yourself as the master if this information, talking down to everyone else.

That is your perception thedoc. I asked you to please refrain from giving away one chapter, which would confuse someone terribly. Lessans did not include a table of contents for this very reason. I guess you forgot.

Foreword

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be studied
thoroughly before any other reading is done, a table of contents has
been omitted to preclude as much as possible someone reading in a
desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters
this work could appear like a fairy tale, otherwise, the statement that
truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific
world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of
mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult
don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand it
much better the second time around. This book was written in a
dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and
to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible.
There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing
important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive
fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand
it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading
many things over and over again. When you have fully grasped the full
significance and magnitude of this work, and further realize there has
never been and will never be another like it because of what is
undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously, the only reason you call this preaching is because you're not getting your way, for if I agreed with you, you would then say it's a conversation.

No. That's more dishonesty on your part.

You've outright stated that you have no interest in conversation, and that you're only here to preach the Gospel According to Lessans.

And you've certainly been consistent on that. Never have you shown the slightest inclination toward an honest discussion regarding Lessans' claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Not quite true, when the chapter was avilable on the internet at one of the book sites, there was some discussion of the chapter on this thread, before you closed the link. The pity is that I didn't think to save it on my computer, like I did for the rest of the book.

Yea, it's a real pity. You probably wouldn't have understood it anyway. You have a block against anything Lessans says.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What a weasel. You can't even admit that you're wrong when you are wrong. At least I do that much. The retina is part of the brain.

When will you admit that Lessans was wrong?

The retina is conneted to the brain but not in the brain, so being part of the brain is a matter of discussion.

Would you also say that the nerves in your big toe are part of the brain?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No. That's more dishonesty on your part.

You've outright stated that you have no interest in conversation, and that you're only here to preach the Gospel According to Lessans.

And you've certainly been consistent on that. Never have you shown the slightest inclination toward an honest discussion regarding Lessans' claims.

Lone Ranger, yes I have. You are the one being dishonest. I admitted everything that I have done wrong, including weaseling, and you still won't let go of your attitude toward me, which is ruining it for you and everyone else, because you are not taking this discovery seriously.

[The Lone Ranger]

You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that there was any discovery.

Instead, you preach and become petulant when people refuse to accept your outrageous and easily-disproved claims on faith alone.

And your idea of "discussion" is evasion, weasling, and when all else fails, outright lying. Discussion is not -- and never was -- part of your plan. In your more lucid moments, you even admit it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

When will you admit that Lessans was wrong?

The retina is conneted to the brain but not in the brain, so being part of the brain is a matter of discussion.

Would you also say that the nerves in your big toe are part of the brain?

You didn't even read what it said, did you? The retina is brain tissue.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish I could take it back and smack you at the same time. You've done a disservice to Lessans.

Lets see a written threat of physical assault. That is 'Summary Assault' and I believe I could prosecute if I were so inclined. Perhaps Stephen Maturin could advise me? Especially now that I have quoted you and you can't delete it.

I have not done nearly as much a disservice to Lessans as you have done by parading his idiocy on the internet for 10 years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that there was any discovery.

Instead, you preach and become petulant when people refuse to accept your outrageous and easily-disproved claims on faith alone.

And your idea of "discussion" is evasion, weasling, and when all else fails, outright lying. Discussion is not -- and never was -- part of your plan. In your more lucid moments, you even admit it.

I said from the beginning that I should have never come to forums. I came to share A DISCOVERY that no one knows about, and it was wrong of me to expect anything different than what I got. How could I have a discussion when no one has actually studied the book? And don't tell me that anyone has. That's why I would like my own forum after people have read the book with the intent to learn. All everyone does is tell me that efferent vision is wrong wrong wrong. Okay I get the controversy; I said all along we'll have to wait for more testing. Isn't that fair? Then they tell me that conscience doesn't work in a predictable way (which is flat out wrong); they tell me that "greater satisfaction" is a modal fallacy and a tautology (which is flat out wrong); they tell me that the right-of-way system doesn't work (which is flat out wrong), and I'm supposed to shut up as they try to discredit Lessans when they don't even know what they're talking about?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't even read what it said, did you? The retina is brain tissue.

The retina is "specilized brain tissue" but it is not an actual part of the brain. It generates signals that are sent "to the brain".

From the article,

"Eyes are the visual organs that have the retina, a specialized type of brain tissue containing photoreceptors. These specialised cells convert light into electrochemical signals through the ganglion cell layer and travel along the optic nerve fibers to the brain."

If the retina were part of the brain the signals would not need to be sent "to the brain".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lets see a written threat of physical assault. That is 'Summary Assault' and I believe I could prosecute if I were so inclined. Perhaps Stephen Maturin could advise me? Especially now that I have quoted you and you can't delete it.

I have not done nearly as much a disservice to Lessans as you have done by parading his idiocy on the internet for 10 years.

You've crossed the line. I need a breather from you. You've earned your ignore time. Bye bye!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe in that sense these accounts of death are similar, but there is no numerical identity between one person and another, in Lessans' account, or between one person's death and the next child born.

This is the exact opposite of what you were saying only 5 days ago:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is numerically identical, but there is no connection to anyone who just died. He was just showing that when someone dies, the next child born is not 101 (which is reasoning beyond the grave), it's 100.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

And if there is no numerical identity involved, then there is no being reborn. You will not be born again and again if the subsequent person born is not you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admitted everything that I have done wrong, including weaseling ...

Really? Well, here's your chance to own up.

Remember how you spent pages arguing that cameras and eyes see differently, even as people pointed out that this is demonstrably untrue? Remember how you then discovered that this is not what Lessans had actually said, so you immediately changed your story?

Remember how you then lied and claimed that you had never said that cameras and eyes see differently, even though you had spent the past several pages making exactly that claim? When enough people quoted your own words back to you that even you couldn't maintain the pretense that you hadn't claimed that cameras and eyes see differently, you pretended that you had simply made a mistake.

You never admitted that you had lied -- repeatedly lied. So, are you prepared to admit that this was wrong of you?



Or how about when you repeatedly claimed that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims? When it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist, you lied and insisted that you had never made such a claim. You continued to do so until LadyShea posted multiple examples of you making exactly that claim.

Once again, you never admitted lying, but instead pretended that you had made an honest mistake.

So, are you prepared to admit that this was another example of your dishonesty, and that it was wrong of you?

We've got plenty more examples, by the way ...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The retina is part of the brain.

The retina develops as an outgrowth of the tissue that will ultimately form the brain, as I explained to you some 2 years ago. So does the olfactory bulb, as I also explained. Yet, for some reason, you don't think this means that our sense of smell is efferent.

I came to share A DISCOVERY that no one knows about, and it was wrong of me to expect anything different than what I got. How could I have a discussion when no one has actually studied the book?

Liar.

Plenty of people have read and understood the book. And they've demonstrated it by offering detailed criticisms supported by relevant quotations from the Holy Book itself.

But because you're a zealot, you're incapable of accepting that someone could actually read Lessans' turgid prose and not be convinced by his wholly unsupported claims.

Okay I get the controversy; I said all along we'll have to wait for more testing.

More blatant hypocrisy on your part. Lessans' claims regarding vision have been tested. Thoroughly. Remember, the original beliefs regarding vision were that it was instantaneous and efferent.

You're a hypocrite because you immediately and unthinkingly reject any and all tests which contradict Lessans' claims, while claiming that you're keeping an open mind.

Isn't that fair?

The very last thing you are is "fair." You reject mountains of evidence that flatly contradict Lessans' claims while admitting that you can provide no actual evidence in favor of his claims other than his say-so. That's the very opposite of fair. Meanwhile, you keep insisting that someday, somehow, experiments will -- somehow -- provide evidence for those claims.

That's exactly the attitude of a Flat-Earther. "Sure, every single piece of evidence supports the notion that the Earth is round. Nonetheless, I'm convinced that future evidence will be found which will demonstrate that it's flat. Until then, we should keep an open mind."

Then they tell me that conscience doesn't work in a predictable way (which is flat out wrong)

You have not yet been able to demonstrate this. For that matter, you have yet to display any inclination to do so. Instead, you expect us to take it purely on faith. Indeed, you sometimes come right out and say that we should accept Lessans' claims on faith.

they tell me that "greater satisfaction" is a modal fallacy and a tautology (which is flat out wrong)

You have yet to demonstrate that the "Greater Satisfaction Principle" isn't a tautology, nor that the reasoning behind it doesn't commit the modal fallacy. (Saying so isn't the same as making a case.) Indeed, you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what a modal fallacy or a tautology actually is.

and I'm supposed to shut up as they try to discredit Lessans when they don't even know what they're talking about?

Again, this is breath-taking hypocrisy on your part. You're perfectly willing to dismiss any and all science that discredits Lessans' claims -- despite not understanding one whit of it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admitted everything that I have done wrong, including weaseling...

But why are you still weaseling after having admitted to it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All everyone does is tell me that efferent vision is wrong wrong wrong.

Yes, because it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay I get the controversy...

No, there is no controversy. Lessans was simply wrong about vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said all along we'll have to wait for more testing. Isn't that fair?

No, it is not.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, there is no admission.

There is no admission? You admitted that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, and that you made shit up.

Can't you get it through your head that he did not come to these findings in this manner, therefore it was difficult for me to figure out how to answer all of these questions from a physics point of view, but that does not mean he was wrong.

Yes, I DO understand that he did not use logic, science, philosophy, reason or any other tool of mental discovery to arrive at his "findings." What he did was he pulled shit out of his ass. Comprende? And it's WRONG.

And why don't you admit to everyone that this dislike for Lessans is due to the fact that your comfort zone has been turned upside down since it contradicts your belief system and you are having major cognitive/dissonance, otherwise, you wouldn't act like this.

Which, of course, is nonsense. As has been repeatedly explained to you, we laugh at Lessans. The personal animosity you get is because you are a contemptible liar.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've crossed the line. I need a breather from you. You've earned your ignore time. Bye bye!

Should I contact my lawyer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The retina is part of the brain.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The retina develops as an outgrowth of the tissue that will ultimately form the brain, as I explained to you some 2 years ago. So does the olfactory bulb, as I also explained. Yet, for some reason, you don't think this means that our sense of smell is efferent.

Fair enough. I can't prove it this way, but there are other ways.

I came to share A DISCOVERY that no one knows about, and it was wrong of me to expect anything different than what I got. How could I have a discussion when no one has actually studied the book?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar.

If you keep calling me a liar, I'm not going to talk to you.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Plenty of people have read and understood the book.

That's a lie. No one even knows what the discovery is. I have never seen such an arrogant group of people in my life, which is the problem.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And they've demonstrated it by offering detailed criticisms supported by relevant quotations from the Holy Book itself.

But because you're a zealot, you're incapable of accepting that someone could actually read Lessans' turgid prose and not be convinced by his wholly unsupported claims.

Now you're sounding like a copycat. David and Maturin have rubbed off on you. I am not a zealot, damn it. Actually, if this turns out to be a true discovery, it will be the new Holy Book.

Okay I get the controversy; I said all along we'll have to wait for more testing.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

More blatant hypocrisy on your part. Lessans' claims regarding vision have been tested. Thoroughly. Remember, the original beliefs regarding vision were that it was instantaneous and efferent.

Nope, doesn't fly. I don't believe the tests were meant to counteract the established claims of afferent vision. They were done to support the very premise that Lessans is disputing, so they have to start their testing with that in mind because bias will naturally set in.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're a hypocrite because you immediately and unthinkingly reject any and all tests which contradict Lessans' claims, while claiming that you're keeping an open mind.

I am a thinking person. I am not a hypocrite. I have thought about this my whole life. I am true to myself. You will not tell me what I am or what I'm not. I am only accountable to God, not you.

Isn't that fair?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The very last thing you are is "fair." You reject mountains of evidence that flatly contradict Lessans' claims while admitting that you can provide no actual evidence in favor of his claims other than his say-so. That's the very opposite of fair. Meanwhile, you keep insisting that someday, somehow, experiments will -- somehow -- provide evidence for those claims

.

I have his observations, and his explanatory reasons, which are clearly stated. You don't pay any attention to any of his writing. You are the one that is closed beyond belief. Scientists are supposed to be open-minded, especially when someone has given 30 years of his life to this cause. Just accomplishing that feat alone (and you have no idea what he went through), he should be respected enough to where you pay a little more attention than what you're paying.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's exactly the attitude of a Flat-Earther. "Sure, every single piece of evidence supports the notion that the Earth is round. Nonetheless, I'm convinced that future evidence will be found which will demonstrate that it's flat. Until then, we should keep an open mind."

I believe his observations and his demonstration are foolproof, but if you don't, more experiments will have to be done. He didn't pull this out of a hat and make an assertion without a reason Lone Ranger, as you want to accuse him of.

Then they tell me that conscience doesn't work in a predictable way (which is flat out wrong)

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have not yet been able to demonstrate this. For that matter, you have yet to display any inclination to do so. Instead, you expect us to take it purely on faith. Indeed, you sometimes come right out and say that we should accept Lessans' claims on faith.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have yet to demonstrate that the "Greater Satisfaction Principle" isn't a tautology, nor that the reasoning behind it doesn't commit the modal fallacy. (Saying so isn't the same as making a case.) Indeed, you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what a modal fallacy or a tautology actually is.

I have done so. Have you been paying attention? Do you even know where I refuted this? I really don't think your mind is attuned to anything I'm saying because you are depending on others in this area. Do you know what his first discovery is? Do you know what the two-sided equation is? Do you know what his observations were and how he came to the understanding that we are compelled to move in the direction of "greater" satisfaction", even if our choices are the lesser of two evils?

and I'm supposed to shut up as they try to discredit Lessans when they don't even know what they're talking about?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, this is breath-taking hypocrisy on your part. You're perfectly willing to dismiss any and all science that discredits Lessans' claims -- despite not understanding one whit of it.

I told you, I don't dismiss all science; only the part that may be mistaken. I say may for your benefit. Moreover, this claim does not mean GPS systems won't work, the sky will be all white, and we will burn to a crisp, as you keep arguing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

There is no admission? You admitted that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, and that you made shit up.

Yes, I DO understand that he did not use logic, science, philosophy, reason or any other tool of mental discovery to arrive at his "findings." What he did was he pulled shit out of his ass. Comprende? And it's WRONG.

Which, of course, is nonsense. As has been repeatedly explained to you, we laugh at Lessans. The personal animosity you get is because you are a contemptible liar.

You're next to go on ignore. It's funny how you say Lessans is wrong, and then you say it's possible to go forward in a time machine. Go figure.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am. I a liar, a weasel, a hypocrite, and an ignoramous. Are you happy now? This thread is not a true representation of what is in the book.

I'm not sure if you're just being sarcastic or really mean this but it sounds like you're acknowledging that you have behaved that way in this thread and I have to admit that it's nice to see because it does get very frustrating to watch you dance around questions without addressing them or insist that things are true or false with no evidence. So are you saying that you believe that everything in the book is undeniable and infallible and the problem is that you aren't able to fully articulate your father's line of thinking?

In light of this, where do you go from here?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am. I a liar, a weasel, a hypocrite, and an ignoramous.

Why don't you try making an effort not to be these things?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am. I a liar, a weasel, a hypocrite, and an ignoramous.

As the saying goes: "The first step is admitting that you have a problem." Well done.