A revolution in thought

[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

If Marx's final stage of history is reached, why do we need another theory?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but after two years of doing this, it adds some variety. I don't try to distract; I get right back to the discussion. In fact, I usually I offer something at intermission when I'm going to take a break. That's why I call it intermission.

For some reason that "whoosh" sound is getting really fucking annoying today. Never mind.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

For some reason that "whoosh" sound is getting really fucking annoying today. Never mind.

Who's head?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't know it was him. I thought I was talking to some newcomer. I deleted that post because it looked like I knew I was talking to him, but I didn't know.

Is that the post that you replaced with "dupe"? If so, you should know that "dupe" is short for duplicated post and should only be used when there has been, in fact, a duplicated post. To use it for the purpose of disguising the fact that you have just deleted something you shouldn't have written is simply dishonest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have shared with you his findings which came from outside of the field, and are compelling whether you think so or not.

If they are compelling, why has no one been compelled to accept them as true?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What else do you want me to do, stand on my head?

At least then you would be using it for something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a hurt to someone if another person is making more money. That is an imaginary hurt, and therefore could not be used to justify anger?

I have not the slightest difficulty imagining feeling hurt by an imaginary hurt and imagining getting justifiably angry over that imaginary hurt.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof for a round earth is much greater than the proof for efferent vision.

This is quite true and I am glad to see that you are finally admitting it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

If you admit you made stuff up to support Lessans, it logically follows that you admit Lessans was wrong.

The one does not follow from the other, david. Her admission that she made stuff up because she didn't know how to answer objections to Lessans' claims is not necessarily an admission that those claims were wrong. It is simply an admission of her own incapacity and her willingness to dissemble when cornered.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Nor was I talking about legitimacy. I am merely pointing out that it is not a good rule to determine what is ok to do and what is not.

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.

I see we have discovered a new school of philosophy: the "trust me, I know what I am doing" school of applied authoritarianism.

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

Alas, but it is. It is a form of the old textbook example: that what happens, had to happen, and we know this because it happened. This mixes up contingent and necessary truths: a classic fallacy.

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

If you can read them back they must not be imaginary.

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

Well, obviously. The earth is actually round, and vision is not efferent. In fact there is NO evidence that even hints at efferent vision. In stead, all the evidence points at the reverse.

But just like people deny the piles of evidence that clearly shows the earth is a spheroid, you deny the piles of evidence that show vision is not efferent. And just like flat earthers, you do not allow the same level of leeway to other ideas at all: you reserve it for one particular idea, because you want it to be true.

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.

Well, if my analysis is not sound then you should be able to do more than just say "Is not": you should be able to point out the flaws. Also, even if you disagree with my point of view, you cannot deny they are indeed critical questions. Just because you do not like the fact that you have no answers to them does not make that less of a fact. In stead you respond with unsupported denial, remarks about the tone, claiming that it is the general atmosphere that is somehow preventing you from making a valid point, etcetera etcetera.

As usual, it is always other people's fault.

.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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?

I have articulated everything in the book and the responses are negative mainly due to his claim regarding the eyes. I believe they are accurate observations. I understand that people don't know if his observations are true. They not only insist they are not, they are attacking me as if I'm a pariah. I also tried to explain why I weaseled (unintentionally) due to the fact that these findings did not come from physics, but people will not let me live it down. Yes, I was being sarcastic. I am not a liar. This thread occasionally deteriorates and this is one of those times. I feel sorry for the newcomers who have to listen to this garbage. The way people are acting is certainly not a reflection on me. It is a reflection on them and their lack of character. The only protection these nasty people have is their anonymity, or they wouldn't say the things they say. There is no where else for me to go from here. I'm tired of being abused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

If Marx's final stage of history is reached, why do we need another theory?

This has nothing to do with Marx's final stage of history. Why would you assume that?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 278 It is interesting to note that the very people who want to
leave communist countries will lose their desire as soon as they
become citizens because they will not be subjected to the laws any
longer and will want to continue receiving their guarantee.
Communism, and the dream of socialism, came into existence out of
mathematical necessity as a reaction to injustice, but once the
injustice is removed, communism and the dream of socialism have no
further value. It was assumed that Marx had all the answers, but in
this new world nobody will tell anybody what to do, although each
person will be mathematically prevented from desiring to hurt others.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

He was only trying to show that when the population is at 100 and a person dies, the next person born is not 101, but 100. You keep asking how do I know the next child born is me. This is the type of reasoning that goes beyond the grave, which is why you are having a difficult time.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Reborn only means YOU will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was only trying to show...

I wasn't talking about Lessans' claims. I was talking about yours. You went from saying one thing to saying the exact opposite. YOU did that, not Lessans. Is the newborn numerically identical to the one who has died or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking how do I know the next child born is me. This is the type of reasoning that goes beyond the grave, which is why you are having a difficult time.

I'm not having a difficult time. YOU are. You've identified the question here. Why don't you try answering it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reborn only means YOU will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

As I've explained to you literally dozens of times now, for me to always be here requires that the reborn individual be numerically identical with me, and this is a connection between the recently dead and the newborn individuals. It is a connection of numerical identity.

If you deny this connection then it isn't me that gets reborn, for it is instead someone else being born for the first time. And if you accept this connection of numerical identity (as you must for anyone to be reborn), then you need to explain (beyond the mere assertion of your father) how and why this connection holds.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reborn only means YOU will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

Is there a unique 'You' that applies to each individual person, or is there a universal 'You' that applies to all people?

If it is a unique 'You' where does it exist after 'You' die, if it is not another person who was just born?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the type of reasoning that goes beyond the grave, which is why you are having a difficult time.

You have used this phrase "reasoning that goes beyond the grave" several times in this thread, and apparently you are assuming that everyone knows exactly what you mean. Could you give a more complete and clear explination of exactly what you mean, with some clarifying examples?

[thedoc]

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 would suggest that Peacegirls idea of "discussion" is that she preaches from the holy book and everyone reacts like the non-thinking boot-lickers in the book, by praising her and saying how wonderful Lessans was for preserving these great thoughts "For all Mankind". Again she is useing a very idiosyncratic definition of 'discussion, along with all the other unique definitions used by Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wasn't talking about Lessans' claims. I was talking about yours. You went from saying one thing to saying the exact opposite. YOU did that, not Lessans. Is the newborn numerically identical to the one who has died or not?

I answered you more than once so why are you asking me this again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking how do I know the next child born is me. This is the type of reasoning that goes beyond the grave, which is why you are having a difficult time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not having a difficult time. YOU are. You've identified the question here. Why don't you try answering it?

I have, but without the chapter, it's difficult. I will not put the chapter online in one whole block, so don't ask.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reborn only means YOU will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As I've explained to you literally dozens of times now

Do not talk down to me Spacemonkey, or we're done, and I mean it. I'm that frustrated, which has taken two years to brew.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

, for me to always be here requires that the reborn individual be numerically identical with me, and this is a connection between the recently dead and the newborn individuals. It is a connection of numerical identity.

Not at all. It only means that numerically, 100 is not 101 when a person dies. That's it. If you want to make more of this than it is, maybe Stewart's answer will be more to your liking.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you deny this connection then it isn't me that gets reborn, for it is instead someone else being born for the first time. And if you accept this connection of numerical identity (as you must for anyone to be reborn), then you need to explain (beyond the mere assertion of your father) how and why this connection holds.

Forget it. I am too tired to continue the conversation. I never wanted to start it to begin with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She finally admitted it.

I have always admitted it. I have no formal education.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you more than once so why are you asking me this again?

Because your answers have been contradictory, as I showed you by quoting your previous answers. Is the newborn numerically identical to the one who has died or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have, but without the chapter, it's difficult. I will not put the chapter online in one whole block, so don't ask.

Stop weaseling and either answer the question or admit that you don't know the answer. Why is the next person born you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. It only means that numerically, 100 is not 101 when a person dies. That's it.

Have you forgotten what numerical identity is? It is a connection between holding between the same individual at different times. Without this connection there is no being reborn. So you are contradicting yourself every time you say I will always be here but that there is no connection to the reborn individual.

Like I said, If you deny this connection then it isn't me that gets reborn, for it is instead someone else being born for the first time. And if you accept this connection of numerical identity (as you must for anyone to be reborn), then you need to explain (beyond the mere assertion of your father) how and why this connection holds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it. I am too tired to continue the conversation. I never wanted to start it to begin with.

You're weaseling again. If you're tired, then take a rest and come back when you're ready to discuss this like an adult. If you don't want to discuss it at all, then don't respond to this post.

[LadyShea]

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.

Many people dedicate years and money to their ideas, ideas that simply don't merit further investigation because they aren't robust or have no evidence. Why should Lessans receive special treatment?

Jacques Benveniste got his additional testing, due to his being a well respected scientist at the time, and his results could not be duplicated nor verified and he went from well respected to crackpot. He still clung to them. I am pretty sure you would still cling to Lessans ideas no matter how much testing is done.

[ChristinaM]

Bump

Peacegirl, when you have time could you get around to replying to this one?

Originally Posted by 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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have always admitted it. I have no formal education.

What does that have to do with anything? Being philosophically literate has nothing to do with formal education, and you know it, weasel. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing because it makes you think that you know more than you do. Let me refresh your memory.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

p. 3 If you recall, in the 20th century Gregor Mendel made a discovery
in the field of heredity. He was unable to present his findings because
there was an established theory already being taught as true. The
professors he contacted had their own theories and they concluded
that it was impossible for him to have discovered anything new since
he was nothing in comparison to them. If these professors had taken
the time to scientifically investigate his claims they would have found
that he was correct and they were mistaken, but this would have made
them the laughingstock of the entire student world. In the end it was
Nageli, the leading authority of his time, whose pride refused to let
him investigate Mendel whom he judged a semi-amateur because he
regarded as impossible the very core of Mendel’s discovery. He was
wrong as history recorded and though Mendel was compelled to receive
posthumous recognition for the law he discovered, he is now
considered the father of modern genetics and Nageli, a footnote.
History has recorded innumerable stories of a like nature, but is it
necessary that the pattern continue? Isn’t it obvious that if such a
discovery exists, and it does, and you deny the possibility, you are
setting yourselves up as infallible gods among men, just as our
intellectual ancestors did when they prematurely rejected the discovery
of Gregor Mendel? Can’t you be the ones to confirm the discovery?
Must it be others, long after we are dead?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Peacegirl, when you have time could you get around to replying to this one?

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?

Because that's the only way we can make the transition. We can't give money that has no purchasing power just because everyone wants it. Money does not grow on trees; it has a value. It has to be done in a way that purchasing power has meaning, and in order to do this we have to earn it through our labor. Most jobs have already established what they are willing to pay their employees, and this will be used to determine one's guarantee as we make the transition to the new world.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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.

That is a thoughtful question, but this is the most equitable solution possible. It guarantees what everyone is now getting paid will continue, even if they should fall below their standard due to events they have no control over, but at the same time this set-up does not put a lid on anyone's opportunity to move upward to a higher income bracket.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reborn only means YOU will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

What person does the word "YOU" refer to in this sentence? Replace you with a proper noun, please, otherwise this is meaningless. Personal pronouns require a referent.

You (peacegirl) seem to not understand my (LadyShe's) objection here, so I (LadyShea) am trying to illustrate it using your (peacegirl's) own claims

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that have to do with anything? Being philosophically literate has nothing to do with formal education, and you know it, weasel. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing because it makes you think that you know more than you do. Let me refresh your memory.

WTF? My statement was regarding not having enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for Christina in the discussion of Wayne Stuart's essay.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have articulated everything in the book and the responses are negative mainly due to his claim regarding the eyes.

Yeah, because they're wrong in the same way that my belief that the sky is purple is wrong. I really love the color purple too.

I believe they are accurate observations.

You unquestionably believe everything in your sacred text so that's no surprise.

I understand that people don't know if his observations are true. They not only insist they are not, they are attacking me as if I'm a pariah.

They know that they aren't true. You get attacked as if you're a pariah because of your behavior.

I also tried to explain why I weaseled (unintentionally) due to the fact that these findings did not come from physics, but people will not let me live it down.

Probably not.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I am not a liar.

Sorry, there are no take-backsies on the internet. It's enshrined forever here because at least 3 of us immediately quoted it so that you couldn't just delete it and pretend that it was a duplicate post again.

I feel sorry for the newcomers who have to listen to this garbage.

Don't feel sorry for us. I was a newcomer a few hundred pages ago and I'm having a great time.

The way people are acting is certainly not a reflection on me.

Yes it is. In another thread I posted something that people clearly think is a stupid idea but (most) found polite ways to infer that I was being an idiot and didn't just point and laugh. I don't care - I'll just do what I always do when people tell me that I can't accomplish something which is to go do it to my own satisfaction anyway. I didn't stick around to whine "I can too" more than once.

It is a reflection on them and their lack of character. The only protection these nasty people have is their anonymity, or they wouldn't say the things they say.

IRL they probably would have slapped you offside the head by now so be thankful that they're just talking fingers on the internet.

There is no where else for me to go from here. I'm tired of being abused.

Then stop allowing it. Have the dignity and self-respect to walk away when you feel like the only reason that you're here is to be an entertaining chew toy.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a thoughtful question, but this is the most equitable solution possible. It guarantees what everyone is now getting paid will continue, even if they should fall below their standard due to events they have no control over, but at the same time this set-up does not put a lid on anyone's opportunity to move upward to a higher income bracket.

The head of the anti-poverty advocate inside me just exploded so I'm going to save this one for later when I can type in full sentences without saying fuck and moron a few thousand times.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF? My statement was regarding not having enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for Christina in the discussion of Wayne Stuart's essay.

Oh FFS peacegirl I said that because Lady Shea is really fucking smart, is an atheist also, has absolutely no problem with following any conversation even if she isn't completely familiar with the terminology and isn't at all intimidated by any idea. She asks intelligent questions because she knows that she's smart and can comprehend difficult material so if it isn't clear to her she asks a well-formed and specific question. It's not something that you would understand.