A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I read the book, and understood what your father wrote. If your father did not write what he meant to say, that is not my failure. You are right he was not one of them, they had an education in the subjects they had studied and your father had none. They refused to listen because your father didn't know what he was talking about. DO NOT attempt to lay the rotting fruits of your fathers inadequacy on my doorstep. I will assume that by "Pundits" you are referring to those who have studied a particular subject and know something about it, which your father was not.

You know nothing about this book. You have no conception at all. You don't even understand the first thing, really truly. You can't even tell me what the discovery is, or explain it in your own words. You're taking everyone's word for it, is all. Now you're invested in the anti-Lessans bandwagon. You couldn't change your mind even if you wanted to since this is your MO. You're not an independent thinker, you're a follower. I'm not saying this to be cruel. You either don't have the capacity to understand what was written, or you failed to study it carefully (it may be both), which is why you rail against it. When this discovery is confirmed valid, you'll feel like a fool if it happens in your lifetime.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wasn't appealing to a majority, Peacegirl. I was appealing to consilience, and asking how you explain the consistency of getting the exact same flaws identified by different groups of people everywhere you go.

It is understandable why. Everyone has been educated the same exact way, so it's no wonder they all have the same responses, especially regarding the eyes. I can only envision the tide slowly turning, but I believe it will eventually crescendo into a tidal wave. Misinformation is remarkably persistent, so it may take years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say anything about time travel, Peacegirl. When you appeal to future vindicating evidence you are acknowledging the reality of the future. If there is no future then there is no such evidence. If your only point is that this future isn't happening now in the present and won't occur until later, then you are arguing a trivial point no-one disagrees with. And have you worked out why you keep coming back here yet?

Your reasoning is so off base, it's incredible. Memory allows us to go back in time in our mind's eye, and the future is just a concept of what could be, but you are failing to understand that these thought processes are just that, thought processes. If I lost my ability to remember, then only the present would exist. I am thinking right now. I am not thinking in the future because there is no such thing in reality. Everything we do and think is in the present. It is far from trivial Spacemonkey. It's huge as a matter of fact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When this discovery is confirmed valid, you'll feel like a fool if it happens in your lifetime.

Then I doubt that I would ever feel like a fool, or that My grandchildren would feel foolish for me. Lessans non-discovery will never be confirmed by anyone, because it is nonsense. You would do a lot more good by spending some time with your grandchildren, I know mine make me feel happy for being with them. Do you know that when I tell anyone else about your fathers Ideas, they just roll their eyes in disbelief, that anyone could believe anything so silly. Your father blew any chance of being believed when he went on about the eyes. By Making that the cornerstone principle of much of what he claimed, he shot himself in the foot because that is easily proven false, and the rest of his claims that depend on that, fall apart. The eyes are sense organs and we see afferently, proven by the evidence for it and none against it. Future evidence is not in existence.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You either don't have the capacity to understand what was written, or you failed to study it carefully (it may be both), which is why you rail against it. When this discovery is confirmed valid, you'll feel like a fool if it happens in your lifetime.

Everybody here understands what he wrote. It's wrong. We don't see in real time. The eyes are sense organs. Nothing will ever change these facts. The books is nonsense.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is understandable why. Everyone has been educated the same exact way, so it's no wonder they all have the same responses, especially regarding the eyes. I can only envision the tide slowly turning, but I believe it will eventually crescendo into a tidal wave. Misinformation is remarkably persistent, so it may take years.

So the problem is that the people you have been presenting this to are educated on the topics concerned? And Lessans had the advantage of knowing nothing at all about the subjects on which he wrote?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know nothing about this book. You have no conception at all. You don't even understand the first thing, really truly. You can't even tell me what the discovery is, or explain it in your own words.

If that's the criterion for understanding it, then you obviously don't understand it either.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning is so off base, it's incredible.

It's amazing how you can discern this without ever identifying any actual flaw in my reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I lost my ability to remember...

What do you mean "If..."?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am thinking right now. I am not thinking in the future because there is no such thing in reality. Everything we do and think is in the present. It is far from trivial Spacemonkey. It's huge as a matter of fact.

It is trivial because no-one has ever claimed or thought that future events are happening in the present, and no arguments on either side rest upon this point.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I made the distinction between ecommerce and paypal because with paypal I don't have to encrypt my website due to hacking issues. Paypal does all of that on their end. You can close your jaw now.

Maybe you should write a GUI interface using Visual basic to track the hackers IP address...

1: It is weird to use the word e-commerce like that, or to claim to make a dictinction based on security issues, and you are just doing your usual trick of waffling on in stead of simply saying "Yeah, I don't know squat about that".

2: You have integrated PayPal in such an amateurish way that a toddler can modify your ordering system in such a way that they can simply modify the order amount.

Just to make the point I have just ordered the audiobook for 50 cents.

Just cancel the order and makes sure to ship nothing until you have checked the payment amount on each order. Alternately you can have a very simple database that the payment button checks against to make sure the correct amount is being processed.

You may keep the 50 cents

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You may keep the 50 cents

Peacegirl has made a sale! The revolution has begun!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the problem is that the people you have been presenting this to are educated on the topics concerned? And Lessans had the advantage of knowing nothing at all about the subjects on which he wrote?

He had the required knowledge to make this claim. How many times do I have to tell you that this observation did not come from physics. The standard you are using to judge the accuracy of his claim is completely skewed Spacemonkey.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I made the distinction between ecommerce and paypal because with paypal I don't have to encrypt my website due to hacking issues. Paypal does all of that on their end. You can close your jaw now.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Maybe you should write a GUI interface using Visual basic to track the hackers IP address...

1: It is weird to use the word e-commerce like that, or to claim to make a dictinction based on security issues, and you are just doing your usual trick of waffling on in stead of simply saying "Yeah, I don't know squat about that".

The difference is that you need an SSL certificate (which protects anyone from stealing credit card information) if you're selling on your site, or people won't use their credit card. Using PayPal doesn't necessitate having this certificate because you are paying on PayPal's site.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2: You have integrated PayPal in such an amateurish way that a toddler can modify your ordering system in such a way that they can simply modify the order amount.

Just to make the point I have just ordered the audiobook for 50 cents.

Just cancel the order and makes sure to ship nothing until you have checked the payment amount on each order. Alternately you can have a very simple database that the payment button checks against to make sure the correct amount is being processed.

You may keep the 50 cents

I got an email and they won't process it because it's not the correct price. This was not an order for the book, so there was nothing to ship. It would have been great if you had bought it. I would get an email from PayPal, give you a password, and then you could listen to the full audio, about 5 hours worth of listening time. You would have enjoyed it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning is so off base, it's incredible.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's amazing how you can discern this without ever identifying any actual flaw in my reasoning.

Your reasoning is flawed. You still have no understanding as to why conscience gets stronger with the knowledge that man's will is not free. You keep insisting that he presupposes a lot of things that he didn't support, but that's also wrong. You refuse to listen. Even animals have a conscience.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am thinking right now. I am not thinking in the future because there is no such thing in reality. Everything we do and think is in the present. It is far from trivial Spacemonkey. It's huge as a matter of fact.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is trivial because no-one has ever claimed or thought that future events are happening in the present, and no arguments on either side rest upon this point.

No, but they believe the future or past can be accessed, like it's a dimension that we can actually go to in a time machine. This is pure science fiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then I doubt that I would ever feel like a fool, or that My grandchildren would feel foolish for me. Lessans non-discovery will never be confirmed by anyone, because it is nonsense. You would do a lot more good by spending some time with your grandchildren, I know mine make me feel happy for being with them. Do you know that when I tell anyone else about your fathers Ideas, they just roll their eyes in disbelief, that anyone could believe anything so silly. Your father blew any chance of being believed when he went on about the eyes. By Making that the cornerstone principle of much of what he claimed, he shot himself in the foot because that is easily proven false, and the rest of his claims that depend on that, fall apart. The eyes are sense organs and we see afferently, proven by the evidence for it and none against it. Future evidence is not in existence.

Nothing regarding his claim about the eyes has anything to do with his other discoveries. It is not the cornerstone principle, which just goes to show me how ignorant you really are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2: Decide on the keywords that you want to use. These keywords should relate to whatever interest people can have that would make them likely to also be interested in your book. This is also very important: it will help you generate traffic, and we will need to keep this little list if keywords in mind when we put together the content of the new site, as they will have to appear regularly in text that we put in there.

If I might add a few thoughts about Keywords, if you don't want to be perceived as dishonest you need to be careful that the 'keywords' chosen actually relate to the subject of the book being sold. This may sound obvious, but on EBay there are sellers who will list an item for sale and then in the description will include other words that are unrelated but will be picked up by the search engine so that their item will come up in as many searches as possible, even when the buyer is searching for a different item. When I see this I get the feeling that the seller is not entirely honest in the listing, and if so, perhaps not so honest in the actual item being sold.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even tell me what the discovery is, or explain it in your own words.

I have already done so, but you have forgotten rather conveniently, And I see no profit in going back and searching for the post as you will just deny it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If I might add a few thoughts about Keywords, if you don't want to be perceived as dishonest you need to be careful that the 'keywords' chosen actually relate to the subject of the book being sold. This may sound obvious, but on EBay there are sellers who will list an item for sale and then in the description will include other words that are unrelated but will be picked up by the search engine so that their item will come up in as many searches as possible, even when the buyer is searching for a different item. When I see this I get the feeling that the seller is not entirely honest in the listing, and if so, perhaps not so honest in the actual item being sold.

That's why I don't know whether I should stick with words like determinism, free will, compatibilism, peace, conflict resolution, war, etc., because this is the main topic. If people are looking for books on marriage and then find a book that talks about determinism, they might feel they were misled. What do you think?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have already done so, but you have forgotten rather conveniently, And I see no profit in going back and searching for the post as you will just deny it.

You do not understand his first discovery. You really don't; neither does Spacemonkey. You don't understand why a no blame environment actually forces a checkmate in how one behaves. It will be impossible for a person to [freely] choose to hurt another with a first blow when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice since we can only move in one direction, not two. I have studied this work for years and years, you have not, and it's amazing to me that you think you know more than I do. Trust me, you don't. In order for a concept this difficult to be understood, it cannot be skimmed over. It has to be studied very very carefully, and each time you read it it becomes clearer. You have not done that, so stop acting like you have. You just have turned against this book because of his claim regarding the eyes. That's unfortunate. I just wish you put a lid on what you write in your posts, which is nothing but total blather. It's disturbing. Why don't you use this time more productively and ask questions. You had some good questions regarding the economic system, but because you always include such degrading comments I will not engage with you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing regarding his claim about the eyes has anything to do with his other discoveries. It is not the cornerstone principle, which just goes to show me how ignorant you really are.

You lie again or you do not understand the book. His claims about the eye relate to his claims about projecting words of meaning onto the substance of the world. Words like beautiful, which he claims, then denote that some other must be ugly. Total nonsense as that one thing is beautiful, only denotes that something else is less beautiful, but nowhere does it require that some other thing be ugly. One of Lessans false dichotomy that he was so fond of using throughout the book.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning is flawed.

Amazing! You've done it again. Most people would have to actually find a flaw before knowing someone's reasoning to be flawed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have no understanding as to why conscience gets stronger with the knowledge that man's will is not free.

But neither do you, so that's no flaw on my part and has nothing to do with my reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep insisting that he presupposes a lot of things that he didn't support, but that's also wrong.

For instance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You refuse to listen.

I've been listening. You've just had nothing to say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even animals have a conscience.

Is that supposed to be a flaw in my reasoning? Can you show me where my reasoning involved denying this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

Ooh, a facebook link! I see you are still being P-productive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but they believe the future or past can be accessed, like it's a dimension that we can actually go to in a time machine. This is pure science fiction.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one going on about time travel.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You do not understand his first discovery. You really don't; neither does Spacemonkey.

Neither does Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I don't know whether I should stick with words like determinism, free will, compatibilism, peace, conflict resolution, war, etc., because this is the main topic. If people are looking for books on marriage and then find a book that talks about determinism, they might feel they were misled. What do you think?

I think it's interesting that you claim that I don't know anything about the book, and then you ask my opinion about the subject matter in the book.

Lessans claims about 'free will' and 'determinism' are extrapolated into his section about marriage, but to avoid confusion, perhaps a brief explanation that determinism and our lack of free will have much to do with happiness in marriage. That would give people the necessary background to decide if this book and it's chapter on marriage was of interest. Certainly if they were looking for a more practical and less philosophical discussion of marriage it would be helpful. Of course Lessans had a lot of practical application but all based on his philosophical principles.

[Vivisectus]

The difference is that you need an SSL certificate (which protects anyone from stealing credit card information) if you're selling on your site, or people won't use their credit card. Using PayPal doesn't necessitate having this certificate because you are paying on PayPal's site.

No. That is not how any of that really works, although you got part of the paypal bit right.

I got an email and they won't process it because it's not the correct price. This was not an order for the book, so there was nothing to ship. It would have been great if you had bought it. I would get an email from PayPal, give you a password, and then you could listen to the full audio, about 5 hours worth of listening time. You would have enjoyed it.

You know how I feel about your fathers writing. 5 hours of it sounds perfectly horrendous. What do you mean "they" won't process it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You had some good questions regarding the economic system, but because you always include such degrading comments I will not engage with you.

I suppose that is as good an excuse as any for not answering a question, apart from not really knowing the answer.

FYI I usually try to keep my questions and degrading comments in separate posts, but sometimes they run together, and sometimes you are so thin skinned that even the slightest hint of a negative comment is met with abuse and hostility.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You lie again or you do not understand the book.

This is why I cannot engage with you. Sorry.