A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

His comparison of himself to Mendel is doubly stupid. Unlike Mendel, Lessans has no evidnece. But worse, he does not even have a theory!

Peacegirl, what is Lessans' theory of how we see?

Saying stuff like "Light is a condition of seeing, and not a cause," or, we "project" stuff onto "screens of undeniable substance" is gobbledygook. What does it mean?

Light does not carry the signals that would convey to the brain the rudiments of an image. Light is a condition that allows the image to be seen through its wavelengths, but it can only be seen when the brain is looking out at the world through the anatomy of the eye (through the retina, cones and rods, lens, etc.)

Originally Posted by davidm

We know that light is a condition of seeing! What we need to know is how it is! The Lone Ranger has spelled out for you the correct theory about how light is a condition for seeing: It is the correct theory because it has repeatedly been empirically verified. But Lessans denies it is correct, but presents no competing theory.

What has been empirically verified? That the brain interprets signals into images, or is this just a logical explanation that seems airtight?

Originally Posted by davidm

What, exactly, is being "projected" and how? He does not say! There is no theory here, no explanation, there is literally nothing to test.

Words are being projected onto a screen that has already formed a relation in one's memory. So when a face of a girl is seen, the value that was originally attributed to her, will be projected and the person won't be able to deny that this beautiful or ugly girl exists. This is not that difficult david if you would only listen more carefully instead of trying to prove him wrong.

Originally Posted by davidm

Explain how we see, Peacegirl, in detail. If you can't do that you've got no theory! And of course you can't do it, but you don't care: You think that if Lessans said it, then "it" must be right, whatever "it" is!

No, that's not true. I just believe he was right regarding the direction the eyes see based on his observations. I don't know the exact mechanism. One possibility is that the optic nerve is sending impulses to awaken the optic area of the brain. The brain then begins to use the eyes, as a window (by means of the wavelengths of light and the cones and rods), to see the external world. The difference between afferent and efferent vision is not that different because we are still using the light's wavelengths to see, but in efferent vision we are interpreting signals in the brain, and efferent vision we are actually seeing reality in real time. I know this was a very sketchy summary of what could be going on. I wish someone would be interested enough to help me with a model that challenges the present model of sight so I could satisfy all those who want to see if there is a viable alternate explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Also, it doesn't mean that the results aren't significant. I don't even know what peacegirl thinks it means.

If you flip a coin a hundred times, and it comes up heads a hundred times, the chances of it doing that are so infinitesimal, that it's much more likely that it isn't a fair coin than it is that it happened by chance. You would be smart to investigate the coin's weighting and so forth to determine whether it was, in fact, fair.

In the same way, these studies take into account how likely they are to achieve such results by chance. You can be sure that the study actually TELLS you the relevant statistical information, such as how likely the dogs were to have made the choices they did by chance alone. I'm certain that since the study was published with an abstract claiming that dogs can, in fact, recognize their owners, that the p-value is lower than .05, and quite likely significantly lower than that, even.

Of course, in spite of peacegirl claiming to know things with all sorts of "mathematical certainty", I rather doubt she understands what statistical significance means, and how to interpret scientific data.

You can toss a coin 100 times and get 80% heads. The longer you toss a coin, the greater will be the chance that the center will be closer to 50/50. I believe it just so happens the dog chose heads more than tails (or his master 80% of the time), but it does not translate from that one study that it was statistically significant, or that it was not random. As I said, I don't believe the experiment was reliable because it was asking the dog to see the relationship between the picture of the handler, and the lever which is to be pushed in recognition. I think this is a valid concern. I do believe the study showed that dogs can be trained to push a lever when two pictures are shown to him, and be rewarded for it.

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;940418]

The author asks that you arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cannot be twice with any other letter in the groups of 3, or twice with any other letter on a line, or both?

Cannot be twice with any other letter in any of the 35 combinations, which means in any of the lines.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, cannot be twice with any other letter in the 35 combinations does not mean cannot be twice in any of the lines.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There must be two separate rules, please verify this is the case
1. Each combination of 3 letters must be unique, meaning you cannot use ABC and ACO because the AC cannot be used together again.

That is correct.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Each line of 5, 3-letter combinations must use the letters A-O only once each

For example using ABC and AMO on the same line does not violate rule 1, but would violate rule 2.

If you want to put it that way, that's fine with me. You are right because A is not with the same letter but it doesn't meet rule 2. I don't consider it a rule, but I am letting you know that each line has the letters A-O in different combinations. I don't think Lessans was given that information when he worked this problem out, or he would have mentioned it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are the two rules above correct, and are there any other rules we are missing?

I don't think so. Good luck.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He implies that there are no efferent fibers, . . .

There are none to the retinal cells as has been demonstrated to you. You even had your quote trying to suggest otherwise demolished.

. . . therefore, there can be no efferent vision.

There is other reasons for that conclusion--beyond the inherent contradiction in terms--but you remain too lazy and cowardly to read the essay that explains it.

But maybe the brain doesn't use efferent fibers for the brain to see through the eyes.

It does not.

Efferent fibers are associated with motor skills. . . .

You remain hopelessly ignorant of neurophysiology.

--Ed.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not carry the signals that would convey to the brain the rudiments of an image.

Of course it does.

Light is a condition

It is not.

You just keep making ignorant statements.

--Ed.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't add up that Mendel wouldn't have made a bigger effort if he thought there was any significance to what he found. Afterall, he worked on his experiments for a long time and he had to be quite sure of himself in order to risk the censure and ridicule he was bound to receive if he was not right. I absolutely don't agree that he didn't realize how important his findings were, or that he didn't make enough of an effort. It could very well be that he tried and tried and tried to get his paper into the right hands (which I believe is a true account of what actually happened), but when he was turned down by Nageli (the leading authority of that time period), there was nowhere else for him to go. Nageli was the cream of the crop. As a last resort, he probably decided to put his paper in an obscure journal in the hope that someone would stumble upon it, because no one would take him seriously and he couldn't get it published anywhere else. He did the right thing but, unfortunately, did not enjoy the fruits of his labor by seeing his discovery recognized in his lifetime.

It's so easy to know the "truth" if you won't make any effort to educate yourself on the matter, isn't it?

Alas, Mendel and Nägeli corresponded for about 8 years, and their letters have been preserved. Certainly, Nägeli failed to appreciate the significance of Mendel's discoveries, but neither did Mendel fully appreciate what he'd discovered.

And there are several reasons. After all, people had been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years -- why hadn't anyone else discovered the principles of segregation and independent assortment before Mendel? Because most traits in most species don't show the simple patterns of inheritance that Mendel discovered in Pisum (pea plants). Mendel happened to pick two traits (flower color and seed coating) that showed complete dominance (rather than incomplete dominance or codominance), were carried on separate chromosomes (so were not genetically linked), were not polygenic (and thus did not display continuous variation), and in which the influence of environmental factors on phenotype was minimal.

So when Mendel contacted Nägeli with his observations of hybridization in garden-grown Pisum, Nägeli wrote back that he'd made a good beginning, but that there was no real evidence that he'd discovered any general principles of inheritance. So he suggested that Mendel try replicating his experiments with a different species, one that hadn't been domesticated.

Given that no one knew how inheritance worked at the time, Nägeli suspected that inheritance patterns in domesticated pea plants were likely not representative of those in wild plants, much less animals. Ironically, he was right, but for the wrong reasons.

Nägeli suggested that Mendel try to reproduce his results with non-domesticated plants in the genus Hieracium (Hawkweeds). Mendel took Nägeli's advice, attempted to replicate his results with Hieracium -- and failed miserably. He also tried to replicate his Pisium results with animals, specifically honeybees. Again, he failed miserably.

Mendel failed with Hieracium because neither he nor Nägeli understood that Hieracium can reproduce asexually, and because it's much more difficult to prevent unwanted cross-pollination than it is with Pisum. He failed with honeybees because he wasn't able to adequately control their breeding. And, as with the Hieracium, he didn't choose traits that happened to show simple patterns of inheritance, as he had with Pisum.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can toss a coin 100 times and get 80% heads. The longer you toss a coin, the greater will be the chance that the center will be closer to 50/50. I believe it just so happens the dog chose heads more than tails (or his master 80% of the time), but it does not translate from that one study that it was statistically significant, or that it was not random. As I said, I don't believe the experiment was reliable because it was asking the dog to see the relationship between the picture of the handler, and the lever which is to be pushed in recognition. I think this is a valid concern. I do believe the study showed that dogs can be trained to push a lever when two pictures are shown to him, and be rewarded for it.

So your defense, in the face of multiple studies showing that dogs can recognize their owners...

It was all chance!

Nevermind if the scientists have already calculated the probability of achieving those results by chance alone, and how improbable it is that it was just chance, we should just assume it was chance, because otherwise your daddy is wrong.

You really are pathetic.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that his observations will be confirmed valid one day doesn't even seem to interest you.

A future fact! That is totally awesome. How do you do that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Add "irony" to the list of things you are unable to grasp.

It is ironic that you think Lessans had pride, because he was not a prideful man and had no position to protect. It is those who are in high positions that dislike anyone who would dare challenge their knowledge that is so dangerous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Kael was pointing out that trying to hold on to the "established" view despite new evidence is much more likely to earn ridicule and shame than is questioning the established view- which was Lessan's repeated whine.

He was frustrated that he couldn't get the reception necessary to have a chance of getting his work recognized, but he didn't whine. The only way that people would earn ridicule by holding on to the "established" view is if new evidence was accepted as true. That would obviously be harmful to science, for scientists are always trying to weed out the chaff from the wheat. The only problem is they sometimes throw out the chaff with the wheat because they are using a false standard to judge what is true and what isn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am certain that had Lessans provided convincing scientific evidence that he was correct, rather than his mere individual observations and musings, then his ideas would have stood a chance of being reviewed. Alas, he didn't provide anything approaching scientifically convincing evidence.

Did you ever think for a moment that your hard nosed approach that the only way to come to any truth is through empirical testing as a methodology --- rather than astute observation and sound reasoning --- could be the problem here? You have not read the book LadyShea. You are hanging on to this one idea that the only way to come to a truth is your way (the way of empiricism). I already said that this knowledge is falsifiable, but you have to give him a chance. You have to accept that he could be right through another method that got him to draw certain conclusions. In other words, if you are ever going to recognize the validity of this work, or even get him into the running of someone who could actually have a genuine discovery, you will need to read the book with an open mind without judging it through the lens of empiricism. There is time enough to get further evidence to confirm his claims through this method. But for now, you need to read it carefully without this filter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He wasn't snubbed because he questioned established science, as he so vehemently claimed, he was snubbed because his ideas are completely unsupported by hard data.

You are absolutely incorrect. He never had a chance where anyone of scientific stature even cared to open the cover of his book, so how could they judge his book in terms of any data? What you're saying doesn't even make sense if you knew what he was up against.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

See that, Doc?

This scientific and philosophical illiterate, this gob-smacking idiot, is going to lecture you on what probabilities are all about.

You are really dense david for not taking me seriously. You're back on ignore for another day. Next time it will be two days.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by rigorist

YouTube - Otto and Miller Discuss Time Travel

That's funny because Lessans read philosophy and literature on the bus on his way to work and coming home from work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Davidm & Augakuk, Didn't anyone ever tell you "Don't feed the troll"?

This attack is getting out of hand. If you think I'm a troll and you want me to go, don't feed me. No one post anymore, and I'll gladly leave. This is exhausting.

[Awareness]

This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations.

We do not even have to speak about that SOMETHING that brought OR is evident in us around us and beyound us.
We have a special quality as human beings not only to reason but to feel.
The ONLY way to come to terms, to reconcile, to make up, is to understand each other first.
For mankind it is utterly cruel to deprive him or her of this fact.

Everyone who can feel and reason knows that this is gruesome: "creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations "

Constantly loving has always a BARF climax, and is UNNATURAL!!

This I took from google for those whom are interested.

This review is from: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times (Paperback)
The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

[Awareness]

This attack is getting out of hand. If you think I'm a troll and you want me to go, don't feed me. No one post anymore, and I'll gladly leave. This is exhausting.

Why ignore you , if you are dead serious?

Try learning about life instead of knowing.

And why in heavens name leave? Weird if you are amongst strangers.


On the other side there is not any reason to discriminate, just "Avatars" and what you believe and know.
And that is in fact a part of the perfect " you ".

[mickthinks]

If you are exhausted, take a break, peacegirl. It's not like you are being held here and forced to post against your will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's so easy to know the "truth" if you won't make any effort to educate yourself on the matter, isn't it?

Alas, Mendel and Nägeli corresponded for about 8 years, and their letters have been preserved. Certainly, Nägeli failed to appreciate the significance of Mendel's discoveries, but neither did Mendel fully appreciate what he'd discovered.

And there are several reasons. After all, people had been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years -- why hadn't anyone else discovered the principles of segregation and independent assortment before Mendel? Because most traits in most species don't show the simple patterns of inheritance that Mendel discovered in Pisum (pea plants). Mendel happened to pick two traits (flower color and seed coating) that showed complete dominance (rather than incomplete dominance or codominance), were carried on separate chromosomes (so were not genetically linked), were not polygenic (and thus did not display continuous variation), and in which the influence of environmental factors on phenotype was minimal.

So when Mendel contacted Nägeli with his observations of hybridization in garden-grown Pisum, Nägeli wrote back that he'd made a good beginning, but that there was no real evidence that he'd discovered any general principles of inheritance. So he suggested that Mendel try replicating his experiments with a different species, one that hadn't been domesticated.

Given that no one knew how inheritance worked at the time, Nägeli suspected that inheritance patterns in domesticated pea plants were likely not representative of those in wild plants, much less animals. Ironically, he was right, but for the wrong reasons.

Nägeli suggested that Mendel try to reproduce his results with non-domesticated plants in the genus Hieracium (Hawkweeds). Mendel took Nägeli's advice, attempted to replicate his results with Hieracium -- and failed miserably. He also tried to replicate his Pisium results with animals, specifically honeybees. Again, he failed miserably.

Mendel failed with Hieracium because neither he nor Nägeli understood that Hieracium can reproduce asexually, and because it's much more difficult to prevent unwanted cross-pollination than it is with Pisum. He failed with honeybees because he wasn't able to adequately control their breeding. And, as with the Hieracium, he didn't choose traits that happened to show simple patterns of inheritance, as he had with Pisum.

So what you are saying is that failed experiments is what led Mendel to finally succeed with Nageli's support. If that is true, it gives me hope that people will take Lessans' observations seriously eventually. This is what someone else wrote online, which may not be correct but it does give pause as to how difficult it may be to get an authentic discovery made known:

I don't know how familiar you are with the history of Science, but let me point out the case of
Gregor Mendel. Mendel was an Abbot in a Augustinian monastery. Being a farmer by birth and a
physicist by education he was encouraged to study plant variation by his professors. While
studying variation in peas in the monastery garden he discovered the now famous binomial law
of heredity, A+B => A + 2AB + B which is of course the mathematical foundation stone of
modern genetics. Realizing the historic importance of this discovery and it's theoretical
implications for Biology he wrote to every important biologist in Europe. No one paid any
attention to him. He did succeed in publishing the result in an obscure Bavarian Horticulture
journal, but of course few saw it and nobody paid any attention. In fact he spent the rest of his
life trying to get anyone in Biology interested in the discovery, to no avail. As we know, the
discovery didn't become known to the world until it was independently rediscovered by some big
shot European biologists 40 years after Mendel died, and immediately his 60 year old paper was
recognized as a historic scientific classic.

OK.... this kind of thing is legion and has happened repeatedly in the history of Science. Wilkins
discovered kinetic gas theory 20 years before Maxwell and was refused publication, Faraday was
refused publication of the electromagnetic field by Sir Humphrey Davies, and on and on. In every
case we find that a maverick scientist who ACCIDENTLY makes an independent historic
discovery is savagely ignored and forcefully suppressed by the established academic authorities.
This is absolutely par for the course historically.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really dense david for not taking me seriously. You're back on ignore for another day. Next time it will be two days.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

If you are exhausted, take a break, peacegirl. It's not like you are being held here and forced to post against your will.

The problem is if I leave, I will never come back. The discussion will be over and people will move on to another debate. Many new people will have joined this forum, and the people who were here will say that I was deluded, and go right back to their gold standard of determining truth: empiricism only; never astute observation and sound reasoning. By then, this thread will have been long forgotten.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong David. First off, there is no rewriting history. Mendel was working on peas that lent themselves to being tested empirically. He did start out with a theory, and empirical testing proved him right. Lessans came upon this knowledge from astute observation (which involved many years of observation as to how conscience works, and how the eyes function), and sound reasoning. This can be proved empirically. It is just more difficult to control all the variables, but it can be done. It is falsifiable. When scientists used mathematical equations that got men to the moon, they knew their trajectory would do just that. When Lessans figured out a mathematical (undeniable) equation that would catapult man to a better world, he knew that his trajectory would do just that. Your refutation that Lessans was using a tautology shows me how confused you really are. The fact that his observations will be confirmed valid one day doesn't even seem to interest you. I believe you want him to be wrong because you would have to save face if he turned out to be right.

1. He has no mathematical equation.

2. He's wrong because he's wrong. All his claims about vision and light are wrong, empirically wrong. That you still can't explain how it is possible to see the sun "in real time" when God turns it on, according to his idiotic example, but not see your neighbor for eight minutes until the light arrives, proves that even you can't defend what this idiot was babbling about. His claim is self-contradictory, since the source light and the reflected light are the same goddamned light.

[erimir]

I don't think scientific experiments are the only way to gain knowledge.

But I have seen neither astute observations nor sound reasoning from you or your daddy either, so don't even pretend like that's the issue.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... sound reasoning ...

Example: Lessans thinks if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbor for eight minutes until the light arrived.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is if I leave, I probably will never come back.

Your greatest satisfaction is to keep posting until you drop from exhaustion? Okay, then accept that fate without complaining.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is if I leave, I will never come back. The discussion will be over and people will move on to another debate. Many new people will have joined this forum, and the people who were here will say that I was deluded, and go right back to their gold standard of determining truth: empiricism only; never astute observation and sound reasoning. By then, this thread will have been long forgotten.

You are not deluded, but just too young and inexperienced in life and relationship. That is a fact, by reading your words.

People learn to cope, and they do not like to be lectured or drugged to live together.

A pact between two fighting tribes is always stronger and more durable,
then a reprimand or a robotic CORRECTION.

Good and Evil exist together, they can never exist alone.

But you have had your testing grounds indeed for yet another forum, and you would surely use your findings of what reactions there can be.

This review is from: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times (Paperback)
The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Your greatest satisfaction is to keep posting until you drop from exhaustion? Okay, then accept that fate without complaining.

But you asked me if I should take a break, and I answered you. I am here because it gives me greater satisfaction. If I need to complain every once in awhile, I hope it's okay with you.