A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not about believing something without evidence. I have supporting evidence that negates your evidence. I'm just not accepting what you believe to be the only evidence out there. I am offering a new way to look at this issue, with evidence that supports this new way of looking at this issue.

You didn't say you were going to believe him because that's what the evidence shows. You clearly and openly said that you would continue to believe him no matter what the evidence shows.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't like you having the last word on this discovery, that's why. That's why I asked you politely to stop adding more posts, which of course you won't do.

Why should I stop?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a causal claim and it's a correct one. It does not need more proof because he is describing to a t what is taking place with words and how they condition us.

Without evidence, how could you know? It is not an observation statement - something you can observe with your own senses and record - it is far more general and complex. At best it is a hypothesis he has yet to test.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof is that if the image is being interpreted by light alone, this conditioning process could not occur.

That's just another unsupported faith-claim. As I explained, conditioning can occur psychologically without any implications for the mechanism of vision. It is only a problem for afferent vision if you assume he meant that words literally shoot out of your eyeballs, which is patently absurd.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking about psychological conditioning. I am talking about visual conditioning.

There is no evidence that visual conditioning is not psychological.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because Spacemonkey says so. It does involve a projection of words, and he shows how this occurs.

Does it involve a literal projection of words, or is it metaphorical? The truth is, you don't know. You have no idea what he meant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely misunderstanding what he means by projection, and how this actually occurs. You really need to reread the chapter...

...because we both know you'll never be able to explain it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained to Spacemonkey what those observations are.

When did this happen? Can you point to your post(s)?

This has nothing to do with the topic of vaccinations so stop dragging me back to this topic in order to relate the two.

I'm not drawing a relationship between the two topics. I'm drawing a relationship between the way you approach the two topics. Specifically, I'm pointing out that, in both cases (and, honestly, in the case of every topic I've ever seen you discuss), you appear to mistake your preferred conclusion for an observation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Astute observations can be enough proof. I saw the truth of what he was explaining for myself. I pictured being in the new environment that I knew no one in the world would blame or punish me for intentionally hurting someone with a first blow (gaining at others' expense when not to hurt them would not make me a loser). I pictured going into a store and being free to take what I want knowing that no one would say a word or go after me even if they saw what I was doing. I couldn't do it. I couldn't justify it. Think about it and you'll see what I mean. You can test this for yourself. That's what he meant by being your own guinea pig at the end of the third chapter.

And as we've explained to you several times before, your imagination is not a reliable guide even for your own behavioural capacities. To then extrapolate from that to all of humanity is beyond ridiculous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained to Spacemonkey what those observations are.

Yes, and it was exactly as Adam states. Your alleged 'observation' turned out to be an unwarranted and unsupported conclusion merely masquerading as an observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not about believing something without evidence. I have supporting evidence that negates your evidence. I'm just not accepting what you believe to be the only evidence out there. I am offering a new way to look at this issue, with evidence that supports this new way of looking at this issue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't say you were going to believe him because that's what the evidence shows. You clearly and openly said that you would continue to believe him no matter what the evidence shows.

Well that's what I meant Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't like you having the last word on this discovery, that's why. That's why I asked you politely to stop adding more posts, which of course you won't do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should I stop?

Because I asked you to, but you won't honor my request. I know that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a causal claim and it's a correct one. It does not need more proof because he is describing to a t what is taking place with words and how they condition us.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Without evidence, how could you know? It is not an observation statement - something you can observe with your own senses and record - it is far more general and complex. At best it is a hypothesis he has yet to test.

Then let it be a hypothesis. I don't care what you want to call it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof is that if the image is being interpreted by light alone, this conditioning process could not occur.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's just another unsupported faith-claim. As I explained, conditioning can occur psychologically without any implications for the mechanism of vision. It is only a problem for afferent vision if you assume he meant that words literally shoot out of your eyeballs, which is patently absurd.

Actually, it can't, not the kind of conditioning that I'm referring to. This type of conditioning does not occur with any of the other senses. But that doesn't matter to you because you are sure that all this is is a faith claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking about psychological conditioning. I am talking about visual conditioning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no evidence that visual conditioning is not psychological.

It is psychological in that this conditioning occurs in the mind (where else could it occur?), but it is not psychological in the sense of it being a mental or emotional problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because Spacemonkey says so. It does involve a projection of words, and he shows how this occurs.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it involve a literal projection of words, or is it metaphorical? The truth is, you don't know. You have no idea what he meant.

Spacemonkey, you are starting with your false accusations again. Keep it up and I'll ignore you for another day or two or three.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And as we've explained to you several times before, your imagination is not a reliable guide even for your own behavioural capacities. To then extrapolate from that to all of humanity is beyond ridiculous.

It actually has everything to do with all of humanity because it's a universal invariable law. Universal laws apply to everyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

When did this happen? Can you point to your post(s)?

I'm not drawing a relationship between the two topics. I'm drawing a relationship between the way you approach the two topics. Specifically, I'm pointing out that, in both cases (and, honestly, in the case of every topic I've ever seen you discuss), you appear to mistake your preferred conclusion for an observation.

It is an indirect observation (since we cannot see it directly) that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This was demonstrated in the book. As far as the potential risk of vaccines, this has nothing to do with my preferred conclusions. These are conclusions that many professionals, including doctors and researchers, are reaching. Here's just one of many articles that should make a pregnant mother think twice before getting a flu vaccine.

The Deadly Truth About Flu Vaccines and Pregnancy | GreenMedInfo

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that's what I meant Spacemonkey.

No, it wasn't. It was rather one of those exceedingly rare moments of honesty where you actually meant what you said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I asked you to, but you won't honor my request. I know that.

Sane rational people don't beg other people to stop replying so that they can leave a conversation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let it be a hypothesis. I don't care what you want to call it.

Right, so what evidence do you have for this hypothesis?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, it can't, not the kind of conditioning that I'm referring to. This type of conditioning does not occur with any of the other senses.

But you have no idea what kind of conditioning you are talking about. When I point out that psychological projection and conditioning can be explained perfectly well without efferent vision, or indeed any reference at all to the mechanism of sight, you insist that it isn't psychological. But then when I point out that a non-psychological literal reading would be absurd you insist that it is meant as a metaphor for a psychological process.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is psychological in that this conditioning occurs in the mind...

And that is the kind of psychological process that can be perfectly well and even better explained in accordance with afferent vision than without it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you are starting with your false accusations again.

It was a QUESTION. My only accusation was that you don't know the answer, which you have CONFIRMED by failing to provide any answer. Try again: Does it involve a literal projection of words, or is it metaphorical?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep it up and I'll ignore for another day or two or three.

Your threats are stupid. You're not capable of ignoring me, and when you do respond you don't answer my questions anyway. So how could your threats be any less effectual?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually has everything to do with all of humanity because it's a universal invariable law. Universal laws apply to everyone.

Yet your only 'evidence' for this being a universal law is your own personal imagination. That is incredibly stupid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it wasn't. It was rather one of those exceedingly rare moments of honesty where you actually meant what you said.

Sane rational people don't beg other people to stop replying so that they can leave a conversation.

Right, so what evidence do you have for this hypothesis?

But you have no idea what kind of conditioning you are talking about. When I point out that psychological projection and conditioning can be explained perfectly well without efferent vision, or indeed any reference at all to the mechanism of sight, you insist that it isn't psychological. But then when I point out that a non-psychological literal reading would be absurd you insist that it is meant as a metaphor for a psychological process.

And that is the kind of psychological process that can be perfectly well and even better explained in accordance with afferent vision than without it.

It was a QUESTION. My only accusation was that you don't know the answer, which you have CONFIRMED by failing to provide any answer. Try again: Does it involve a literal projection of words, or is it metaphorical?

Your threats are stupid. You're not capable of ignoring me, and when you do respond you don't answer my questions anyway. So how could your threats be any less effectual?

Wow, what a waste.

[peacegirl]

I'm thinking of letting people listen to the entire audio and ask for a donation. People could easily share the password anyway, and I don't want to make it difficult for people to access the audio by forcing them to become a member that requires a special password. This would be time consuming for me to keep track of, and frustrating for people to have to go through. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you think that's a good idea?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, what a waste.

What a

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm thinking of letting people listen to the entire audio and ask for a donation. People could easily share the password anyway, and I don't want to make it difficult for people to access the audio by forcing them to become a member that requires a special password. This would be time consuming for me to keep track of, and frustrating for people to have to go through. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you think that's a good idea?

It's not a good idea to have a shared password for everyone - that's almost as bad as not having a password at all.

However, with audio files, no matter how good the password system is, sooner or later someone could re-record the file without a password (if you can listen to it on speakers or headphones, you can record it) and then the unprotected version could be spread around.

So perhaps the donation idea is a good one.

If you really believe that 'this knowledge' is going to bring about world peace, I would have thought you'd want to spread it around for free anyway.

Even if you made the audio (and an electronic "printed" version of the book) completely free, you'd still be able to make good money if the knowledge ever became widespread. As the daughter of Lessans who bought the knowledge to light, you'd be much in demand for chat shows, speaking engagements and so on. Even though you made no money from the actual book you could make plenty on other books, such as 'My X-year struggle to bring Lessans' knowledge to the world'. You wouldn't have to actually write the spin off books if you didn't want to - there would be plenty of ghost writers queuing up for a slice of that action.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's not a good idea to have a shared password for everyone - that's almost as bad as not having a password at all.

However, with audio files, no matter how good the password system is, sooner or later someone could re-record the file without a password (if you can listen to it on speakers or headphones, you can record it) and then the unprotected version could be spread around.

So perhaps the donation idea is a good one.

If you really believe that 'this knowledge' is going to bring about world peace, I would have thought you'd want to spread it around for free anyway.

Even if you made the audio (and an electronic "printed" version of the book) completely free, you'd still be able to make good money if the knowledge ever became widespread. As the daughter of Lessans who brought the knowledge to light, you'd be much in demand for chat shows, speaking engagements and so on. Even though you made no money from the actual book you could make plenty on other books, such as 'My X-year struggle to bring Lessan's knowledge to the world'. You wouldn't have to actually write the spin off books if you didn't want to - there would be plenty of ghost writers queuing up for a slice of that action.

Thanks for your input. I believe that I could still make something back if I ask for a donation. I will tell people to give something only if they got something out of it. I will tell them that it will be greatly appreciated because it will help me with the cost to keep the website going. It is upsetting to think that people don't desire to access the full audio because they are skeptical and don't want to pay; and I don't want to be Big Brother and check up on everyone, which is why the donation idea is a sound one. That will give people the option to donate a dollar, ten dollars, or nothing. I've spent so much money on creating the mp3 and working on the book, that I want to at least break even. I am not counting on writing other books, even with a ghostwriter. If that happens I will probably be in my 80s or 90s and then the money won't do me any good. Well maybe it will. I could get into a better nursing home.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but anyone who has a working conscience would feel this way.

Right now, today they will feel that way in their imagination? How would you know that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not dependent on a value system per se. It is dependent on how conscience works universally.

Since in today's world, where these imaginings are taking place, there doesn't seem to be any way that conscience works universally (if it did, we wouldn't have any need for a new world, right?), then you are just making assertions.

Yes, they could take advantage if they had a justification for it, but if the justification is removed, and they have a working conscience, there is no way any value system could trump this universal principle.

How do they "remove justification" in their imagination?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In keeping with this man's response, does it make it any less magical that our actions are controlled by something bigger than us; that we are actually compelled to do the things we do by laws that we have no control over? The only thing this does is puts us in our proper place in relation to God. We are not all that; we are under the control of a higher power, whatever you want to call it. What this truth offers is more magical than anything we could claim responsibility for.

How is that in keeping with anything he said? You are talking about spirituality and he was talking about science.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this implies that we are not giving the final okay, as agents.

No, it doesn't at all. That may be what you inferred, but that is not implied by the research results.

I think a better inference is that our brains are always at work processing and preparing things, even when we aren't consciously thinking about them.

This is what is being disputed.

Disputed by whom? And who holds to that idea in the first place?

Bottom line: We cannot kill someone without our conscious consent.

Define conscious consent as you understand it without using the language of duality such as "the brain and the agent" which are two entities.

If you want to argue this, go right ahead, but this is the nuts and bolts of this argument and I refuse to get off onto a tangent that has no relevance in terms of what matters.

LOL, you've been participating in this tangent for 2 days, so this declaration is closing the barn door after the horses are gone and makes you seem pretty petulant.

That is such a lame excuse LadyShea, it makes me want to give up. I put forth a lot of effort to share with you my refutation and you come back with such nonsense.

I read the article you linked to, and am familiar with the research. Was the information in the article you linked to inadequate?

And really do you think you put forth any more effort than I do? How many of my links have you read? How many full articles or studies (rather than limiting your reading to whatever snippets I post)? Get over yourself with this shit!

How in the world can you really be objective if you won't even hear my side of the debate by refusing to hear what I have offered?

I have been responding point for point to your side of the debate. Is the one video attached to the article which I read the entirety of your argument?

I refuse to engage with you if you won't hear my evidence.

I am hearing your arguments and responding to them. The article explained the results, which are the "evidence" at hand and I am familiar with the research, back to the 1971 experiments that initiated the current studies.

What on Earth is in the video that is not found in the research itself?

Okay, I am going to go watch it just to see what this evidence is that you think I am missing

[LadyShea]

Okay here is the link you gave me with this video containing all your evidence, or whatever you are whining about

Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” | Exploring The Mind!

From the written portion of the article

Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision.

By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision.

“Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

The video is the reaction of a mathematician who participated as a subject in the experiment. He is disturbed by the results. The researcher explains that the unconscious processes have already done most of the work before the conscious awareness becomes involved, and further that the brain activity and conscious awareness are two aspects of the same physical process...that our consciousness is our brain activity. How is it different than what I have been saying and how does it support your arguments?

Here is the abstract for the actual study Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain : Abstract : Nature Neuroscience

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again, looking at a person's achievements as your proof. This discovery is not philosphical. It is not open to debate. You read nothing LadyShea. You don't even know the first thing that my father proved. All you are doing is resorting to the results given by people whom you consider to be the cream of the crop. But these people don't have the knowledge that my father had, so how can they know he was wrong? Are you that blind to your own bias? You are offering nothing to this conversation other than giving someone's puffed up credentials. This is the huge stumbling block I am faced with and that my father was faced with 50 years ago.

There you go again, throwing a butthurt shit fit and ascribing motives and mindsets I don't actually have and ranting irrelevantly.

I offered three different links there, each discussing similar or the same research results, regarding unconscious aspects in decision making, we have been discussing. Did you read any of them? If not, then fuck you, hypocrite.

And I only mentioned Eric Kandel's credentials because I admire that he makes and effort to communicate with the public, as so many scientists don't...I didn't say anything about proof of anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but anyone who has a working conscience would feel this way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right now, today they will feel that way in their imagination? How would you know that?

Yes, if you have a working conscience, you can envision what it would feel like not to be blamed for doing something that you know would hurt someone. It's not a good feeling which is why it can't be done --- since it gives no satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not dependent on a value system per se. It is dependent on how conscience works universally.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since in today's world, where these imaginings are taking place, there doesn't seem to be any way that conscience works universally (if it did, we wouldn't have any need for a new world, right?), then you are just making assertions.

You're getting way off track. Conscience works in exactly the way Lessans described. We cannot get conscience to work at full throttle under the conditions of a free will society. You should understand this by now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Someone with a different set of values might imagine that scenario and be very happy at the opportunity to take advantage for their own gain.

You can't extrapolate your feelings to everyone else.

No I can't, but I can predict how conscience will work under the changed environmental conditions.

Yes, they could take advantage if they had a justification for it, but if the justification is removed, and they have a working conscience, there is no way any value system could trump this universal principle.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do they "remove justification" in their imagination?

Envisioning how someone would feel under the circumstances of not being blamed for a hurt to someone compels him to do everything he can to stay away from this kind of situation, which then prevents the action. LadyShea, you really need to read the book again. I can see you understand very little, if anything. It's a toss up as to who understands the least, you or Spacemonkey.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay here is the link you gave me with this video containing all your evidence, or whatever you are whining about

Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” | Exploring The Mind!

From the written portion of the article

The video is the reaction of a mathematician who participated as a subject in the experiment. He is disturbed by the results. The researcher explains that the unconscious processes have already done most of the work before the conscious awareness becomes involved, and further that the brain activity and conscious awareness are two aspects of the same physical process...that our consciousness is our brain activity. How is it different than what I have been saying and how does it support your arguments?

Here is the abstract for the actual study Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain : Abstract : Nature Neuroscience

This experiment does not negate the fact that the agent has to give permission to perform an action whether or not the unconscious processes have already done most of the work beforehand. The first thing the study mentioned is that "the delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness". The results of this study does not prove, nor does it imply, that a decision can be made without the agent's conscious permission.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

...a butthurt shit fit...

I think we've got the cover blurb for the book right here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This experiment does not negate the fact that the agent has to give permission to perform an action whether or not the unconscious processes have already done most of the work beforehand.

What does that even mean if you think that the agent and the brain are not separate entities? This is using the language of duality...yet again.

The first thing the study mentioned is that "the delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness". The results of this study does not prove, nor does it imply, that a decision can be made without the agent's conscious permission.

If "conscious permission" requires conscious awareness of giving permission, then yes it does indicate that some decisions can be made without it.

Again though, if you agree that the conscious and unconscious are simply different aspects of the same physical processes, then "giving conscious permission" isn't coherent.

[Vivisectus]

There are different models of making money off content that you can use. However, all of them rely on people actually appreciating what you are distributing and wanting to download it. You will have to generate some traffic somehow.

You can supply free MP3 and E-book downloads and then make money off the advertising on your site. It would help if you could make the content of your site more dynamic so people have a reason to come and check it every so often. As it is I suspect the majority of the hits on your site are caused by me looking in every now and again.

The donation model can be made to work, but I don't think that model is for you: it takes a lot of hard graft, and your output so far has been along the lines of one small update every year or so. It requires a large community following, and your site and product must have a certain feel - I don't think the dianetics-meets-desktop-publishing-from-the-90's atmosphere you have going on that site is going to achieve that.

That said, you have even less chance of anyone buying the book as it is. No-one has any reason to take a chance on shelling out 40+ dollars on the hardback, the e-book is not priced properly for an easy impulse-buy, and listening to your father droning on for several hours may not be everyone's idea of a fun afternoon: even if the book was any good, it would not be the kind of book people want to listen to, I think.

But, if you are still convinced the revolution is going to get underway, then free distribution would be your best bet. Make the electronic versions freely available and ask for donations, as well as selling luxury copies / collectors items like the hardback. Once you get some traffic, see about selling advertising space. You won't see a penny until you reach a decent level of popularity that way, but every time someone downloads the books you would be growing your following, which would in turn increase advertising revenues and book sales.

It all hinges on a lot of people being really convinced the book is an Amazing Discovery. In my opinion this means the project is utterly doomed, and you would be much better served spending your money and time on something better.

[Vivisectus]

I would also like to hear about anyone else but Lessans making "Astute Observations", these conclusions that count as proof of their own veracity? Do we have some examples we could look at?

What conditions does a statement have to meet to be considered an "Astute Observation"? How is the astuteness detected and checked?