A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

That is only one side of the equation: the other side is that it is a call to people to take responsibility in their actions, and not to fall in fatalism, because of determinism.

No, this is not about calling people to take responsibility for their actions and not fall into fatalism. So you have more to understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nevertheless, I understand why you need to hold on to this position.

Originally Posted by GdB

Same to you: you simply cannot imagine that your beloved father was wrong. Your holding on to efferent vision really is hilarious. Your faking that the experiments have not decided yet is unbelievable. Your statement that instantaneous vision does not contradict relativity show you have no idea about how space and time form the fabric of the cosmos. (Maybe you should read the book of Brian Greene with that title: 'The Fabric of the Cosmos')

I'm not doing anything other than showing that, due to how the eyes work (assuming Lessans is right about this) --- not light --- we need to re-evaluate the conclusions that have been drawn. If you think this is nonsense and that no evaluation needs to take place, so be it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe you would get a lot out of this book if you would stop insisting that it has no value. The book is online. If you ever read it, I would be willing to discuss it with you.

Originally Posted by GdB

[I already know what will happen. in the end, by discussing the book with you, and reading the parts you pasted, I am 100% sure that I will find it just nonsense.

How can you be so sure? Isn't that jumping the gun?

Originally Posted by GdB

[ And where it is not nonsense it is already said by others, and better.

No, it is only their anger that is compelling them to say such horrible things. I'm glad my father is dead. He doesn't have to hear the false things that have been said about him by Davidm and Stephen Maturin. They have no clue what they are saying.

Originally Posted by GdB

[ After I would have read the book and say this here, you will fist deny that I really read it, and then if it turns out that it is not true, you will say I have not understood the book. This happened to others, and I see no reason why you would treat me differently.

GdB, this is the first time I feel you are listening. I would never do that. If you refute the claims AFTER STUDYING THE PRINCIPLES, I will not concede but I will give you credit for trying. I mean that sincerely. You may take this as someone who is a fundie. I am so sorry for this terrible divide between people. I never expected any of this when I came to this forum.

Originally Posted by GdB

[I think davidm has given a pretty good summary of the 'free will' argument and the discovery 'behind the door of determinism', but instead of saying it is a good summary, or if it isn't, correct him where he is wrong. You just say it is wrong, but you never say why. Therefore I assume the summary is correct.

I hope you read the book instead of taking a shortcut. David is very very angry at Lessans for making the claim on vision. He also believes in free will, and will try to convince everyone that given a particular set of circumstances, a person could have done otherwise. His logic is extremely flawed and I have no interest in him whatsoever. He has hurt the name of my father, just like Maturin. Their argument is weak, and they are weak. But they will try to use anything they can to diminish this man. It's very sad but it's all part of the history of any discovery that is worth its salt. I have to accept that and move forward. I hope you join me.

[Stephen Maturin]

As peacegirl scrambles to close what would be her first sale ever of her father's book, we must be mindful not to judge Lessans too harshly. As peacegirl has told us many times, all we need do is assume the truth of everything in the book. After that its truth will become apparent.

Besides, according to peacegirl, science is about to stamp Lessans' discoveries with a temporary higher military rank as a reward for meritorious battlefield conduct.

[LadyShea]

People have told me that they don't know how I was able to stand being the brunt of such hostility for so long.

Yes, little Martyr, its because you are a brave Soldier of Truth bravely voluntarily logging into a discussion forum where people are disinclined to believe you, and have stated so for over 4 years.

Why do you willingly log in here every day if you find it so hostile as to barely be able to stand it?

I just reread one of our discussions from 2012 where I told you to start a blog, using current events to tie into Lessans ideas (much like you and Vivisectus discussed). At that time you were refusing to sell an eBook and were waiting for yet another print proof. What have you done instead, Brave Soldier? You have continued to go to discussion forums, day after day. What you are doing isn't moving you towards any of your stated goals (getting the word out effectively, bringing about the New World) yet you keep doing it. We can conclude that you find satisfaction in being the "brunt of such hostility"

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not about calling people to take responsibility for their actions and not fall into fatalism. So you have more to understand.

??? I am not talking about your father's book. It is about compatibilists: they want people to take responsibility for their actions, and not to fall in fatalism. What more do I have to understand? I guess the word 'equation' misled you...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think this is nonsense and that no evaluation needs to take place, so be it.

Yes, it is nonsense. Therefore you will never find one single scientist to do do new experiments. Experiments that are not even proposed by you, and, I assume, not by your father.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GdB, this is the first time I feel you are listening. I would never do that.

This might be hard for you: I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so sorry for this terrible divide between people. I never expected any of this when I came to this forum.

You have gotten this on every forum, didn't you? You will get this on every forum where there are people who have real knowledge about science and philosophy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you read the book instead of taking a shortcut.

So the shortcut is correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David is very very angry at Lessans for making the claim on vision.

I am not so sure about this. I think he is mainly angry with you, because you deny all empirical, scientific insight. But maybe he will tell us why he is so angry...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you join me.

No. I can only help you to get rid of some false ideas. Not believing in free will does not necessary belong to this. As long as there are still philosophers who are hard determinists that give intelligent arguments, the case is not settled definitively. But of course I believe they are wrong, and I will argue against them. But for efferent vision the case is closed. Believe me. It is already settled for ages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, little Martyr, its because you are a brave Soldier of Truth bravely voluntarily logging into a discussion forum where people are disinclined to believe you, and have stated so for over 4 years.

Why do you willingly log in here every day if you find it so hostile as to barely be able to stand it?

I just reread one of our discussions from 2012 where I told you to start a blog, using current events to tie into Lessans ideas (much like you and Vivisectus discussed). At that time you were refusing to sell an eBook and were waiting for yet another print proof. What have you done instead, Brave Soldier? You have continued to go to discussion forums, day after day. What you are doing isn't moving you towards any of your stated goals (getting the word out effectively, bringing about the New World) yet you keep doing it. We can conclude that you find satisfaction in being the "brunt of such hostility"

I am disheartened by forums in general whether they're moderated or not. I had to learn this for myself in order to come to this realization. Believe me, I know this isn't the way. I don't like being the brunt of such hostility, which is the main reason I will be leaving. The effort to defame Lessans for unsavory reasons has been especially brutal for me because I knew him. He was a wonderful man who has been falsely portrayed so people will not be interested in his discovery.

"Defamation is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation."

[But]

Bump

Originally Posted by But

You didn't answer the question. How long do you think light needs to stay at the object so that it can be seen?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bump

The pulses of light would have to be at the object long enough for our eyes to register what we're seeing. I don't think it would work because by the time we see anything, the pulses of light would have already been reflected back.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am disheartened by forums in general whether they're moderated or not. I had to learn this for myself in order to come to this realization. Believe me, I know this isn't the way. I don't like being the brunt of such hostility, which is the main reason I will be leaving. The effort to defame Lessans for unsavory reasons has been especially brutal for me because I knew him. He was a wonderful man who has been falsely portrayed so people will not be interested in his discovery.

"Defamation is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation."

Defamation is a legal term, and does not usually apply to the deceased.

One explanation for this phenomenon is (to quote Judge Robert Sack, the author of one of the two leading treatises on libel):

The dead have no cause of action for defamation under the common law, and neither do their survivors, unless the words independently reflect upon and defame the survivors.

Rodney Smolla, the author of the other leading treatise, concurs:

There is no liability for defamation of the dead, either to the estate of the deceased or to the deceased's descendants or relatives.

The rule seems to be much the same under UK common law, as summarized in this piece from the BBC. http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/...dead-john.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Defamation is a legal term, and does not usually apply to the deceased.

So use the term slander.

One explanation for this phenomenon is (to quote Judge Robert Sack, the author of one of the two leading treatises on libel):

The dead have no cause of action for defamation under the common law, and neither do their survivors, unless the words independently reflect upon and defame the survivors.

Rodney Smolla, the author of the other leading treatise, concurs:

There is no liability for defamation of the dead, either to the estate of the deceased or to the deceased's descendants or relatives.

The rule seems to be much the same under UK common law, as summarized in this piece from the BBC. Rights of Writers: Can a Writer Be Sued for Libeling the Dead? (What Would John Dean Say?)

This is not about liability or suing or having cause of action under common law. This isn't even about me, as a survivor, even though it hurts to hear people lie about this man as if they knew him. It's about portraying someone in a terrible light that has no resemblance to who he was, for illegitimate reasons. It's about hurting the memory and reputation of a man who did nothing to hurt anyone.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pulses of light would have to be at the object long enough for our eyes to register what we're seeing. I don't think it would work because by the time we see anything, the pulses of light would have already been reflected back.

So you don't know how long.

In reality, there is no minimum time. As long as the average power is sufficient, the pulses can be as short as one likes.

Also, you don't understand anything about light. Light cannot stay anywhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So you don't know how long.

In reality, there is no minimum time. As long as the average power is sufficient, the pulses can be as short as one likes.

Also, you don't understand anything about light. Light cannot stay anywhere.

I know that, but a pulse of light traveling to the moon and back is quite different than the moon reflecting the Sun's light.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that, but a pulse of light traveling to the moon and back is quite different than the moon reflecting the Sun's light.

In what way?

Do you accept that there is no problem seeing an object that is illuminated by pulsed light? Because that's a fact.

Light never stays at the object. When the Sun illuminates the Moon, the light doesn't stay there for any period of time.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by GdB

??? I am not talking about your father's book. It is about compatibilists: they want people to take responsibility for their actions, and not to fall in fatalism. What more do I have to understand? I guess the word 'equation' misled you...

You don't get it do you GdB? This thread is about Lessans' book. Therefore, every single post in this thread is about Lessans, even if it isn't.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pulses of light would have to be at the object long enough for our eyes to register what we're seeing. I don't think it would work because by the time we see anything, the pulses of light would have already been reflected back.

You are absolutely correct. We would not be able to see the object until the light has been reflected back to our eyes. That is how vision works.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So use the term slander.

This is not about liability or suing or having cause of action under common law. This isn't even about me, as a survivor, even though it hurts to hear people lie about this man as if they knew him. It's about portraying someone in a terrible light that has no resemblance to who he was, for illegitimate reasons. It's about hurting the memory and reputation of a man who did nothing to hurt anyone.

You opened him up to criticism and judgement of all kinds by taking his book into the public sphere. The book is his ideas in his words, so offers insight into the person who wrote them...also open to judgement nd criticism. Some people will think he is a crackpot, no matter where you go or who reads it. You have to accept that, or lock the book up and never show it to anyone

The real problem of course is you. For all your crying victim, you have dished out a bunch of vindictiveness and nastiness. You have blamed others for your failures, you have been deceptive, you have been manipulative and passive aggressive. You are not a good role model or spokesperson for the book in that you do not promote peacefulness, personal responsibility, or effort to not blame. I get that this is defensiveness and probably not your normal personality, because you want to shut down the criticism you have invited. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You opened him up to criticism and judgement of all kinds by taking his book into the public sphere. The book is his ideas in his words, so offers insight into the person who wrote them...also open to judgement nd criticism. Some people will think he is a crackpot, no matter where you go or who reads it. You have to accept that, or lock the book up and never show it to anyone

That is true, but I don't have to subject myself to the kind of unchecked mockery that goes on because they know no one will stop them from this online abuse.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The real problem of course is you. For all your crying victim, you have dished out a bunch of vindictiveness and nastiness. You have blamed others for your failures, you have been deceptive, you have been manipulative and passive aggressive. You are not a good role model or spokesperson for the book in that you do not promote peacefulness, personal responsibility, or effort to not blame. I get that this is defensiveness and probably not your normal personality, because you want to shut down the criticism you have invited. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Maybe I could have done a better job if I had been equipped to deal with the nasty comments directed toward me. Obviously, I was not prepared or I would have responded differently, in the direction of greater satisfaction. Please bear in mind that I responded to people who put me on the defensive by accusing me of doing things I did not do, and of accusing my father of doing things he did not do and was not guilty of. If someone strikes a first blow (which these attacks against me have been), I am justified to strike back in retaliation. I am not Gandhi LadyShea. Very few people can simply turn the other cheek when they have been hurt. That's not what this book is about. Please don't play this game by telling me I should be peaceful in a very unpeaceful circumstance; not blame where blaming is appropriate, and be told to be more responsible when I have not been irresponsible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but I don't have to subject myself to the kind of unchecked mockery that goes on...

And yet you do, quite willingly, over and over again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please bear in mind that I responded to people who put me on the defensive by accusing me of doing things I did not do...

Please bear in mind that you haven't shown a single accusation made against you to be inaccurate or unjustified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you do, quite willingly, over and over again.

Please bear in mind that you haven't shown a single accusation made against you to be inaccurate or unjustified.

Spacemonkey, no, you are wrong. I don't deserve the mockery just because Lessans states certain truths that contravene your beliefs.

[LadyShea]

Blog, comments disabled. YouTube, comments disabled. Website which you already have, no comment app installed. I have told you this for years. You can post whatever you want and nobody can criticize you on your own space. They may criticise you elsewhere on the web.

Of course you could also speak to people in person, the true grassroots way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Blog, comments disabled. YouTube, comments disabled. Website which you already have, no comment app installed. I have told you this for years. You can post whatever you want and nobody can criticize you on your own space. They may criticise you elsewhere on the web.

Of course you could also speak to people in person, the true grassroots way.

I realize that LadyShea, and I am going to move towards these avenues as soon as possible. Thank you for your suggestions. I am not doing anything until after the new year, so you're stuck with me until then although I don't think I have anything more to say. Unfortunately, GdB was the only person I was interested in talking to and he gave up on me quite quickly.

[LadyShea]

I am not doing anything until after the new year, so you're stuck with me until then although I don't think I have anything more to say.

I don't mind that you are here , but you sound insane when you complain about something you subject yourself to, voluntarily.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, no, you are wrong.

About what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deserve the mockery...

I never said you deserved mockery. What I said was that you willingly and repeatedly subject yourself to it, and that you have not shown any of the accusations against you to be inaccurate or unjustified.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but I don't have to subject myself to the kind of unchecked mockery that goes on because they know no one will stop them from this online abuse.

Maybe I could have done a better job if I had been equipped to deal with the nasty comments directed toward me. Obviously, I was not prepared or I would have responded differently, in the direction of greater satisfaction. Please bear in mind that I responded to people who put me on the defensive by accusing me of doing things I did not do, and of accusing my father of doing things he did not do and was not guilty of.

Proving my points. No responsibility and blaming others. Reread the 1st 10 pages. You were actively engaged in all I accused you of from the get go.

If someone strikes a first blow (which these attacks against me have been)

What blow did I strike before you called me too angry to communicate with?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

About what?

I never said you deserved mockery. What I said was that you willingly and repeatedly subject yourself to it, and that you have not shown any of the accusations against you to be inaccurate or unjustified.

I have showed why your accusations have been unjustified. You haven't even delved into his rationale for his claim regarding efferent vision. You have only attacked him on the grounds that you can't figure out how light can be at the eye when it hasn't traveled to earth. This is completely unrelated and why you are so very confused. Please don't start the whole argument again because I won't be answering. And your refutation against the two-sided equation is completely unjustified and doesn't prove him wrong at all. You are trying to find a flaw where there is none.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proving my points. No responsibility and blaming others. Reread the 1st 10 pages. You were actively engaged in all I accused you of from the get go.

You still don't get it LadyShea after all this time. I live in this world and I am reacting as anyone would react IN THIS WORLD. I would not react the same way IN THE NEW WORLD because people would not immediately accuse Lessans of being a crackpot, which set the attack/counterattack in motion.

If someone strikes a first blow (which these attacks against me have been)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What blow did I strike before you called me too angry to communicate with?

The fact that you not only challenged me at every turn but you were biased against him from day one. The fact that you announced that I was making assertions is completely false. These are not assertions. You tried to find things about him that you could use as ammunition. Well, it didn't work. He had a reason for why he burned his books. He was no more irrational than Stephen Hawking or Einstein would have been under the same circumstances. How could I have reacted any other way but defensively when you painted a picture of him that was a lie?