A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You certainly aren't in the position to know whether my father had a discovery or not.

Actually, having read the book, I'm in a very good position to judge the veracity of your fathers claims, and none of them hold up.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need your attention!

That's your biggest lie yet. And that's saying something, considering the myriad past examples.



By the way, you still haven't managed to come up with a single example of any "observations" that Lessans made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually, having read the book, I'm in a very good position to judge the veracity of your fathers claims, and none of them hold up.

Reading the book (which I doubt you did in its entirety) does not put you in a position to judge this work objectively. You're giving yourself too much credit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's your biggest lie yet. And that's saying something, considering the myriad past examples.

What past examples have given you the impression that I need or want your attention?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, you still haven't managed to come up with a single example of any "observations" that Lessans made.

If I even discuss this topic at all, I am going to cut and paste. So brace yourself! The truth is I'm really not sure if I want to go ahead with this. This may be a masochistic exercise, and I'm not willing to go through the name calling and lulz all over again just because people don't agree. You may not think that his observations are actual observations and I can feel your eagerness to pounce at the slightest [misstep]. That doesn't put us in a neutral position, now does it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I even discuss this topic at all, I am going to cut and paste...

That's not what 'discussion' means. If you're bored you could try answering my questions. It would only take five words. And some honesty, if you are capable of that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I even discuss this topic at all, I am going to cut and paste. (

FYI, what most of us here are talking about as far as observations are concerned, are people, events, or places what Lessans actually looked at something or someone to gather data. We are not referring to ideas that he came up with out of his own imagination, as in his observations about a particular event. While the latter might be considered an observation by Lessans on a particular topic, what is being asked for are events or people that Lessans watched in gathering data to support his ideas. Keep in mind that his suppositions about the motives of the people involved mean little unless they are verified by the people preforming the action.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no martyr complex. I'm just bored at the moment, is all.

Wow, you're piling boredom on top of a martyr complex, I think you should visit your grandchildren, they could cure your boredom, mine are seldom boring.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reading the book (which I doubt you did in its entirety) does not put you in a position to judge this work objectively. You're giving yourself too much credit.

You are just confirming your bias against anyone who disagrees with your father. you are so biased in his favor that you can't see the world realistically, but you judge everything through the lens of agreeing with your father, anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong. Actually you are an excellent example of conformation bias, and that disqualifies you as a realistic judge of anything, Thanks.

[Angakuk]

At least she is excellent at something. There is that.

[peacegirl]

Soon my father will be included in this list.

https://www.facebook.com/10000145455...3020322423113/

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What past examples have given you the impression that I need or want your attention?

That you're desperate for attention is your entire M.O. This entire thread boils down to little more than a desperate plea for attention on your part.

If I even discuss this topic at all, I am going to cut and paste.

Which demonstrates -- once again -- that you're incapable of actually making sense of Lessans' claims.

If you could, you would have long ago provided a simple summary that would establish a grounds for discussion and a jumping-off point for more detailed analysis of Lessans' claims. But despite the fact that people have been literally begging you to do so for years, now, you've proven incapable of doing so.

Heck, other people have done it for you.

The truth is I'm really not sure if I want to go ahead with this. This may be a masochistic exercise, and I'm not willing to go through the name calling and lulz all over again just because people don't agree.

Go on, pull the other leg.

You may not think that his observations are actual observations and I can feel your eagerness to pounce at the slightest [misstep]. That doesn't put us in a neutral position, now does it?

It's not our fault that you lie and dissemble. Nor is it our fault that you don't have the slightest comprehension of the relevant science, nor the slightest comprehension of basic logic. Nor is it our fault that you're too arrogant and/or too stupid to bother to even try to understand why Lessans' claims fail but evidential and logical tests. Nor is it our fault that neither you nor Lessans have ever managed to provide a comprehensible and non-self-contradictory summary of his position.


When someone [that would be you, just for clarification] bases her entire case on Appeal to [Imagined] Authority, bad logic, insulting of anyone who doesn't accept her wholly unsupported claims on pure faith, and outright lies -- then she has no business whining about how she isn't being given "fair treatment." As if you have any idea what that means.

We have been far fairer and more tolerant than you've proven worthy of.

And most definitely the good people of this forum have been vastly fairer and more tolerant than you have. Do recall that you were the one who was flinging around insults within 24 hours of your first post, simply because people -- politely and respectfully -- asked for clarification and explanation, instead of accepting your claims on pure faith.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What past examples have given you the impression that I need or want your attention?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That you're desperate for attention is your entire M.O. This entire thread boils down to little more than a desperate plea for attention on your part.

That statement is unsupported. Where's your evidence?

If I even discuss this topic at all, I am going to cut and paste.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which demonstrates -- once again -- that you're incapable of actually making sense of Lessans' claims.

If you could, you would have long ago provided a simple summary that would establish a grounds for discussion and a jumping-off point for more detailed analysis of Lessans' claims. But despite the fact that people have been literally begging you to do so for years, now, you've proven incapable of doing so.

Heck, other people have done it for you.

Oh really? What people?

The truth is I'm really not sure if I want to go ahead with this. This may be a masochistic exercise, and I'm not willing to go through the name calling and lulz all over again just because people don't agree.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Go on, pull the other leg.

I'm not pulling anyone's leg. Geezeeeee!!!

You may not think that his observations are actual observations and I can feel your eagerness to pounce at the slightest [misstep]. That doesn't put us in a neutral position, now does it?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not our fault that you lie and dissemble.

Dissemble what?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nor is it our fault that you don't have the slightest comprehension of the relevant science, nor the slightest comprehension of basic logic. Nor is it our fault that you're too arrogant and/or too stupid to bother to even try to understand why Lessans' claims fail but evidential and logical tests. Nor is it our fault that neither you nor Lessans have ever managed to provide a comprehensible and non-self-contradictory summary of his position.

I don't agree. Lessans' observations have not failed logical tests. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When someone [that would be you, just for clarification] bases her entire case on Appeal to [Imagined] Authority, bad logic, insulting of anyone who doesn't accept her wholly unsupported claims on pure faith, and outright lies -- then she has no business whining about how she isn't being given "fair treatment." As if you have any idea what that means.

My case is not based on an appeal to imagined authority. And I don't insult people for not accepting his claims. I understand why you believe he was wrong about the eyes not being a sense organ, and that's okay. That does not make his observation inaccurate as to how the brain creates a photograph of an object/word relationship and stores it in memory.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We have been far fairer and more tolerant than you've proven worthy of.

And most definitely the good people of this forum have been vastly fairer and more tolerant than you have.

I have been more than tolerant. I have surprised myself at the extent of my patience.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That statement is unsupported. Where's your evidence?

According to psychological theory and diagnoses, some symptoms of those who are desperate for attention include:

• Making outrageous claims which you know will be challenged.
• Lying about those claims, which generates further attention.
• Extremely emotional reactions to any perceived criticism.
• Difficulty in committing to and completing long-term projects.

Sound familiar? It certainly should, since you regularly demonstrate these traits -- sometimes, by your own admission.

Oh really? What people?

Among others, davidm has provided you with a nice, accurate, and completely unsarcastic summary of Lessans' work, offering it free of charge so that you might use it for promoting the book.

Dissemble what?

"Dissemble" is apparently yet another example of a commonly-used word that you use but don't know the meaning of.

I don't agree. Lessans' observations have not failed logical tests. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Really? So why can't you say anything other than "something else must be going on" every time one of his claims is tested and it fails the test? You do realize, do you not, that that's essentially the definition of failing a logical test, do you not?

My case is not based on an appeal to imagined authority.

On your first day here, you were insisting that people accept his claims without question, because he was brilliant. Furthermore, when asked for "evidence" of his infallibility, you said that he was so brilliant that if he HAD made a mistake, he would have corrected it -- thus, he was not mistaken in his claims.

That's the very epitome of an Appeal to Authority, not to mention a completely circular argument.

And I don't insult people for not accepting his claims.

Yes you do. You were doing so within 24 hours of your first post, despite the fact that everyone you had interacted with had been perfectly civil to you.

Don't believe me? Go back and read your first few posts.

I understand why you believe he was wrong about the eyes not being a sense organ, and that's okay. That does not make his observation inaccurate as to how the brain creates a photograph of an object/word relationship and stores it in memory.

It most certainly demonstrates that he was ignorant of basic anatomy & physiology, if nothing else. And, therefore, it demonstrates that he was far from infallible in his reasoning -- particularly since he uses that demonstrably-false claim to support his reasoning.

I have been more than tolerant. I have surprised myself at the extent of my patience.

And yet, on your very first day, you were insulting people who had been nothing but civil to you -- merely for the "crime" of failing to accept Lessans' claims simply on your say-so and for asking questions that you couldn't answer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have surprised myself at the extent of my patience.

Me too...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

According to psychological theory and diagnoses, some symptoms of those who are desperate for attention include:

• Making outrageous claims which you know will be challenged.
• Lying about those claims, which generates further attention.
• Extremely emotional reactions to any perceived criticism.
• Difficulty in committing to and completing long-term projects.

Sound familiar? It certainly should, since you regularly demonstrate these traits -- sometimes, by your own admission.

Wow, do you have it wrong. This is your perception; NOT reality. The claims I am making are based on real true observations. I did not come here to get negative attention. Yes, I have wanted attention but for different reasons. I do not lie about his claims (where the hell is this coming from? ) I admit that I get emotional at times. That does not square with my desire to get attention. Whoever wrote this doesn't know what he's talking about. As far as completing long term projects, I completed the compilation of my father's book, which took many years to complete, and I completed a children's book. So how can I be accused of not completing long term projects?

Oh really? What people?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Among others, davidm has provided you with a nice, accurate, and completely unsarcastic summary of Lessans' work, offering it free of charge so that you might use it for promoting the book.

Nooooooooo, he did not give a good summary of the book. It's sad that you are accepting his summary (which was incomplete) rather than hearing it from the author himself.

Dissemble what?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Dissemble" is apparently yet another example of a commonly-used word that you use but don't know the meaning of.

Where have I done this? Never mind.

dissemble: 1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence ...

I don't agree. Lessans' observations have not failed logical tests. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? So why can't you say anything other than "something else must be going on" every time one of his claims is tested and it fails the test? You do realize, do you not, that that's essentially the definition of failing a logical test, do you not?

Maybe it did fail a logical test, but logic alone isn't always right. It can be misleading.

My case is not based on an appeal to imagined authority.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

On your first day here, you were insisting that people accept his claims without question, because he was brilliant.

I never insisted that people accept his claims without question, but when Davidm and others started to attack me, my response was to counterattack. Nevertheless, I have received a ton more insults than I ever dished out.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Furthermore, when asked for "evidence" of his infallibility, you said that he was so brilliant that if he HAD made a mistake, he would have corrected it -- thus, he was not mistaken in his claims.

I never said those words. You're lying. I said that he made mistakes. He was human. But I don't believe he made a serious mistake when it came to his discovery which took him 30+ years to refine.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's the very epitome of an Appeal to Authority, not to mention a completely circular argument.

I never gave such an argument so it's moot.

And I don't insult people for not accepting his claims.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yes you do. You were doing so within 24 hours of your first post, despite the fact that everyone you had interacted with had been perfectly civil to you.

The minute I made the claim that the eyes were not a sense organ, according to Lessans, all hell broke loose. It was never civil.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Don't believe me? Go back and read your first few posts.

I was defensive because I didn't expect the kind of response I got. I should have prepared myself better for the inevitable. Then I wouldn't have taken people's remarks so personally.

I understand why you believe he was wrong about the eyes not being a sense organ, and that's okay. That does not make his observation inaccurate as to how the brain creates a photograph of an object/word relationship and stores it in memory.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It most certainly demonstrates that he was ignorant of basic anatomy & physiology, if nothing else. And, therefore, it demonstrates that he was far from infallible in his reasoning -- particularly since much of his reasoning depends on that demonstrably-false claim.

If his observations are correct, then it will have to be determined whether the claim of efferent vision follows from that observation, or whether it can be left out.

I have been more than tolerant. I have surprised myself at the extent of my patience.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet, on your very first day, you were insulting people who had been nothing but civil to you -- merely for the "crime" of failing to accept Lessans' claims merely on your say-so and for asking questions that you couldn't answer.

Again, it was hard for me. I was thin skinned. I have gotten a thicker skin thanks to this forum, although it still hurts sometimes when I feel that Lessans has been portrayed as something he was not. He was not an arrogant man.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Soon my father will be included in this list.

https://www.facebook.com/10000145455...3020322423113/

Don't hold your breath.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That statement is unsupported. Where's your evidence?

There is 3.5 years of posts that stand as evidence, much of that is others who have quoted you, so you can't go back and delete it.
Also TalkRational, CFI Discussion Forum, ilovephilosophy, Canadian Content, the old Dissident Philosophy Forum, and how many others that still have a record of your desperate plea for attention.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have I done this? Never mind.

dissemble: 1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence ...

That is the very definition of your contributions to this thread.

[Vivisectus]

If his observations are correct, then it will have to be determined whether the claim of efferent vision follows from that observation, or whether it can be left out.

Wait, what? But you abandoned efferent vision only a few posts ago, because of the overwhelming evidence against it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is 3.5 years of posts that stand as evidence, much of that is others who have quoted you, so you can't go back and delete it.
Also TalkRational, CFI Discussion Forum, ilovephilosophy, Canadian Content, the old Dissident Philosophy Forum, and how many others that still have a record of your desperate plea for attention.

That was not a desperate plea for attention. It was a plea to be heard. I learned a lot about forums and how they work through the years. Unfortunately, the problem was never with the discovery. It was the venue in which the material was presented. Until I find a better way, I'm stuck trying to spread the word through online discussion groups. It's better than nothing but it is far from the best.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wait, what? But you abandoned efferent vision only a few posts ago, because of the overwhelming evidence against it.

I said that I don't care whether the eyes are afferent or efferent. I don't want to discuss it any more because it is taking away from his original observations which led him to this conclusion. If he's right about what he observed, then we have to see if the conclusion he drew necessarily follows. If it doesn't, then the eyes remain a sense organ even though his observation about the brain remains intact.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it did fail a logical test, but logic alone isn't always right. It can be misleading.

Yes, curse that misleading logic! We should rely on other things, like tea leaves and magic and Astute Observations, for our understanding!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, curse that misleading logic! We should rely on other things, like tea leaves and magic and Astute Observations, for our understanding!

Just understanding the difference between valid (not necessarily sound) logic that appears indestructible, and sound observations that ARE indestructible are two worlds apart. For you to equate Lessans' observations with tea leaves and magic is a major disservice to mankind Dragar. Please stop and actually try to understand why he concluded what he did. At the very least, give this man some respect. To give respect is to receive respect.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not a desperate plea for attention. It was a plea to be heard. I learned a lot about forums and how they work through the years. Unfortunately, the problem was never with the discovery. It was the venue in which the material was presented. Until I find a better way, I'm stuck trying to spread the word through online discussion groups. It's better than nothing but it is far from the best.

Actually it's not "better than nothing" it's much worse. It would have been much better if your father could have been remembered as a successful siding salesman and pool hustler, rather than having you drag his name through the mud and holding him up to ridicule and derision as a fool. It would have been much better to let him rest in peace rather than post all his foolishness on a public forum. Poor ole Pinwheel Lessans.

Actually your father's discovery isn't, his ideas are just some wild ideas from his twisted imagination. The problem isn't the venue, but the problem is the material that you are presenting, it's all nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just understanding the difference between valid (not necessarily sound) logic that appears indestructible, and sound observations that ARE indestructible are two worlds apart. For you to equate Lessans' observations with tea leaves and magic is a major disservice to mankind Dragar. Please stop and actually try to understand why he concluded what he did. At the very least, give this man some respect. To give respect is to receive respect.

What were these observations?