A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What were these observations?

They aren't what you consider fair because you expect observations to be something up front, easy to see. That isn't the case here or everyone would easily see these observations. That does not make his observations inaccurate. You just don't get it. Would you please stop posting because you are inadvertently stopping people from wanting to hear more. By your constant blathering, they get the impression that you know what you're talking about. You don't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I said she was setting herself up for an out. Posts #45383 & #45410 & #45420.

[But]

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.

Remember, there is a difference between valid logic and sound logic!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They aren't what you consider fair because you expect observations to be something up front, easy to see. That isn't the case here or everyone would easily see these observations.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They aren't what you consider fair because you expect observations to be something up front, easy to see. That isn't the case here or everyone would easily see these observations. That does not make his observations inaccurate. You just don't get it. Would you please stop posting because you are inadvertently stopping people from wanting to hear more. By your constant blathering, they get the impression that you know what you're talking about. You don't.

You are constantly saying how good the observations are, prove it by posting some of them and show everyone. Prove the naysayers wrong, if you can.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Remember, there is a difference between valid logic and sound logic!

Having read the book, I can tell you, Lessans logic was neither. Most of the time there was no way to get from one of his ideas to the next, and many of his ideas were just made up fantasy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Having read the book, I can tell you, Lessans logic was neither. Most of the time there was no way to get from one of his ideas to the next, and many of his ideas were just made up fantasy.

You spout the same thing over and over again. Give me some meat. Explain where the disconnect is that you have found. Otherwise, you're bunch of shit.

[Dragar]

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.

From this word salad of grammatical failure, I'm going to conclude you have no idea what the difference between valid and sound logic is.

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.

I respect Lessans for his awesome pool playing abilities and his guts at writing a book full of crazy things. I will also happily mock the nonsense he has written, because it really is nonsense and it's worth no respect at all at a level beyond comedic value.

And as always, you bring up Lessans observations. But when pressed, you can't ever actually provide any of his observations, can you? The most you've come up with is 'the eyes are not a sense organ' - which as The Lone Ranger has pointed out time and time again, is demonstrably false. Oh wait, there was that one about always seeing an aeroplane before we see it (or maybe the other way around), right? Another obviously false claim. Any others? The one about dogs not recognising their owners by sight alone seems to have been found false, too.

As usual, you're just whining that people dare apply some basic thought rather than just believing all this magical nonsense you repeat over and over.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

Remember, there is a difference between valid logic and sound logic!

Oops, those really are technical terms.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You spout the same thing over and over again. Give me some meat. Explain where the disconnect is that you have found. Otherwise, you're bunch of shit.

Lessans states that a dog cannot recognize it's master in a photograph, (this has been shown to be wrong) and then claims that it proves efferent vision. There is no connection between whether a dog can recognize it's master in a photograph and efferent or afferent vision, the statement about dogs has no bearing on how the dog sees, or how humans see.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You spout the same thing over and over again. Give me some meat. Explain where the disconnect is that you have found. Otherwise, you're bunch of shit.

Lessans states that man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but doesn't prove it he only defines everything as moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, only states it as a given, and then uses this unsupported idea to prove that man's will is not free. Actually whether man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction or not, has little bearing on free will, that depends on what influences you will allow in the definition of free will. If you claim that any influence counts then we do not have free will, but if you allow some influences, then we can have a degree of free will. Certainly some choices are caused by various influences, but there are choices that are made in spite of the dominant influences.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You spout the same thing over and over again. Give me some meat. Explain where the disconnect is that you have found. Otherwise, you're bunch of shit.

Lessans states that the brain projects meaning, in the form of words, onto images, and this part is correct and well understood by science as an internal process inside the brain, but then he claims that the projection is external to the body, and this part is clearly false. From this false idea Lessans then tries to prove that vision is efferent and this has been proven to be incorrect. Where the brain applies labels to images has no bearing on the manner of vision, it could be just as valid in either mode of seeing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop posting because you are inadvertently stopping people from wanting to hear more.

Regardless of the frequency or quality of thedoc's posts I, along with others, still want to hear more about these observations. In no way do his posts stop anyone from wanting that. You, however, by your refusal to delineate those observations, do present an obstacle to our actually hearing about them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans states that the brain projects meaning, in the form of words, onto images, and this part is correct and well understood by science asnan internal process inside the brain, but then he claims that the projection is external to the body, and this part is clearly false. From this false idea Lessans then tries to prove that vision is efferent and this has been proven to be incorrect. Where the brain applies labels to images has no bearing on the manner of vision, it could be just as valid in either mode of seeing.

You left out the screen. The screen is really important. None of this can work without the screen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You spout the same thing over and over again. Give me some meat. Explain where the disconnect is that you have found. Otherwise, you're bunch of shit.

Lessans claims that in his Brave New World Golden Age a young boy and girl will fall in love with each others genitals and live happily ever after. First of all people are only casually attracted to another persons physical appearance and as the relationship develops other factors become more important. The physical appearance alone is not enough to maintain a relationship for life and as people grow and mature they can grow together or apart and this has more bearing on a relationship than the physical appearance. Lessans attempts to apply the brain's labeling to relationships between people and physical appearance is only the first step in any relationship, but Lessans tries to make it the only factor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop posting because you are inadvertently stopping people from wanting to hear more.

Are you seriously trying to say that after 1819 pages and 45465 posts anyone is going to be put off by a few more posts? A few more posts will hardly make a difference to anyone who has slogged through 3+ years of this drivel.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Dragar

From this word salad of grammatical failure

What grammatical failure are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm going to conclude you have no idea what the difference between valid and sound logic is.

A valid argument can be logically consistent but if the premise or supporting evidence is inaccurate, the conclusion will not be sound.

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.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I respect Lessans for his awesome pool playing abilities and his guts at writing a book full of crazy things. I will also happily mock the nonsense he has written, because it really is nonsense and it's worth no respect at all at a level beyond comedic value.

You don't even know what his observations were Dragar.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And as always, you bring up Lessans observations. But when pressed, you can't ever actually provide any of his observations, can you? The most you've come up with is 'the eyes are not a sense organ' - which as The Lone Ranger has pointed out time and time again, is demonstrably false. Oh wait, there was that one about always seeing an aeroplane before we see it (or maybe the other way around), right? Another obviously false claim. Any others? The one about dogs not recognising their owners by sight alone seems to have been found false, too.

As usual, you're just whining that people dare apply some basic thought rather than just believing all this magical nonsense you repeat over and over.

There has yet to be proof that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone, without other cues. If the above is all you are using to judge this book, it's no wonder you think it's a joke. That's the danger of taking the easy way out by listening to other people's comments and accepting them at face value.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans states that a dog cannot recognize it's master in a photograph, (this has been shown to be wrong) and then claims that it proves efferent vision. There is no connection between whether a dog can recognize it's master in a photograph and efferent or afferent vision, the statement about dogs has no bearing on how the dog sees, or how humans see.

It has no bearing on how each species sees, but it does give us a clue that there is a difference in the way the eyes function in relation to the other senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans states that the brain projects meaning, in the form of words, onto images, and this part is correct and well understood by science as an internal process inside the brain, but then he claims that the projection is external to the body, and this part is clearly false. From this false idea Lessans then tries to prove that vision is efferent and this has been proven to be incorrect. Where the brain applies labels to images has no bearing on the manner of vision, it could be just as valid in either mode of seeing.

I told you I don't want to get into this part again because it clearly is an obstacle to further investigation. His observations regarding how we process information is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Regardless of the frequency or quality of thedoc's posts I, along with others, still want to hear more about these observations. In no way do his posts stop anyone from wanting that. You, however, by your refusal to delineate those observations, do present an obstacle to our actually hearing about them.

You only want this because you want to be entertained. Admit it. I don't want to be the one to supply it. Go find someone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans claims that in his Brave New World Golden Age a young boy and girl will fall in love with each others genitals and live happily ever after. First of all people are only casually attracted to another persons physical appearance and as the relationship develops other factors become more important. The physical appearance alone is not enough to maintain a relationship for life and as people grow and mature they can grow together or apart and this has more bearing on a relationship than the physical appearance. Lessans attempts to apply the brain's labeling to relationships between people and physical appearance is only the first step in any relationship, but Lessans tries to make it the only factor.

You are wrong. Lessans never said it's the only factor but when people are young, sexual appeal is the biggest factor. There are exceptions, no one is denying that, but for the most part people get married if they are physically attracted to each other so that procreation will continue on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You only want this because you want to be entertained. Admit it. I don't want to be the one to supply it. Go find someone else.

What you fail to realize is that your continued evasion and dodging of questions is very entertaining. Reading your various excuses and supposed explanations of how things work, according to your father, is also very entertaining. So you are supplying a great deal of the entertainment on this forum, please continue as you have been.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What you fail to realize is that your continued evasion and dodging of questions is very entertaining. Reading your various excuses and supposed explanations of how things work, according to your father, is also very entertaining. So you are supplying a great deal of the entertainment on this forum, please continue as you have been.

Whatever doc. Be entertained, but I'm not putting myself in a vulnerable position knowing full well that I will get attacked all over again. There will be no questions, no curiosity, no thought provoking discussion, no further inquiry, only a knee jerk reaction telling me that science already did the work and Lessans was wrong. Isn't that how you end all of your posts? You will not really be listening in earnest (which is a requirement if you're going to learn anything otherwise it will go in one ear and out the other, which it has clearly done with you); you will be waiting in the wings for your turn to offer your invalid refutation and feel really good about it. You will make every effort to denounce anything written by my father by spouting lies and you won't care one bit about your defamatory remarks. This obviously gives you great satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans states that man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but doesn't prove it he only defines everything as moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, only states it as a given, and then uses this unsupported idea to prove that man's will is not free. Actually whether man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction or not, has little bearing on free will, that depends on what influences you will allow in the definition of free will. If you claim that any influence counts then we do not have free will, but if you allow some influences, then we can have a degree of free will. Certainly some choices are caused by various influences, but there are choices that are made in spite of the dominant influences.

You are so confused, I don't think there's hope discussing this topic while you are the main participant. I know other people are interested in this subject matter. I hope they will come forward.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Regardless of the frequency or quality of thedoc's posts I, along with others, still want to hear more about these observations.

Please don't hold your breath waiting, she hasn't posted a description of an observation for 4 years, there's little reason to expect her to start now. I would be happy to read anything at all about the alleged observations. So far all we have gotten are some fanciful conclusions that are supposedly from those observations.