A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Blah blah blah weasel.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing is not acquiring information unless the brain is capable of interpreting what it sees.

That's why people don't like the accurate definition of determinism that Lessans has proposed. Philosophers don't like admitting that they may be wrong about certain things, so they try to accuse him of making up a definition that suits him, which is not the case.

You really are a disgusting, dishonest little shit, aren't you?

People don't like the definition of determinism that Lessans has proposed because it is STUPID. Via your systematic projection, you constantly project your OWN disagreeable traits onto others. NO ONE here is in any way personally invested in any particular philosophical or scientific account; we go where the evidence and arguments lead. It is YOU who is personally invested in defending the reputation (and hopefully making a quick buck) of your idiot father.

Seeing is not acquiring information. OK. THEN HOW IS INFORMATION ACQUIRED? Are you denying that information is acquired at all? Do you mean to write that when we learn (somehow!) that the sun has been turned on, that this is not information acquisition?

Yes or No? When we learn (somehow!) that the sun has been turned on, is that information acquisition? If not, then what is it?

If it is (of course it is; even a dummy like you will be hard pressed to deny this) THEN INFORMATION ACQUISTION AS LESSANS DESCRIBES IT IS IN FLAT CONTRADICTION OF RELATIVITY THEORY.

[LadyShea]

Now let me make something very clear. To teach that 2+2=4
doesn’t depend for its truth on who is doing the teaching because the
one being taught can perceive this undeniable relation, but when the
relation revealing any truth is not obvious or difficult to grasp, or
fallaciously logical, or logically inaccurate, then its acceptance depends
more on who is doing the teaching and the long tenure of its existence
rather than on what is being taught. For example, if students, who
cannot perceive undeniable relations, are taught by their professor
that 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 9 because he also cannot perceive this is false,
they will be compelled to reject your explanation of it being 8 because
they compare the rank of the teacher and the long tenure of what is
taught with your upstart disagreement. Who are you to disagree with
these distinguished professors? Everywhere you look people are using
fallacious standards to judge the truth.

If a reasonably intelligent child can count to 10, they can discover what half is for themselves given adequate time.

Regardless of what is asserted to them, people who use critical thinking and expect solid support in the form of evidence or rational reasoning, are much more likely to discover facts and truth than those who merely accept what is told them without analysis.

Lessans and you want us to accept his myriad assertions without analysis. Why is that?

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be adequately
understood which requires that the reader does not apply himself and
his ideas as a standard of what is true and false, but that he
understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an
opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away
the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the
years.

Hmm that's about as arrogant a statement I've read in any work. But, I wonder...what tools does Lessans suggest readers use to gain understanding of and distinguish between mathematical relations, opinion, belief, or theory? You don't want us using logic or critical analysis or evidence...so what exactly are we to do?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, I'd be lying.

And just how is that different from the 240+ pages so far?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's one other possibility. Your brain isn't able to see the relations no matter how clear the principles have been relayed. I don't mean to be nasty, but that could be a possible reason. The other more likely explanation is that you haven't read the book carefully enough.

Now you're back to insulting people, saying they're too stupid to understand what they've read. And you can't understand the afferent theory of vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, not even the same. One can look like an idiot without being an idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Going round full circle. More than 150 pages ago I explained that she had a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem. That's what this whole thread has been about. It's like Alice in Wonderland.

There is a real existent problem and with a real existent solution, but we'll never find it in this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem that Lessans saw with the afferent model of sight was in reference to how the brain is able to project words onto reality which leads to conditioning. He clearly showed that the brain could not become conditioned this way, if the eyes were a sense organ. No other sense organ is able to do that. That's his proof right there. The examples given to try to refute him by showing that the other senses can become conditioned were not accurate.

This is not correct, other senses can become conditioned, in the old days on the farm, mom would ring the dinner bell and everyone came in hungry even if they didn't feel hungry before.

When my wife is cooking all day and I'm smelling it, when I come to the dinner table that is what I'm hungry for.

That is conditioning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We have already pointed put the brain is perfectly capable of doing what Lessans' describes as conditioning within the current model of vision. No efferent vision is required to explain it. He didn't come close to proving that it isn't possible if eyes are a sense organ.

So, still no problem to be solved.

You have pointed out nothing. Saying so doesn't make it so. If the eyes were a sense organ, the brain could not do what it does, but you don't see that, so you argue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Blah blah blah weasel.

Can't prove me wrong, so you tell me I'm blah blah blah weaseling. How slick!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's one other possibility. Your brain isn't able to see the relations no matter how clear the principles have been explained. I don't mean to be nasty, but that could be a possible reason. The other more likely explanation is that you haven't read the book carefully enough.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now you're back to insulting people, saying they're too stupid to understand what they've read. And you can't understand the afferent theory of vision.

I'm not even talking about Chapter Four, which is a total fiasco. I'm talking about Chapters One, two, and Three. I don't think you didn't understand it; I think you didn't read it. That's my feeling; it's not an insult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing is not acquiring information unless the brain is capable of interpreting what it sees.

That's why people don't like the accurate definition of determinism that Lessans has proposed. Philosophers don't like admitting that they may be wrong about certain things, so they try to accuse him of making up a definition that suits him, which is not the case.

Originally Posted by davidm

You really are a disgusting, dishonest little shit, aren't you?

I don't care what names you call me. It is clearly a reflection of who you are, not me.

Originally Posted by davidm

People don't like the definition of determinism that Lessans has proposed because it is STUPID. Via your systematic projection, you constantly project your OWN disagreeable traits onto others. NO ONE here is in any way personally invested in any particular philosophical or scientific account; we go where the evidence and arguments lead. It is YOU who is personally invested in defending the reputation (and hopefully making a quick buck) of your idiot father.

That's a lie. You are very invested.

Originally Posted by davidm

Seeing is not acquiring information. OK. THEN HOW IS INFORMATION ACQUIRED? Are you denying that information is acquired at all? Do you mean to write that when we learn (somehow!) that the sun has been turned on, that this is not information acquisition?

Yes or No? When we learn (somehow!) that the sun has been turned on, is that information acquisition? If not, then what is it?

If it is (of course it is; even a dummy like you will be hard pressed to deny this) THEN INFORMATION ACQUISTION AS LESSANS DESCRIBES IT IS IN FLAT CONTRADICTION OF RELATIVITY THEORY.

I answered you already. When your eyes open, you see what's in your visual field. If the sun is turned on, you see it. It is not information until that picture is interpreted by the brain. This has nothing to do with relativity theory, NOTHING.

[peacegirl]

Now let me make something very clear. To teach that 2+2=4
doesn’t depend for its truth on who is doing the teaching because the
one being taught can perceive this undeniable relation, but when the
relation revealing any truth is not obvious or difficult to grasp, or
fallaciously logical, or logically inaccurate, then its acceptance depends
more on who is doing the teaching and the long tenure of its existence
rather than on what is being taught. For example, if students, who
cannot perceive undeniable relations, are taught by their professor
that 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 9 because he also cannot perceive this is false,
they will be compelled to reject your explanation of it being 8 because
they compare the rank of the teacher and the long tenure of what is
taught with your upstart disagreement. Who are you to disagree with
these distinguished professors? Everywhere you look people are using
fallacious standards to judge the truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If a reasonably intelligent child can count to 10, they can discover what half is for themselves given adequate time.

Regardless of what is asserted to them, people who use critical thinking and expect solid support in the form of evidence or rational reasoning, are much more likely to discover facts and truth than those who merely accept what is told them without analysis.

Lessans and you want us to accept his myriad assertions without analysis. Why is that?

You are not going to put me in a category of a fundamentalist Ladyshea, because I'm not. I said earlier that he wanted an investigation, but you have to read the book. You sliced it up; you were unfair. Why is that?

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be adequately
understood which requires that the reader does not apply himself and
his ideas as a standard of what is true and false, but that he
understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an
opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away
the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the
years.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hmm that's about as arrogant a statement I've read in any work. But, I wonder...what tools does Lessans suggest readers use to gain understanding of and distinguish between mathematical relations, opinion, belief, or theory? You don't want us using logic or critical analysis or evidence...so what exactly are we to do?

It's par for the course that you would take this as arrogance, when in actuality that is what he experienced. I want you to carefully read the first three chapters. Then ask questions, okay? I can't keep referencing the book when no one has read it. It's an empty discourse.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When your eyes open, you see what's in your visual field. If the sun is turned on, you see it. It is not information until that picture is interpreted in the brain. This has nothing to do with relativity theory, NOTHING.

You've repeatedly claimed that if the Sun were to be "turned on" by God, we'd see it immediately.

You've also stated that the information ("the Sun is now shining") obviously (your own word) originates with the source -- i.e., the Sun.

So, unless you're saying that it takes the brain some 8.5 minutes to process and interpret the "picture," it necessarily takes less time by your model of sight for information to pass from the source (the Sun, in this example) to the human brain than it would take for light to travel that distance.


And that, most-definitely, is a violation of Special Relativity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is not correct, other senses can become conditioned, in the old days on the farm, mom would ring the dinner bell and everyone came in hungry even if they didn't feel hungry before.

When my wife is cooking all day and I'm smelling it, when I come to the dinner table that is what I'm hungry for.

That is conditioning.

That's not true conditioning. If you despise liver, your wife could cook it and tell you how wonderful it smells and tastes 100 times, and it would not condition you to liking the smell or the taste of liver. That's because taste and smell are sense organs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've repeatedly claimed that if the Sun were to be "turned on" by God, we'd see it immediately.

You've also stated that the information ("the Sun is now shining") obviously (your own word) originates with the source -- i.e., the Sun.

So, unless you're saying that it takes the brain some 8.5 minutes to process and interpret the "picture," it necessarily takes less time by your model of sight for information to pass from the source (the Sun, in this example) to the human brain.


And that, most-definitely, is a violation of Special Relativity.

There is no passage of information, if light is not carrying that information. This does not violate Special Relativity.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no passage of information, if light is not carrying that information. This does not violate Special Relativity.

You are the one who noted that "the Sun is now shining" is information, and that the information originates at the source -- i.e., the Sun.

You have also stated that when we see the Sun shining, we have acquired information.


Therefore, information must have passed from the source (the Sun, in this case) to the brain of the observer.


And light is hardly the only thing that can carry information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You are the one who noted that "the Sun is now shining" is information, and that the information originates at the source -- i.e., the Sun.

You have also stated that when we see the Sun shining, we have acquired information.

It is information only when it's processed. I could see something and it have no meaning. That's not information transfer Lone Ranger.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Therefore, information must have passed from the source (the Sun, in this case) to the brain of the observer.

You keep going back to that. If the object is seen as soon as you open your eyes, then there is no passage from the source (e.g. the Sun) to the brain of the observer. It's already there. But to process what one sees is time related.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And light is hardly the only thing that can carry information.

I'm sure there are many things that carry information: sound, for one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
. Saying so doesn't make it so.
.

L.O.L. but that is what you and Lessans have been doing for 240+ pages. L.O.L

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is information only when it's processed. I could see something and it have no meaning. That's not information transfer Lone Ranger.

You keep going back to that. If the object is seen as soon as you open your eyes, then there is no passage from the source (e.g. the Sun) to the brain of the observer. It's already there. But to process what one sees is time related.

Wow. Just ... wow.

So Information Theory is yet another well-established branch of science that we must abandon in order to take Lessans' ideas seriously.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you didn't read it. That's my feeling; it's not an insult.

Calling people liers, is an insult.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said earlier that he wanted an investigation, but you have to read the book.

You claim that Lessans wanted an investigation, and we did that but you're not happy with the result. In truth Lessans wanted nothing to do with an investigation, he wanted someone to rubberstamp it as something it was not, a work of genius. Instead we found it was nonsense, worthless rubbish, derived from an unobtainable goal, not from sound research or reasoning. It was a work of comical fiction intended as a mealticket.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true conditioning.

Only according to Lessans definition, along with all the other terms that he had to redefine to make his ideas work, in contradiction with everything humanity has learned over the centuries via. repeated accurate and honest observation. I don't believe that Lessans made any observations because you have not provided any evidence that he did, I think his ideas came from whatever he was drinking or smoking in the pool hall, and everyone else was too looped to tell him how off base his ideas were.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Calling people liers, is an insult.

Then I've taken a lot more insults than I've given.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Only according to Lessans definition, along with all the other terms that he had to redefine to make his ideas work, in contradiction with everything humanity has learned over the centuries via. repeated accurate and honest observation. I don't believe that Lessans made any observations because you have not provided any evidence that he did, I think his ideas came from whatever he was drinking or smoking in the pool hall, and everyone else was too looped to tell him how off base his ideas were.

This is coming from someone who doesn't even know what his first discovery is.