A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's so much missing in this summation, it's no wonder you disagree.

Then instead of playing games, fishing for the explination, tell us what is missing. This is not a class, and you are not a teacher, if you are going to sell the idea you'd better start giving some kind of explination, and filling in the gaps. Your playing games is getting a bit tiresome, prove that you even understand what has been said.

[Stephen Maturin]

From page 38 of The Sacred Text of Seymour Lessans

To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase, “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about and Spinoza is right, man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since.

It's just like that time God told Abraham to sacrifice his son! The "Eureka!" moment was undoubtedly the last link in the chain of thought that allowed Lessans to tie determinism to his fantasy world of very few fat chicks, "boys and girls" fucking "very young" and an absence of moral obligation to treat one's spouse as a human being.

But hey, it's all scientific and mathematical. We know that because some of Seymour "I feel like I'm fixin' to jizz" Lessans' idiocies comport with the idiocies of intellectual giants like lard-assed fraud Phil McGraw and roaring moron Richard Milton.

But pæcequeynte is right about one thing; everyone really should check out Chapter 6. Lessans' ignorance regarding the fundamentals of philosophy and science is truly astounding, but it pales to insignificance next to his utter vacuousness regarding economics.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said anyone was stupid or deluded. He was just frustrated and this was his way of trying to preclude anybody from forming any preconceived ideas, although unfortunately it had a reverse effect.

Everyone has preconceived ideas. That is, everyone has ideas and everyone brings the ideas that they have (however they were arrived at) to everything they hear, see, read or experience. While it is possible to read charitably, it is not possible to read without bias. Asking a reader to read without bias is asking the impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it isn't. He was just showing that people often use fallacious reasoning to support their beliefs. People will conclude that because people in the past have been positive and wrong, he's could be wrong because he's positive. He was just demonstrating the kind of fallacious logic that people use.

If someone were to make the argument that Lessans could be wrong because he was positive, that would be a fallacious argument. This is a classic strawman. I seriously doubt that anyone has ever made that particular argument. It is much more likely that people have made the argument that Lessans could be wrong even though he was positive. This is a perfectly true statement and not the least bit fallacious. The only way in which this could be construed as being fallacious is if it were true that Lessans could not possibly be wrong with regard to that about which he was positive.

Peacegirl, are you prepared to claim that it is impossible for Lessans to be wrong with regard to something about which he was positive that he was correct?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What he fails to mention is that Edison and Einstein used evidence and data in their demonstrations. Edison has an actual working light bulb to show people, and was able to explain it so others could easily replicate his work and demonstrate it for themselves! Einstein had pages and pages of notes and complex math that he showed to other physicists for their thorough critique, so that any flaws or mistakes could be recognized and addressed.

You might also mention that aspects of Einstein's work are as testable as Edison's light bulb.

Eclipse that Changed the Universe

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I seriously doubt that anyone has ever made that particular argument. It is much more likely that people have made the argument that Lessans could be wrong even though he was positive. This is a perfectly true statement and not the least bit fallacious. The only way in which this could be construed as being fallacious is if it were true that Lessans could not possibly be wrong with regard to that about which he was positive.

Yes, that is precisely it, but peacegirl is a liar and she repeatedly deliberately misrepresents the arguements that others have made. No one here, for instance, has said that Lessans was wrong because he had a seventh grade education. That would be classic argumentum ad hominem, and logically fallacious. What people have said is that, given that his ideas are obviously wrong on their merits, perhaps he would have had better ideas, if he had had a better education. That is not ad hominem at all. But peacegirl twists all that around, no doubt with malicious intent. I don't believe she is as thick as she seems.

Indeed, I believe it was you yourself who first pointed out that peacegirl was essentially arguing for Lessans' infallibility. Just imagine, the sole infallible human in all human history! All hail The Great Lessans!

For of course, she has repeatedly stated that if Lessans had been wrong, he would have admitted it. From this it follows (for peacegirl alone) that he was never wrong, because he never admitted he was wrong. Ergo he is infallible. It never occurs to peacegirl that he could have been wrong without knowing he was wrong. But that is impossible for her because he is infallible. Why is he infallible? Because had he been fallible, he would have admitted it. And on and on in circular circles in the strange and, frankly, somewhat tragic world of peacegirl.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained this. The conditioning that takes place with the eyes cannot take place with the other senses. That's why it's not a sense organ.

Be that as it may, you have failed to demonstrate that this conditioning actually takes place as described.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. That's like saying birds fly is an opinion.

Actually, the claim that birds fly is an opinion. If the claim is that all birds fly, this is an opinon that is in error. That it is in error can be demonstrated by providing examples of birds that are not capable of flight. If the claim is that some birds fly, this is a correct opinion. That it is a correct opinion can be demonstrated by providing examples of birds that are capable of flight.

Not all opinions are of equal value. Opinions that are supported by evidence carry greater weight than unsupported opinions. Lessans opinion with regard to how conscience functions is unsupported by any kind of evidence. Therefore, this opinion carries very little weight and has very little value.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How can someone not desire to strike back if they've been hurt LadyShea? You think this is what he's been saying; that we should turn the other cheek and not blame, even if we've been hurt? No wonder you don't think he has anything of value.

Well then, we are back to the point I made in the first dozen pages of this thread. Lessans points are not made clearly or concisely. They are obfuscated by distracting and silly and aggrandizing dialog, and asides. He offers no summation of his own at the end of chapters like most other non fiction books trying to teach concepts do, yet I still get blamed for having trouble teasing out what you feel are the important points

I think I offered the best summary you have gotten to date, and I know I am capable of grasping difficult concepts, provided they are clearly presented. I have above average intelligence, reading skills, and vocabulary. I am an autodidact and have sought to educate myself, and done a pretty good job, in many things. The highly educated academics her at , and elsewhere, never dismiss or ignore me, or assume I have nothing important to say, based on my lack of education, so they are unlikely to do so to Lessans, or anybody. You are barking up the wrong tree with that one.

So, who do you think is going to be able to read and understand it as you think it should be, as it is presented, if not someone like me?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*Therefore it is not possible to commit a hurtful action, because one cannot derive satisfaction from hurting another knowing they will never be held responsible in any way by another person.

This point does not follow from the last premise. The only way it's not possible to commit a hurtful act is if there is no justification to do so. In the world of free will, people can justify or rationalize almost anything, which is why it's so difficult to see the 180 degree change that's going to occur when all blame is removed.

Everything is missing, and the only way to fill in the gap is to read as if it were a book club. Let's start at Chapter One. As soon as you read it, we can discuss it. I can't do any better because there will always be unanswered questions, which is why he urged people to read in a step by step fashion.

I tried to start with the forward and you couldn't even explain it without resorting to butthurt excuses and claiming I was wrong.

Sorry, peacegirl. Better luck with someone way more astute than me...or way more childlike and gullible....or whatever you feel makes for a "desirable candidate"

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, it seems that you are trying to play the game of a teacher to a class of students, the problem is that you are not being a very good teacher. I was a teacher, and was good at teaching, I just didn't like being a police officer, the need for dicipline was more than I wanted to deal with. A good teacher will assign a reading and if the students don't get it at first, it is the teachers responsability to explain it in a clear and understandable way. The Socratic method is OK but it wears thin after awhile, and does not always work with all students, it is way past time when you should be explaining what, in your mind, we are not understanding. The game you are playing is a dis-service to everyone here trying to follow Lessans book. Your constant claim that no-one has read it is insulting and not condusive to anyone's understanding or acceptance of the material. In the same way you want everyone to read the book with an open mind and a suspension of disbelief, you need to give us the benefit of the doubt and just accept that some of us have read it and go on with the explination as best you can. You failure to clearly explain what Lessans wrote is a clear indication that you do not yourself understand the material. I always knew what I wanted the students to learn and told them, I did not expect them to know it and explain it back to me without presenting it clearly first. It was my job to present the material to the student, it was not their job to learn it without help from me. Likewise it is your job to present and explain what is in the book without accusations and recriminations. So far as a teacher, trying to present this material, you are doing a terrible job, and you would get a negative review in your ability to teach this to anyone. Quit playing games, and go on with the assumption that some of us have read the book and you are going to clarify the hard parts. Start from the begining if you want and explain things point by point, that is what a good teacher does, not demanding that the students explain everything, especially if the material is dificult, or new and unfamiliar. It is your responsibility to promote understanding in those you are trying to reach, we are under no obligation to accept this material. Start doing your job, so far you have been a complete failure. Don't even think of useing Lessans book as an example of how to present the material Lessans was not a teacher, far from it, he didn't understand how to properly convey information in a clear and understandable way. you need to start over and just get on with presenting and explaining, without expecting everyone to explain it to you first.

[Doctor X]

Of course it helps if one does not try to teach lies. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I offered my summation of the two sided equation, where's yours for human will not being free.

Your feelings regarding my motivations are the product of a probable histrionic personality disorder, coupled with an inferiority complex, and simple childlike projection and deflection.

So now you're Miss Psychiatrist? You're doing the exact thing diagnosing me that you're doing with the book; twisting everything I say to suit your purpose.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sorry, he offered no means to ascertain or analyze the validity of his conclusions...it's very possible his observations were inaccurate because of subject sampling bias, or that he had an undiagnosed mental illness, or that he didn't write the book at all, that you did and put his name on it. I have nothing to go on at all.

This is how people who know more than you operate in this world.

If this your attitude, you are giving me no choice but to leave. You are putting words in my mouth, telling me he is inaccurate before you even read book, and you won't meet me halfway.

[peacegirl]

if this knowledge turns out to be genuine, then what he said is correct

If it is correct it is correct? Yeah no tautology here!

He didn't want people using fallacious standards to judge that which contains undeniable proof of its veracity.

He basically stated readers are to disregard any and all normal ways of ascertaining veracity, and to be absolutely sure he couldn't be checked, he offered nothing to analyze! He just claims undeniability and calls it proof.

Did you read the excerpt in the introduction that Richard Milton wrote.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Richard Milton is a crackpot, a purveyor of pseudoscience, who cares what he says?

You are very judgmental LadyShea. You think you are using critical thinking skills, but you cut yourself short because you are making snap judgments? This man had something valuable to say even though his philosophy of life may differ from yours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Milton was, like Lessans, very fond of using the "Galileo [Mendel, whoever] was laughed at [met with skepticism, whatever], and he was right, so I am probably right too" fallacy.

That Lessans states the opposite is fallacious reasoning "People have been wrong so you might be wrong" while espousing the former is hypocrisy at its finest.

I told you why he wrote that. Because that's how people think; not how he thinks. He wasn't using that comment to imply that this was any kind of proof. He just wanted people to keep an open mind to hear the proof.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does one ascertain the veracity of these statements? Can you back these extraordinary claims up without using fallacious reasoning or arguing from ignorance?

I can see that your attitude is actually destroying the chance for you to learn something very special. Your premature judgment is ruining it. I'm not saying to give up your analytical skills, but after you give him a chance, which you aren't doing. Your summation was very incomplete, yet instead of reading the 1st chapter more carefully, what do you do? You begin attacking him all over again. Round and round the same mountain we go. Isnt' this fun? This thread is going nowhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh peacegirl you dishonest little thing you. I was looking up some stuff I remembered reading about Milton, because your method of argumentation seemed so familiar, and since you mentioned his name again.

Since Milton didn't start publishing until 1993, and Lessans died in 1991, you obviously added that excerpt. You've mentioned several times that you wrote something we criticized, and you stated you added the ridiculous dialog, and now we know you added to the intro...maybe even wrote it entirely. Just exactly how much of this book did you write yourself? How influential was Milton to your contributions?

I never read his work. I just saw this excerpt online and included it because I believe it reflects what is happening in the academic world. I told everyone that I added examples, and you can tell for the most part where these examples were included because they were dated after 1991. I was extremely careful not to alter the concepts or his overall wording.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Reading Dr. Carrol's essay was like reading a critique of everything you and Lessan's have said here and in the book...I am thinking very influential.

Who is Dr. Carol?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Source for quotes below Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

That's very true, but there's also the danger of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, in the name of truth and justice.

[Vivisectus]

Lessans and Conscience

At the basis of Lessans reasoning we find the classic mistake that many people make when they think about determinism. They confuse deterministic with determined. Just because we can consider all the causes of something as knowable does not mean that all the causes are known.

Consider a road. You are walking down a footpath beside it. Your destination is about 100 meters down the road, on the opposite side.

At one stage you will have to cross the road. Where you will do so is determined by your mood, what you are thinking about, by traffic, and at what stage you remember you have to be on the other side.

Many people consider that a random decision – but that is only true if we do not understand everything about that particular brain as it is at that particular time. If we could completely understand that brain, we could predict where it would decide to cross the road.

As a matter of fact we do not know enough about the brain to work this out exactly. It may not even be possible to get a sufficiently detailed understanding to make a completely accurate prediction even about a single brain– some people are arguing that the universe does not seem to be deterministic at the quantum level. Be that as it may, we can confidently state that while the decision may or may not be deterministic in nature, it is definitely not determined.

Lessans considers the world both deterministic and determined – he believes he has an understanding that is both expansive and detailed enough to accurately predict all human reactions. He believes that based on simple principles, he can accurately predict how we would develop and behave in the areas of love, war, crime, economics – you name it. I consider that to be a very extravagant claim, and one that would require some extremely convincing evidence to back it up. This evidence certainly is not to be found in his book – there is no logical or observational evidence offered anywhere.

The system itself rests on the assumption that blame is what allows us to justify unprovoked bad acts to ourselves, which is assumed to be necessary for us to carry said bad deed out. If we realized that our will is not free, yet that no-one can force us to do anything we do not want to do, and that we would not be blamed for anything we do as it would be understood we simply follow the necessary direction of greater satisfaction, we would all be perfectly conscientious.

Why this should be so is not explained. When reading, you almost wonder if the writer is trying to imply that since you see blame wherever there are bad deeds, the former must cause the latter, but he does not do so outright. I get the impression he was aware of the flimsiness of his case at this point. It seems to me that while he was unable to address it he still did not want to abandon the idea. He dances around the subject with some particularly awkward attempts at distraction and then just forges ahead, apparently considering his point made beyond question.

I remind the reader that this man compared his style of persuasion to a game of chess, where the opponent is left checkmated in the end and must concede that Lessans is right. This is a particularly unfortunate expression, I feel. In chess, you hide the weakness of your position and fool the opponent into thinking the best place to attack you is elsewhere. Chess is based on deception and distraction.

There are a few problems with Lessans ideas about the end of evil even if we assume that in “the new environment” we will strive to be perfectly conscientious. Firstly, Lessans assumes that we can work out every possible outcome of every possible action. In the new world, there is no more room for simple short-sightedness. A man who builds an irrigation network, thus improving his farm, will always know that this action will not in fact drain the wetlands that have been acting as a natural water-filtering system for the water that sustains a whole town, and will not do harm to many more than he aids out of honest ignorance of the wider consequences of his actions.

Lessans also assumes that every action is either good or bad and that morally ambiguous situations cannot give rise to fresh harm. Apparently morally ambiguous situations will no longer exist – and yet it is not difficult to come up with some interesting thought-experiments that remain highly ambiguous even in a perfectly conscientious world. We can consider the example of the fat man on the bridge – if you push him off, this will kill him, but it will also stop the train that is hurtling by below you, about to crush 3 people to death. There is no time to explain to the fat man to get his consent.

Both of these situations allow unprovoked harm to occur even in a perfectly conscientious world, and by Lessans own reasoning would give rise to fresh retaliations. The cycle of evil that he claimed was dealt with seems to me to be still alive and well in the new environment. So not only is there a lack of evidence, on closer inspection it is also is not as all-encompassing as Lessans claims it is.

[Vivisectus]

duplicate

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, I was demonstrating what it's like talking to you by armchair diagnosing you.

You make accusations, judgments and reality statements out of thin air. You said that Lessans had no intellectual peers; people are chimpanzees compared to him.

You refuse to acknowledge that anyone has anything valid or pertinent to say, or has honest and valid criticisms and have done so from page 1. You refuse to educate yourself regarding the evidence and knowledge about everything from the eyes to physics, just declaring anything that disagrees with Lessans wrong, or Lessans right in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Lessans himself set up an impossible standard right in the forward...accept everything he said as "undeniable" or read it again and again until you do accept it. You exhort readers to have a "childlike innocence" which means you want all readers to check their brains at the door.

Really, I have no idea how you think you can persuade anyone to give Lessans the kind of reading you consider "fair" when both he and you insult the readers intelligence and agency right from the gate and continue to do so. I mean of course I am judgmental. Of course I demand rationality and evidence and data and analysis...I use my critical thinking and acquired knowledge to make judgments so I can live genuinely and honestly and not fill myself with assorted bullshit and snake oil and baseless promises of future payoff.

It's been 6000 posts, you've gotten nowhere (again I might add as we are not your first group) yet you still maintain there are no problems with the information or with you.

Occams razor; what is more likely, scores of reasonably intelligent people are actually mentally deficient and slavishly worship the scientific status quo, or there are some actual problems in the work or your presentation?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Of course it helps if one does not try to teach lies. . . .

--J.D.

True, but the technique works regardless of the material, true or not, accurate or not. It is the methodology that is at fault and leading to much conflict and hostility. Correct that and it will be easier to work on the material.

PS, However I can see the possability that Peacegirl may not want to work on the material, in a clarifying way.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Occams razor; what is more likely, scores of reasonably intelligent people are actually mentally deficient and slavishly worship the scientific status quo, or there are some actual problems in the work or your presentation?

There is no probabilistic problem here. Lessans' claims are wrong, period. It is 100 percent true that they are wrong. His claims about vision and light are laughably wrong; they are STUPID. They do not even meet the test of internal consistency and coherency. Witness Peacegirl's repeated refusal to deal with a simple question: how is it possible, in Lessans' moronic model, that the reflected light of the moon appears immediately when the sun is turned on by God, but the reflected light light of one's neighbor only arrives eight and a half minutes later?

Anyone who dreams up a model like the above is not a teacher or a thinker, but a goombah. And so it goes for the rest of this crapulous book. His argument to determinism is clearly undermined by committing the modal fallacy, of which he was ignorant, just as he was ignorant of realtivity theory; SR disproves both real-time seeing and efferent seeing; his conceptions of social relations in the new world are nothing but a masturbatory fantasy. His rotten reasoning is garlanded by his monumental vanity and delusions of grandeur mixed up with a gigantic inferiority complex. Finally throw in his martyr's complex, which is daughter displays as well; but then, she is a chip off the old blockhead.

Peacegirl, your father's idiot book and you are done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then instead of playing games, fishing for the explination, tell us what is missing. This is not a class, and you are not a teacher, if you are going to sell the idea you'd better start giving some kind of explination, and filling in the gaps. Your playing games is getting a bit tiresome, prove that you even understand what has been said.

I'm not selling an idea. If you're tired doc, then leave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh peacegirl you dishonest little thing you. I was looking up some stuff I remembered reading about Milton, because your method of argumentation seemed so familiar, and since you mentioned his name again.

Since Milton didn't start publishing until 1993, and Lessans died in 1991, you obviously added that excerpt. You've mentioned several times that you wrote something we criticized, and you stated you added the ridiculous dialog, and now we know you added to the intro...maybe even wrote it entirely. Just exactly how much of this book did you write yourself? How influential was Milton to your contributions?

Reading Dr. Carrol's essay was like reading a critique of everything you and Lessan's have said here and in the book...I am thinking very influential.

Source for quotes below Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

I want to add this: LadyShea, you are using whatever you can to support your ideas, and you blame me for doing the exact same thing that you are exquisite at doing, BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE BLIND BASED ON YOUR FALSE CRITERIA. That's why this thread is a lost cause. I know this thread is going to die, but it won't be because Lessans was wrong. There are no conspirators LadyShea, just confusion. There is nobody attacking you; but one thing is for sure; because of your thinking that your way of judging a work of substance is dependent on the criteria that you have provided, is completely and utterly false. That is the problem, and as you keep asking for empirical proof, it makes me realize, I've got to leave because you will refuse to read the book. It's futile.

[peacegirl]

It's actually time for me to leave. Please don't post anymore. I will read the last few comments and give a response, but I don't want to be involved with this thread anymore. I hope you will respect my feelings, but I'm sure you could care less, just so you get your fix of self-importance and arrogance that I've never seen the likes of in my 58 years.

[Vivisectus]

Seeing as you knew your father, being considered more self-important and arrogant than anyone you have ever seen is quite an accomplishment. It is kind of like being called "way religious" by the pope.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Seeing as you knew your father, being considered more self-important and arrogant than anyone you have ever seen is quite an accomplishment. It is kind of like being called "way religious" by the pope.

I'm serious Vivisectus. I am asking you kindly not to respond because I'm leaving. I will answer the few questions that are still lingering, but after that I'm gone. There's absolutely no point; no meeting of the minds; no patience; no real interest. Just yapping yapping yapping about how right all of you are. So be my guest, continue on if you choose to (I can't stop you), but I am not going to fuel the fire. I wish you all well, but please don't post to me after I'm finished answering this page.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's actually time for me to leave. Please don't post anymore. I will read the last few comments and give a response, but I don't want to be involved with this thread anymore. I hope you will respect my feelings, but I'm sure you could care less, just so you get your fix of self-importance and arrogance that I've never seen the likes of in my 58 years.

Sorry, people post what they want, when they want here. So, you know, fuck off.