A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

You seem to be denying that eating woodpecker saves the rainforest before the tests are in, peacegirl. Can't you give this idea a chance in stead of making it all about childrens safety rhymes, about which I expressed no opinion whatsoever? I bring you this wonderful knowledge, and before we have the empirical evidence that will prove this fact you flatly state that it is a fact that eating woodpeckers does not save forests. This just shows that you do not understand how different forests would be without woodpeckers. At least Chuck is willing to do his bit, and has an open mind to the spread of aids because of bicycles and the woodpeckery menace that is threatening our forests in stead of immediately making me out to be a loony for proposing a woodpecker-free environment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to be denying that eating woodpecker saves the rainforest before the tests are in, peacegirl. Can't you give this idea a chance in stead of making it all about childrens safety rhymes, about which I expressed no opinion whatsoever? I bring you this wonderful knowledge, and before we have the empirical evidence that will prove this fact you flatly state that it is a fact that eating woodpeckers does not save forests. This just shows that you do not understand how different forests would be without woodpeckers. At least Chuck is willing to do his bit, and has an open mind to the spread of aids because of bicycles and the woodpeckery menace that is threatening our forests in stead of immediately making me out to be a loony for proposing a woodpecker-free environment.

Why do you continue to mock me Vivisectus? If someone makes a wild assertion, obviously it needs to be tested for validity.

[Vivisectus]

Why would you assume I was mocking you? I am merely continuing the revolution in thought theme with my own, and pointing out that wherever forests are in danger, woodpeckers are somehow involved, a premise which I intend to develop into a system that will allow us to avert the menace of deforestation forever.

As you can see, this idea is immediately being cast as a wild assertion, which just shows that people are unwilling to give this idea a chance. The observation that wherever a forest is in trouble, woodpeckers, sapsuckers, wrynecks or piculets are in it somehow is undeniable. Do you think it is scientific to just reject an idea before we have extensive studies done, demonstrating once and for all how these nefarious Picidae are causing deforestation, thus making global warming worse? Can we not wait to do these tests, and in the meantime look deeper into the threat to the world posed by woodpeckers? You may laugh at my discovery, but I remind you that they laughed at some of histories most boundless brainboxes in their time, so since people are laughing at me now means that I am also a genius.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why would you assume I was mocking you? I am merely continuing the revolution in thought theme with my own, and pointing out that wherever forests are in danger, woodpeckers are somehow involved, a premise which I intend to develop into a system that will allow us to avert the menace of deforestation forever.

As you can see, this idea is immediately being cast as a wild assertion, which just shows that people are unwilling to give this idea a chance. The observation that wherever a forest is in trouble, woodpeckers, sapsuckers, wrynecks or piculets are in it somehow is undeniable. Do you think it is scientific to just reject an idea before we have extensive studies done, demonstrating once and for all how these nefarious Picidae are causing deforestation, thus making global warming worse? Can we not wait to do these tests, and in the meantime look deeper into the threat to the world posed by woodpeckers? You may laugh at my discovery, but I remind you that they laughed at some of histories most boundless brainboxes in their time, so since people are laughing at me now means that I am also a genius.

You are trying make a comparison to show that Lessans' observations are nothing but speculation, but they're not the same.

[Doctor X]

What if Vivisectus is right?

--J.D.

[The Editor]

Why do you hate rain forests, peacegirl?

--Ed.

[Vivisectus]

The unquestionable link between woodpeckers and loss of forest habitat is based on a very penetrating discernment, and is largely ignored by mainstream science since they cannot fathom the underlying relationship, which is not one based on opinion, but rather follows the immutable laws of geography. In geography, the idea that someplace is here rather than there is not in any way a matter of subjective opinion, but is an observable and objective fact. We do not say that we believe or opine that south-america is connected to north-america - this is an indisputable fact that we can easily verify, once we understand that the word connected describes the relationship between the two continents. Please bear in mind that this is what I mean when I call something geographically unquestionable.

The simple fact remains that no-one has ever dared think of woodpeckers as a leading cause of deforestation, and as engineers of our ultimate demise through climate change, because of the current scientific paradigm, which states that animals that survive tend to be animals that achieve some kind of equilibrium with their environment. This argument would hold water were it not for the astounding discovery that woodpeckers are not birds. This may shock you, as we have all been told that woodpeckers are birds from a very young age, but once you realize that this is a lie, and that all assumptions about birds, woodpeckers and deforestation have always been made while under the preconception that woodpeckers are birds, you will see how easy it is to make this mistake unless you are a superbly penetrating discerner like me.

The idea that woodpeckers are birds goes back a long time, to the time of Linneaus, and has never been seriously investigated ever since. Never has any scientist dared to explore the avenue of investigation marked "woodpeckers are not birds" to see where this would lead them. The indoctrination of their education makes them blind to this possibility, and has led them to ignore this global threat, which is menacing us all with it's beady little eyes and pointy little beaks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

What if Vivisectus is right?

--J.D.

Right about what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The unquestionable link between woodpeckers and loss of forest habitat is based on a very penetrating discernment, and is largely ignored by mainstream science since they cannot fathom the underlying relationship, which is not one based on opinion, but rather follows the immutable laws of geography. In geography, the idea that someplace is here rather than there is not in any way a matter of subjective opinion, but is an observable and objective fact. We do not say that we believe or opine that south-america is connected to north-america - this is an indisputable fact that we can easily verify, once we understand that the word connected describes the relationship between the two continents. Please bear in mind that this is what I mean when I call something geographically unquestionable.

The simple fact remains that no-one has ever dared think of woodpeckers as a leading cause of deforestation, and as engineers of our ultimate demise through climate change, because of the current scientific paradigm, which states that animals that survive tend to be animals that achieve some kind of equilibrium with their environment. This argument would hold water were it not for the astounding discovery that woodpeckers are not birds. This may shock you, as we have all been told that woodpeckers are birds from a very young age, but once you realize that this is a lie, and that all assumptions about birds, woodpeckers and deforestation have always been made while under the preconception that woodpeckers are birds, you will see how easy it is to make this mistake unless you are a superbly penetrating discerner like me.

The idea that woodpeckers are birds goes back a long time, to the time of Linneaus, and has never been seriously investigated ever since. Never has any scientist dared to explore the avenue of investigation marked "woodpeckers are not birds" to see where this would lead them. The indoctrination of their education makes them blind to this possibility, and has led them to ignore this global threat, which is menacing us all with it's beady little eyes and pointy little beaks.

You are trying to draw a parallel between this example and Lessans, as if to say he did no more than make a wild guess based on nothing. But that isn't true. The three premises upon which his discovery rests can be empirically tested. He never expected people to take his insights at face value, but you have to give him a chance to prove that he knew what he was talking about.

[Doctor X]

What if Vivisectus is right about woodpeckers?

--J.D.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The three premises upon which his discovery rests can be empirically tested.

Which they have and, as has been explained to you repeatedly despite your conscious attempts to ignore the information, they have been proven false.

--Ed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add that I wrote a children's book that is the direct result of my upbringing. I would love to send you a copy, with a t-shirt, just to show you that I respect physics more than anyone. This book has to with children's safety, which I have had a passion for after having my own children and knowing that we can prevent many of the unnecessary deaths due to ignorance. I do not need or want your address, but if you have a P.O. box, I would really love to give this book as a gift for trying to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, as best as you knew how.

That's quite a nice offer, thank you. However, would you be willing to donate your book to our local public library? My son regularly participates in their excellent children's program, which includes twice weekly read alouds and crafts, puppet shows, musical guests, etc. but the state keeps cutting funding.

The children's librarians would be thrilled to accept an author donation I am sure, and perhaps they can read the book aloud to many kids?

[Vivisectus]

People have always assumed that woodpeckers are birds because they seem to fly, have feathers and lay eggs. We will now try to lift the veil from this pre-conceived notion that woodpeckers are birds and show, quite clearly and geographically, that this us not the case.

First off, you must understand that when a woodpecker flies, he does not do so in the same way that other creatures or objects fly. When a real bird flies, it does so by generating lift, that is to say by creating an upward force that is greater than the downward force of gravity. The woodpecker, however, does no such thing. It in fact reduces the gravitational pull of the earth on its body - thus allowing it to leave the earth. It does this by creating an anti-gravity field, caused by the magnetic forces created by the friction of its feathers as it flaps its wings up and down.

You may very well ask at this stage, "Oh Vivisectus, you indomitable fountain of penetrating discernment and devastatingly attractive prophet of incontestable truth, how can you say such a thing? Surely the flapping of the wings IS what makes the woodpecker fly?"

My answer is - it is no such thing. The flapping is merely a prerequisite that allow the bird to generate the forces that allow it to defy gravity - it has nothing to do with lift, and it is not air that is pushed downward by the wings that generate lift to make the woodpecker fly, but the anti-gravitational pull it generates that pulls it upwards in stead.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The simple fact remains that no-one has ever dared think of woodpeckers as a leading cause of deforestation, and as engineers of our ultimate demise through climate change, because of the current scientific paradigm, which states that animals that survive tend to be animals that achieve some kind of equilibrium with their environment. This argument would hold water were it not for the astounding discovery that woodpeckers are not birds. This may shock you, as we have all been told that woodpeckers are birds from a very young age, but once you realize that this is a lie, and that all assumptions about birds, woodpeckers and deforestation have always been made while under the preconception that woodpeckers are birds, you will see how easy it is to make this mistake unless you are a superbly penetrating discerner like me.

The idea that woodpeckers are birds goes back a long time, to the time of Linneaus, and has never been seriously investigated ever since. Never has any scientist dared to explore the avenue of investigation marked "woodpeckers are not birds" to see where this would lead them. The indoctrination of their education makes them blind to this possibility, and has led them to ignore this global threat, which is menacing us all with it's beady little eyes and pointy little beaks.

Hang tough, Vivisectus. After all,

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

~Arthur Schopenhauer

Things may look bleak for your penetratingly discerned mathematical truth ("the feathered and deforested equation," if you will), but there's always hope. Have you considered suing President Obama?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Still, rest easy in knowing that you have made an impression. I will never forget the translucent robes and sexy jackets, or the special sex-word, or the lovable genitalia and the teenagers who would marry for life after jumping each other’s bones spontaneously after swanning around in skimpy clothing a lot - nomatter whose bones they jumped, as personalities would no longer matter, or even exist as far as I can tell.

It is memorable for the wrong reasons. If you had followed the extension of these principles, you wouldn't have thought it was so funny. I guess anything can be made a joke out of, if that's the goal.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thanks for the amazing features of efferent sight that is not transmitted but still seen, which in no way means that any information arrived in any way as nothing moved, and anyway our brains only know what to see because our other senses tell us what to see.

Efferent sight only means we can see an object or image instantly because of how the eyes work, but we can also see information coming from that object or image after the reflected or emitted light travels from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thanks for calling us meanies, dimwitted and lazy and continually whining that it is all just so unfair and that no-one will just give you a chance, and for blaming us for viciously analysing what you wanted us to look at, even though we somehow all never read the book at all, like, evar.

You were the only one that I believe read the first two chapters. I never called anyone dimwitted or lazy, and even if that were true, I was called a lot worse.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am especially grateful for the man on Rigel who can send us the answer to a question we have not asked yet, and the amazing FACT that if we turn on the sun, we would be able to see it, but not the guy standing next to us for 8 minutes.

How could a question be answered before it was asked Vivisectus? You know you're making a joke out of this. As far as seeing the sun turned on, that would be true only if the eyes work the way Lessans described. I am not asking you to accept this without further evidence.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I also loved the rules of the road for married couples, which as far as I could tell consists mainly a long list of shit you were not allowed to bug Seymour with as he carried out his AWESOME research that was VERY IMPORTANT and SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL, also. Nor will I ever forget the unforgivable affront of the professor who never even gave Seymour the chance to explain how his education was far superior!

In that chapter, all he was doing was extending the knowledge that man's will is not free. Why is it so funny to you that the professor didn't give Lessans a chance to explain himself?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I feel I have learned a lot about wilful ignorance, special pleading, moving the goalposts and the noble art of sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing there to upset your crazy ideas. Normally I see it only in religious fundamentalists, and it is refreshing to see this brand of crazy and not have to read the Bible all the time. I am sure you will be happy to hear that I am often told that I have never read that book either, that have not understood it, and have not given it a chance because – shock horror! – I did not share the person’s conclusions on it.

I believe you read the first two chapters. I don't believe you read the rest of the book. I understand your skepticism regarding conscience. But think about this: Why do we have a conscience at all? It's only function is to monitor our behavior, or there would be nothing to let us know that what we are doing is wrong (hurtful). But it has not been able work at full throttle. For you to dismiss his observations because you believe they are as unfounded as woodpeckers being the root cause of deforestation is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please check in now and again and let me know how the revolution is going! I can guarantee you it will not happen, which will not stop you from remaining absolutely convinced that all criticism is either mean-spirited, ignorant or just wrong because your father said so.

I don't believe all criticism was mean-spirited or ignorant, but I do think it was premature. The Golden Age is coming because we will have developed to the point where war is no longer necessary. This law of our nature has the power to prevent that for which blame and punishment was previously necessary, but don't worry, it's not going to happen in our lifetime.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;953762]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He never expected people to take his insights at face value, but you have to give him a chance to prove that he knew what he was talking about.

I think it would be quite reasonable to allow Vivisectus equal time to prove his hypothisis, 500 page party here we come.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

People have always assumed that woodpeckers are birds because they seem to fly, have feathers and lay eggs. We will now try to lift the veil from this pre-conceived notion that woodpeckers are birds and show, quite clearly and geographically, that this us not the case.

First off, you must understand that when a woodpecker flies, he does not do so in the same way that other creatures or objects fly. When a real bird flies, it does so by generating lift, that is to say by creating an upward force that is greater than the downward force of gravity. The woodpecker, however, does no such thing. It in fact reduces the gravitational pull of the earth on its body - thus allowing it to leave the earth. It does this by creating an anti-gravity field, caused by the magnetic forces created by the friction of its feathers as it flaps its wings up and down.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You may very well ask at this stage, "Oh Vivisectus, you indomitable fountain of penetrating discernment and devastatingly attractive prophet of incontestable truth, how can you say such a thing? Surely the flapping of the wings IS what makes the woodpecker fly?"

My answer is - it is no such thing. The flapping is merely a prerequisite that allow the bird to generate the forces that allow it to defy gravity - it has nothing to do with lift, and it is not air that is pushed downward by the wings that generate lift to make the woodpecker fly, but the anti-gravitational pull it generates that pulls it upwards in stead.

There is nothing about efferent vision that goes against the laws of physics Vivisectus. But your creative analogy got me laughing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
- Ad nauseam - Ad infinitum.

Summary of the last 500 pages.

Can we just get to the party?

??

[Stephen Maturin]

Nor is there anything about woodpeckers generating an anti-gravity field by flapping their wings that goes against physics! Oh deary deary me oh my, I cannot wait to see what wondrous discoveries lie behind the door marked "Woodpeckers are not birds"!!

[Doctor X]

You have to buy his book. . . .

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

your creative analogy got me laughing.

You may laugh, but fortunately the discovery that woodpeckers are not birds, and that the flapping of their wings is merely a prerequisite for their flight but has nothing to do with how they fly, is a completely geographical fact that does not need anyone to agree with it to come into full fruition, as it will soon be confirmed by those same scientists that are too afraid to learn new things by assuming that I am 100% correct and also, awesome, so in a way it kinda IS required that people believe in it and NOT in fact something that will automatically happen anyway no matter what, but hey I am a huge smartypants who has thought about this for all of 5 minutes, so if I contradicted myself I would have spotted it so I can't be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

What if Vivisectus is right about woodpeckers?

--J.D.

Please don't compare Lessans to this made up analogy to make him look as if he had nothing more than a hunch.

[The Lone Ranger]

A hunch?

Are you saying that it's not undeniably true that there is a very strong correlation between the presence of woodpeckers and deforestation? In fact, not only is it undeniably true, it is a conclusion based upon many, many years of astute observation.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, you really do need to see the comparison has some validity. This is why I am so adamant about evidence.

[peacegirl]

your creative analogy got me laughing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You may laugh, but fortunately the discovery that woodpeckers are not birds, and that the flapping of their wings is merely a prerequisite for their flight but has nothing to do with how they fly, is a completely geographical fact that does not need anyone to agree with it to come into full fruition.

This doesn't even fit because Lessans said that there has to be agreement for this knowledge to come to fruition.

Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

... as it will soon be confirmed by those same scientists that are too afraid to learn new things by assuming that I am 100% correct

Stop it Vivisectus. He never said scientists were too afraid to learn new things, nor did he want people to assume he was correct without a clear understanding of why he was correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

and also, awesome, so in a way it kinda IS required that people believe in it and NOT in fact something that will automatically happen anyway no matter what,

Yes, scientists will have to apply this knowledge for it to benefit mankind. It does take man's understanding for these fantastic changes to come about.

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the
prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the
astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these
bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their
course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist
makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million
dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate
this money on that date.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

but hey I am a huge smartypants who has thought about this for all of 5 minutes, so if I contradicted myself I would have spotted it so I can't be.

I am not a huge smartypants and I told you that if I contradicted myself, it's because I didn't reason carefully enough, but my few mistakes have nothing to do with whether his work is valid or not.