A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"Duh," Is that good enough? And is that your 'pretend ingore' button.

Also since you havn't really answered any questions yet, without dodging or hedging your answers, why should I expect any different now. It's All but impossable to get a straight answer out of you in 280+ pages.

It's not me that's dodging and hedging. How am I supposed to answer a non-question? You're pretending to be interested, but you're really not. You're out to hang me. Ninety nine percent of this thread has been nothing but attacks on Lessans' credibility. All you do is mimic what everyone else is saying. You haven't shown one ounce of interest because if you did, you would have carefully read this book by now. I'm not even referring to the senses. I told everyone that empirical testing will be the final judge. So don't use that discussion as a reason for not even attempting to understand his first discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Straight question. Does a camera take a picture 'afferently' or 'efferently'? Do I get a straight answer?

I am not getting back into this discussion doc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seems like you're trying to embarrass me to get me to leave in shame.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Seems like you keep saying you're going to leave and then don't. If you're not embarrassed by your feeble defense of Lessans and his nonsense, then I'm not sure you can be embarrassed. If you feel no shame about your plagiarism, I'm not sure you can feel shame.

You and your cronies have turned this book into nonsense. I don't feel shame because I don't consider using a few quotations (with the people who made those quotations) plagiarism. I did not use steal anyone's originality, or us anyone's words against them.

If you can't get me out that way, I'm sure you'll find another way.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Like what? Maybe I will report your post to a moderator and a moderator will ban you! MY FINGER IS ON THE BUTTON! Yeah, your martyrdom routine is still not getting any newer.

I don't know, but you'll think of something, I'm sure.

It's interesting to note that you can tell me to gtfo, but if I said this to you, I'd be torn to pieces.

Originally Posted by "ChuckF

No, you wouldn't be. I would lol at you and would not give a single fuck. No one can be "torn to pieces" here because this is the internet.

Thanks for the info. Then I can say it right backatcha! Gtfo gtfo gtfo gtfo gtfo!!!!!! Now that was refreshing.

[thedoc]

Lessans stated that proving determinism will disprove free will, but these are philosophical concepts and are not subject to mathametical or scientific proof, but are based on opinion and belief. Also these concepts are still being debated, therefore there is no possable way to absolutely prove any of it. His entire work is based on this false premise, and starting from a false premise negates the entire body of thought, he offered no concrete or absolute, proof only his opinion based on "astute observations" that he never revieled, but which are esential to the argument.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You and your cronies have turned this book into nonsense.

I know a quick way to restore its credibility: just sue the President! That's definitely a not crazy person thing to do.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not getting back into this discussion doc.

Dodging and evading again, and such an easy question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told everyone that empirical testing will be the final judge.
.

How do you propose to 'empiricaly test' free will and determinism? Lessans examples were all hypothetical and do not apply.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I know a quick way to restore its credibility: just sue the President! That's definitely a not crazy person thing to do.

Since Lessans evoked 'God' more than once in his book, and claimed to be a later day prophet, why not sue the Pope for obstruction? That is definately the sane and rational thing to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans stated that proving determinism will disprove free will, but these are philosophical concepts and are not subject to mathametical or scientific proof, but are based on opinion and belief.

100% wrong.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Also these concepts are still being debated, therefore there is no possable way to absolutely proove any of it.

That's real intelligent doc. There was a time the shape of the earth was being debated until it wasn't debated anymore because there was proof it was round. This deserves 5 duhs.

Originally Posted by thedoc

His entire work is based on this false premise, and starting from a false premise negates the entire body of thought, he offered no concrete or absolute, proof only his opinion based on "astute observations" that he never revieled, but which are esential to the argument.

His conclusion would obviously be false if his premise is false. But his premise is not false doc. Just because you gave a half assed summary that was based on a half asked read, is definitely half assed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Since Lessans evoked 'God' more than once in his book, and claimed to be a later day prophet, why not sue the Pope for obstruction? That is definately the sane and rational thing to do.

Doc, enough is enough. Obviously, your saying this to get a rise out of me. If you don't know by now how the word "God" is defined in the book, I give up. Please show me where he claimed to be a later day prophet, and I'll show you that it would be rational and sane to sue the Pope, if the Pope was obstructing justice. You're trying so hard to paint a picture of him that's misleading, but you will never succeed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was a time the shape of the earth was being debated until it wasn't debated anymore because there was proof it was round.

The Earth is a physical object (in case you haven't noticed) and subject to physical examination and measurement. Free will and determinism are phylosophical concepts and ideas (nonphysical), there are no empherical tests that apply, the argument does not apply, it's like compairing apples to oranges.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, enough is enough. Obviously, your saying this to get a rise out of me.

Butt out, I was answering Chuckf, this has nothing to do with you, BTW your over inflated EGO is showing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The Earth is a physical object (in case you haven't noticed) and subject to physical examination and measurement. Free will and determinism are phylosophical concepts and ideas (nonphysical), there are no empherical tests that apply, the argument does not apply, it's like compairing apples to oranges.

Absolutely false. Of course you can't compare the subject matter because one is a physical object and the other is a concept, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out what is true based on pure reason and observation. You've already decided he's wrong before you've even started. No wonder you're not taking his work seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Butt out, I was answering Chuckf, this has nothing to do with you, BTW your over inflated EGO is showing.

Don't tell me to butt out doc. I can speak if I have something to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me to butt out doc. I can speak if I have something to say.

If you have something to say? Thats a really big IF, You haven't said anything substantive for 290 pages, why start now?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Do you really want to play the "What you're really saying" game here? Really? Shall we talk about the real aspects of your relationship with your father that really animate your pointless apologia for his blather? I am guessing that you don't.

I'm sure peacegoil doesn't wanna talk about whatever you were referring to, but I sure do!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you can't compare the subject matter because one is a physical object and the other is a concept, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out what is true based on pure reason and observation.

Perhaps you would care to explain some of that "pure reason and observation" to us, because it was not obvious in the book. Quote a page and explain it in plane english, if you can.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me to butt out doc. I can speak if I have something to say.

Double standard? You tell others not to post, but no-one can tell you not to post or interfere, You're a hypocrite

[Doctor X]

There was a time people thought sight was efferent until studies showed otherwise.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans stated that proving determinism will disprove free will, but these are philosophical concepts and are not subject to mathametical or scientific proof, but are based on opinion and belief. Also these concepts are still being debated, therefore there is no possable way to absolutely prove any of it. His entire work is based on this false premise, and starting from a false premise negates the entire body of thought, he offered no concrete or absolute, proof only his opinion based on "astute observations" that he never revealed, but which are esential to the argument.

The hypothisis that 'proving determinism will disprove free will', is in fact the false premise. This relationship is in no way proved, or demonstrable, they may be compatable, or not. That Lessans stated it in one way, is only his opinion, and in no way proved. There are no empherical tests that will prove either concept or the relationship, there is only opinion and belief, any of which can easily be challenged, and quite sucessfully.

[thedoc]

There was a time when people thought some sky demon ate the sun and then spit it out again.

[thedoc]

There was a time when people thought the brain had no function to the body, and would discard it as waste on death, and not preserve it.

[thedoc]

There was a time when people believed that the earth was flat, and the Sun, Moon, Planets, and Stars were all bright lights on crystal spheres rotating over head. And Lessans believed that sight was efferent, and by eliminating the legal system we could bring peace and happiness to the world.

[thedoc]

Friedensmädchen, sind- Sie nichts, Sie haben nichts, werden gegangen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you have something to say? Thats a really big IF, You haven't said anything substantive for 290 pages, why start now?

That's all you keep saying, so why are you here? I'm not going to continue the conversation if you really aren't interested this book.