A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

She could start by reading TLR's explanation, but she will not because she knows if she does she will know she is wrong.

So she covers her eyes . . . hoping the monster of reality will not see her.

Funny, her "Efferent Theory" remains contradicted by visual field deficits and neglects. As it is contradicted by, well, everything.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to know how it was verified, conclusively, and not just a logical leap of faith that what appears to be occurring, is actually occurring.

I don't think you would like to know at all. If you wanted to know you would review the vast amount of research and literature to be found on the subject-from anatomy to neuroscience to physics

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to know how it was verified, conclusively, and not just a logical leap of faith that what appears to be occurring, is actually occurring.

Oh, you would like to know how it was verified, would you? Hmmm?

Then why don't you read The Lone Ranger's essay on the topic?

Then you would know.


But you do not want to know. That is the point.

There is no "leap of faith" involved in our understanding of how light and vision work. Our understanding has been built up by centuries of experimentation and observation, by careful study and by science. That your father was ignorant of all this is not our fault.

Your desperate, repeated charge that our understanding of light and sight is somehow an "assumption" or a "leap of faith," is as ignorant as saying that our understanding that the earth is round and moves around the sun is a "leap of faith." It is not a leap of faith. It is empirically verified.

[thedoc]

Just in case some of you missed the really big 300 page party,

YouTube - ‪Peggy Lee - The Party's...

&feature=fvst

YouTube - ‪Peggy Lee - Fools Rush...

&feature=related

YouTube - ‪Peggy Lee -- Is That All...

&feature=related

YouTube - ‪Peggy Lee - Bye Bye...

&feature=related
Ta,ta - ta,ta - ta,ta - thats all fokes.

[thedoc]

Just in case some of you missed the really big 300 page party,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IZk7jP0LkM&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXM-3...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVdz4...eature=related

Ta,ta - ta,ta - ta,ta - thats all fokes.

[thedoc]

Sorry, I must have double clicked?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it was Einstein's theory, number one, and number two, you said you were interested in this topic, in particular, didn't you?

Who cares if it was Einstein' theory? Am I related to Einstein? No. And even if I were, it would be retarded of me to defend a theory simply because I was a relative of the person who proposed it. That's your department -- defending your father's work simply because he was your father. In fact, that's an ad homimem fallacy -- suggesting that someone was right about something, simply because of his personal characteristics.

Moreover, Einstein was wrong about two key ideas that he chased for most of his life: the unified field theory and his claim that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory. There. I just said, "Einstein was wrong." Do I feel threatened by that? Why would I? No, again, it is you, and you alone, who are threatened by the truth.

And no, I have no particular interest in relativity theory, any more than any other theory. I just simply point out the fact that relativity theory, which is well supported and repeatedly empirically verified, flatly contradicts real-time seeing: makes real-time seeing impossible, not least because relativity theory demonstrates that there is no such thing as "real time." But all this has been repeatedly explained to you. You should be thanking the very bright people who have taken the trouble to give you, free of charge on this thread, the education that you obviously missed or slept through in your school days. Instead, you insult the people doing you this favor.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will repeat that this knowledge has nothing to do with modal logic, so how can there be a modal fallacy? This knowledge is mathematical, undeniable, and scientific. I'm sorry you don't like those words, but do you see the word logical in there. No, because that's not what this knowledge is based on.

This is just another of your responses.

You mentioned that Angakuk said that efferent seeing was not illogical, as if this were a point in its defense. It's not.

Here are some things that are logically possible. It is logically possible that pigs fly. It is logically possible that donkeys talk. It is logically possible that if I flap my arms, I will fly to the moon. And it is logically possible that efferent seeing is real.

All the above means is that the claims do not involve a logical contradiction. Anything that does not involve a logical contradiction is logically possible.

Some things that are not logically possible: It is not logically possible that there be a square circle. It is not logically possible that there be a married bachelor. It is not logically possible that 2 + 2 =5. And so on.

The point is: to say that something is logically possible, is not to imply that it actually exists. So, while all are logically possible, there are no actual flying pigs, talking donkeys, people flapping their arms and flying to the moon, and there is no such thing as efferent seeing.

More free education for you, this time in elementary modal logic. You're welcome!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What self-interest Vivisectus? I'm not here for my benefit.

Funny but sad. No understanding, no doubt? There is no rock-hard certainy of delusion. There's just rock-hard certainty.

And you could be third in line if you just gave up the attitude.

Because you don't have a rebuttal that's worth its salt. That's why you can't compete. You really will like the new world, I promise.

I'm not fighting you; you're fighting me.

Your wish is my command! I just checked him out. How can you compare him to Lessans?

I have been following him for a while. He too peddles a happy ever after. He too made predictions that never came to pass. And even when he is blatantly, obviously wrong in a way no sane person could ever deny, his followers just ignore it, or actually make up outrageously unlikely excuses just so they can keep believing.

You see, if they give up, they have to admit that they were wrong, which many people do not like. They also have to admit that they wasted their time and money. But worst of all - they have to give up what they think are front-row seats in the afterlife. They have to realize they are actually not Jezus's Specialest Snowflakes. And they have to admit they followed what is either a fool or a conman, or a mixture of both.

No reason can dent the armor of their beliefs. Reality does not phase them one bit. Because to give up those beliefs they have to give up this comfortable feeling of superiority and the certainty of a perfect afterlife.

So even though this man's predictions failed, and even though he is obviously and demonstrably wrong, they keep wasting their time and money on a bunch of nonsense.

Just like you. You are one of those believers. I advise you to have a look at them. You will be able to spot very easily where they went wrong. Then try to imagine yourself being stuck in a similar situation and see if it fits.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you are because you wouldn't be so upset.

People get upset with you because people of intelligence, honesty and integrity (that would be us, the people you are corresponding with here) become naturally indignant, and even angry, at egregious displays of dishonesty and willful ignorance by phonies such as yourself, who is trying to make money off a book full of ridiculous fairy tales. Honest people respond with indignation to such dishonesty. It's that simple.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying, but so far I don't see the relationship.

You're lying.

It's very simple, so I know you get it.

The whole theory of relativity depends on the very thing that Lessans denies: that information is delivered by light to the eye at a finite rate of speed, and the light is transduced to the the brain. That's it. Simple. What's not to get?

If real-time seeing were true, relativity theory would be incoherent. And none of its predictions could be borne out experimentally. But they are, all the time, and have been for more than a hundred years.

Hence, real-time seeing is proven to be empirically false. Q. E. D.

[davidm]

The Secret, Esoteric Writings of Seymour Lessans — Deconstructed!



Now I’m going to look at the ideas that Lessans puts forth is his Secret Writings, writings that Maturin (who, alas, is all hair but no substance ) dug up via Amazon.

What is his Big Secret that peacegirl didn’t want to tell us?

We will all live forever — just not as ourselves!

What happens when you die? “Your” subjective point of view, “your” consciousness, “passes over” to the next person born in the world!

I put “your” in quotes here because we have to very carefully explore what “I” and “Your” mean in such a scenario, meaning we have to study this within the framework of the philosophy of personal identity.

Notice that this is not reincarnation. Usually, reincarnation is presented as the thesis that we each have a “soul” that is the bearer of our irreducible personal characteristics, and the life that we lead is but a vessel for that soul. When we die, under the thesis of reincarnation, the soul somehow inhabits a new body, and so personal characteristics in some irreducible sense are passed on from one life to the next. Usually, accounts of reincarnation posit that we are either rewarded or punished in the next life for our behavior in the previous life, and so it goes on and on for generation after generation. Many eastern traditions counsel the pursuit of enlightenment to attain Nirvana — the escape from the endless wheel of birth, death and rebirth.

The idea that Lessans puts forth involves no soul whatever. So it’s very different from reincarnation. In fact, what Lessans proposes, so far as I can tell from reading his writing on it (yes, peacegirl, we really do read what Lessans writes, as this very post I’m making proves) is exactly the same as what Wayne Stewart proposes in an online book, here.

Stewart calls this phenomenon “existential passage,” and that is what I will call it, since it’s rather colorful and easy to remember, and since, so far as I recall, Lessans gave no particular name to this alleged phenomenon.

Why is “existential passage” such good news? Because according to Lessans, The Golden Age will soon be upon us, when everyone realizes that Lessans was right about all the stuff that he wrote, and the world will be perfect. Hence, when you die, you will be born, again and again and again, into a perfect world!

If the Golden Age does NOT come to pass, then existential passage doesn’t sound very attractive, alas. Remember, it’s not reincarnation, and there is no notion of karma — of being rewarded in the next life, for example, for virtuous behavior in this life.

Existential Passage is just a big roulette wheel. For instance, Einstein died in 1955. For all we know, the next person born in the world after Einstein was Billy Buttfuck in Tuscaloosa, Ala., who grew up to be a racist Ku Klux Klan member with an I.Q. of 35. Existential passage: not so good for Einstein.

In fact, if EP is true, since it happens again and again, the probabilities converge on unity that each of us will experience terrible lives, again and again: We will raped by an abusive parent, we will be tortured to death as political prisoners, we will die in a fire. And so on.

Of course, one can’t appeal to negative consequences as a way of rejecting some hypothesis or theory. The hypothesis will either be true or false regardless of the consequences.

Both Stewart and Lessans make the following key point about EP: You are conscious only in relation to others, and so your consciousness will be yours, your personal identity consistent across time, while you are in “this” life. That is, you cannot have the consciousness of anyone else in the world, who is alive at the same time you are. You can only “pass” to a future, non-existent person. That’s very important to keep in mind, as I hope to show.

So does the existential passage promoted by Lessans and Stewart make any sense? I’ll present the arguments pro and con in a later post.

[LadyShea]

It's nonsense and pointless to even posit. I mean why would anyone spend time thinking that up at all? What questions does it answer or problems does it solve?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's nonsense and pointless to even posit. I mean why would anyone spend time thinking that up at all? What questions does it answer or problems does it solve?

Go ask Wayne Stewart. He wrote an entire book on this single, solitary subject.

Actually, don't ask him; it'll make him mad.

[LadyShea]

I found this objection and response (Shleyfer and Stewart) that was interesting

Is your discussion with him archived davidm?

[LadyShea]

Also david, what are you thoughts as to why people spend time on this topic?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I found this objection and response (Shleyfer and Stewart) that was interesting

Is your discussion with him archived davidm?

I don't know. It was on the old Dawkins message board which was dismantled. I don't know if they archived the discussion or not, or if the archives are still online.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also david, what are you thoughts as to why people spend time on this topic?

Want of a good hobby?

[LadyShea]

LOL, did you by any chance read the objection and responses? John Urban shared many of my thoughts on the subject

[davidm]

So, let’s look carefully at what Lessans and Stewart propose here.

The question of personal identity over time dates back at least to the ancient Greeks and the Ship of Theseus:

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
—Plutarch, Theseus

Is it the same ship or not? People will disagree, but what they can agree on is that the first ship and the later ship have something in common: Though made of entirely different materials, they share the same pattern: The later ship looks the same as the earlier ship, and functions the same.

Now consider this scenario: Evil doctors kidnap Bob, and put Bob to sleep. They operate on his brain to wipe it clear of all memories, and reset his brain so that when Bob wakes up, he is now Frank, a totally different person with a totally different set of memories. Maybe they even do plastic surgery on him so Frank looks totally different from Bob. Are Bob and Frank the same person? Is it fair at least to say that Frank is in some sense a “continuation” of Bob, under a different guise?

Here again people will differ, but what we can agree on, what’s obviously true, is that Bob and Frank share something. In the case of the Ship of Theseus, the two versions of the boat shared the same pattern, but not the same substance. In the case of Bob and Frank, it’s the opposite: They share the same substance, but not the same pattern. But in both cases something is shared in common.

A third scenario: reincarnation. Bob dies, and his soul leaves his body and is reborn in the infant Frank. Is Frank a continuation of Bob?

If the “I” is taken to reside in the soul, then yes, although Frank might be a different person in many key respects from Bob. But here again, what’s true, and what we can all agree on, is that Bob and Frank share something: a soul. The fact that in all three cases, something is shared, is what motivates the discussion of personal identity over time.

Now let’s consider existential passage.

We’ll use the example of Albert Einstein and Billy Buttfuck.

Einstein dies in 1955. The next person born in the world is Billy Buttfuck, in Tuscaloosa, Ala. So Lessans and Stewart would have us believe that Einstein somehow “passes” to Buttfuck.

Do Einstein and Buttfuck, like the Ship of Theseus, have the same pattern in common? No.

Do they have the same substance in common, like Bob and Frank? No.

Do they share the same soul, as in reincarnation scenarios? No.

So, what do they share!

Nothing!

Moreover — as both Lessans and Stewart say — Billy Buttfuck has no memory whatsoever of having been Einstein. And Einstein has no intimation of “passing” to Buttfuck on his death, or sensation of doing so.

Given all these facts, which both Lessans and Stewart admit, my question to peacegirl is: explain why we should believe that Einstein “passes" to Billy Buttfuck!

Wayne Stewart sure couldn’t explain it! And Lessans doesn’t explain it (merely asserts it, as always) in his Secret Writings.

So, peacegirl, maybe you can explain it!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, did you by any chance read the objection and responses? John Urban shared many of my thoughts on the subject

Actually I read that exchange sometime ago, I'm going to reread in in a bit when I get a chance. Thanks for posting that.

[LadyShea]

Given all these facts, which both Lessans and Stewart admit, my question to peacegirl is: explain why we should believe that Einstein “passes to Billy Buttfuck!

I'd like to add to this question

Explain what exactly it is that Einstein passes to Billy Buttfuck
Explain how this passing of whatever it is from Einstein to Billy Buttfuck is accomplished

Also, I'd like to know what question this concept answers and why that question is important and I'd like to know what problem this concept solves, if any. Basically why is this even a concept anyone should be concerned with? I felt useless just spending my time reading it as it seems totally void of significance or importance.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'd like to add to this question

Explain what exactly it is that Einstein passes to Billy Buttfuck
Explain how this passing of whatever it is from Einstein to Billy Buttfuck is accomplished

Also, I'd like to know what question this concept answers and why that question is important and I'd like to know what problem this concept solves, if any. Basically why is this even a concept anyone should be concerned with? I felt useless just spending my time reading it as it seems totally void of significance or importance.

I think the usefulness of the discussion is this: it can be parlayed into an interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of identity across time and transformation, which I hoped to have touched on in my previous post, and also, as I will try to explain a little later, it provokes a most interesting discussion on the philosophy of time. So even empty concepts can be put to good use.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think the usefulness of the discussion is this: it can be parlayed into an interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of identity across time and transformation, which I hoped to have touched on in my previous post, and also, as I will try to explain a little later, it provokes a most interesting discussion on the philosophy of time. So even empty concepts can be put to good use.

You're right, and I found your previous post edifying in that it concisely explained some ideas that are so self evident to me that I hadn't bothered articulating them, though I probably should have at some point. I even might have had I ever had this discussion come up before.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're right, and I found your previous post edifying in that it concisely explained some ideas that are so self evident to me that I hadn't bothered articulating them, though I probably should have at some point. I even might have had I ever had this discussion come up before.

That's what a lot of philosophy is -- articulating in a rigorous way ideas that are so self-evident that one usually doesn't bother articulating them.