A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is it extraneous to learn that "you" are coming back. I think most people would want to know this even though there's no relationship between the "you" that just died and the "you" that has just been born.

Because there is no relation between individuals, the idea provides no scientifically valid answer of any important questions, and solves no actual problems ...that makes it extraneous.

The only thing it does is possibly provide comfort to some people...and like the myriad ideas regarding afterlife it's probably false comfort

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is 100% accurate. I don't know what other word he could have used, but he meant the potentiality of existence that is everpresent in the germinal substance of mankind (or the sperm and ovum).

You said it's a material substance with mass that takes up space, which would not describe "the everpresent potentiality of existence". A physical substance can be directly observed and measured. As I know of no substance in the human body that has not been directly observed and identified, then this substance would have a name within the scientific community if it takes up space and has mass.

It seems to me you tacked on the description of it being a physical substance that takes up space and has mass to make it sound scientific, but Lessans was describing a metaphysical "substance" like chi or a soul or a Universal Force ala Star Wars or something.

So which is it? You going for the science angle, which makes you look completely ignorant, or the spiritual angle which makes the whole thing a bunch of woo?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Observation and reasoning is just another way of saying inference based upon observations. In other words, Lessans is doing exactly the same thing that he criticizes his reader for doing, reasoning from personal observations. The only difference is that these are his observations and his reasoning. Why should we believe that his observations and his reasoning are any better than our own?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his reasoning was anything but poor. You don't know the tremendous reasoning ability this man had that allowed him to see relationships that no one else saw. Why do you think he was able to make these discoveries when no one else did? If they were that easy to uncover, they would have been uncovered a long time ago.

His reasoning was spot on, and I hope it won't be too much longer before you all realize this.

His reasoning skills as presented in the book are poor. If he had skills that were not demonstrated in his writing, well then there's no way for you to provide evidence for that. All you can do is assert that he was particularly astute and hope that someone, somewhere, at some time agrees with you.

[Kael]

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but this "spot-on observation" that "you" are coming back after death, by virtue of the fact that more humans will be born who are also conscious, is even more astoundingly idiotic than the efferent vision nonsense.

Still, I haven't stopped enjoying peacegirl's amazing mental acrobatics, even if she does seem to be falling back to "it's totally true, you just don't get it" more and more often of late.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his reasoning was anything but poor. You don't know the tremendous reasoning ability this man had that allowed him to see relationships that no one else saw. Why do you think he was able to make these discoveries when no one else did? If they were that easy to uncover, they would have been uncovered a long time ago.

1. If he saw relationships that no else saw it was because he imagined them. No one has suggested that his imagination was deficient.

2. He made no discoveries, he only imagined that he had.

You cannot defend his observations and reasoning by pointing to their results, when it is those very results that are most in question.

His ideas are great because he was a really great thinker. I know that he was a great thinker because he came up with these really great ideas.

That is your entire argument, and it is truly circular.

BTW, please start proofreading your posts and correcting your attributions. You have been asked nicely many times. Your failure to correct this problem is rude and disrespectful.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

1. He saw relationships that no else saw it was because he imagined them. No one has suggested that his imagination was deficient.

2. He made no discoveries, he only imagined that he had.

You cannot defend his observations and reasoning by pointing to their results, when it is those very results that are most in question.

His ideas are great because he was a really great thinker. I know that he was a great thinker because he came up with these really great ideas.

That is your entire argument, and it is truly circular.

BTW, please start proofreading your posts and correcting your attributions. You have been asked nicely many times. Your failure to correct this problem is rude and disrespectful.

I think he was high on something, Peacegirl is just something?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, all you need to know is the sperm and the ovum. You can replace germinal substance with that. Is that better?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it isn't better because we know what gametes are, and how they develop and from what they are comprised, and neither seems synonymous with the "germinal substance" Lessans discusses- as being that which continues on and on making it so "we" are born again and again.

It's the same thing LadyShea. It's the substance that contains the potential. Without C (the substance from which potential fertilization can take place), we would not be able to procreate. I don't know what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It appears that Lessans simply made up germinal substance in order to provide false comfort to people who fear death. I have to assume I am correct as you have been unable to explain how this is a scientific and not a metaphysical claim. If it is a scientific claim you should be able to point to this substance and tell me what scientists call it.

This claim has nothing to do with metaphysics. The germinal substance is whatever holds the sperm and the egg before fertilization. How's that?

Whoever gave us eyes, a nose, ears, and a brain, also gave us the ability to procreate by the transfer of sperm and egg to the next generation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, there is no "who" that gave us anything and we don't transfer sperm and egg to the next generation. Sperm and ova develop just like arms and brains do.

But it's passed on from one generation to the next, just like arms and legs are.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Was he talking about DNA?

Sort of, but he was being very specific so as to explain why individual consciousness is not seeing the entire picture. It's like looking at an individual tree, and thinking that's all there is when there is an entire forest but you can't see it because you're too close to the tree.

I hope I cleared things up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It indicates you have no idea how to differentiate reality from woo, or if you do you are unable to explain the difference

You seem to be getting stuck on the phrase "germinal substance", which, by the way, is not the crux of the discovery. Because your questions are not met with the answers that you deem necessary for this discovery not to be woo, is unfortunate, because this time you're really missing the boat, and you fail to see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations are absolutely undeniable, scientific, and mathematical. If you don't see it, that's a different story.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If his observations are scientific, then you ought to be able to provide evidence of the science that undergirds those observations. Likewise, if his observations are mathematical, then you ought to be able to provide the math that supports those observations. As for the undeniability of his observations, that they are not undeniable has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

You're wrong Angakuk. I have studied this book a lot longer than you have. You have not carefully studied Chapters One and Two; you have not read the rest of the book in a step by step fashion; you have not highlighted parts of the book you need help with. As far as the eyes go, I said numerous times that more empirical testing will determine the truth. The death chapter has not been studied at all, yet you tell me it's unsupported. He gives his reasoning right there in the chapter, but it's still difficult to grasp. So instead of reading it again to try to grasp his insights, you immediately say it's unsupported. That will get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Don't tell me about how wonderful his insights are. Show me the science. Show me the math. If there is no science, then it is not scientific. If there is no math, then it is not mathematical.

He explained early on that these words are synonomous. Something does not have to have numbers in them to be mathematical. This is a mathematical two-sided equation whether you see it or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But these are observations are based in reality, not faith. It has nothing to do with faith.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We know this, how? Because Lessans says so. Accepting that what he says is true, in the absence of supporting evidence, is an act of faith.

It is not. You're just not seeing where his proof is.

But it's not faith because the proof is in his observations. You can say his observations are wrong until the cows come home. But they're not wrong.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You can say that his observations are not wrong until the cows come home. That does not make them true.

Trust me, they are true. If one day people demand more empirical evidence, then that will have to take place. It's ashame that we can have a peaceful world and all people are doing is telling me his observations are just assertions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his observational skills and reasoning ability were particularly astute.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You can also say this until the cows come home. It it still does not make it true.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How can anyone argue with knowledge that turns out to be flawless?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me what other options do we have LadyShea other than to live, or to not live (in a literal sense)? Believe me, any of your choices will fall into one of these two categories.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I gave you an answer to that question. You just didn't like my answer because it wasn't the one you were fishing for.

No, that was a direct question to LadyShea, and I never got a straight answer.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How can anyone argue with knowledge that turns out to be flawless?

One quick random peek at a sentence from the asshat's scribblings, and after more than 300 pages in which every single "flawless" statement made by her idiot father has been demonstrated to be comprehensively and undeniably false, this is what she regurgitates from the pathetic script running in the player piano of what passes for her mind.



Priceless.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Trust me, they are true.

Ahh, the classic "Trust Me", of the consummate con-artist, along with "Would I Lie?" The real question when someone says something like this is 'What do they want?', and the answer, 'Your money', What else?

The only thing I regret is that I can't hear her say it in a honeyed voice and a sweet innocent look on her face. I was going to use the expression 'for my money' but I'm not spending a dime on this fantasy, wasting my time for the entertainment is bad enough.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the same thing LadyShea. It's the substance that contains the potential. Without C (the substance from which potential fertilization can take place), we would not be able to procreate. I don't know what you're getting at.

There is no material substance that I am aware of that contains "the potential". I am asking you what substance Lessans was referring to?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This claim has nothing to do with metaphysics. The germinal substance is whatever holds the sperm and the egg before fertilization. How's that?

How's that? "That" is non answer.

What on Earth do you mean "holds the egg and sperm before fertilization"? I have been through extensive fertility treatments, I have seen my eggs on ultrasound and had them removed from my body vie needle aspiration, and seen the resulting zygotes in their petri dish. I did research into every aspect of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and fetal development and never have I come across any mention of any substance like that you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's passed on from one generation to the next, just like arms and legs are.

What is?

Sort of, but he was being very specific so as to explain why individual consciousness is not seeing the entire picture. It's like looking at an individual tree, and thinking that's all there is when there is an entire forest but you can't see it because you're too close to the tree.

That is a metaphysical claim...in fact it is the epitome of one.

He was positing that consciousness is not the product of an individual living brain, but some sort of shared non-biological phenomena.

You seem to be getting stuck on the phrase "germinal substance", which, by the way, is not the crux of the discovery.

It is the crux of the discovery, because without it there is the simple materialist view that consciousness is the individual product of an individuals' living brain

Because your questions are not met with the answers that you deem necessary for this discovery not to be woo, is unfortunate, because this time you're really missing the boat, and you fail to see it.

You can't explain it so that it isn't spouting woo. Your failure in "seeing it" not mine.

[thedoc]

It seems that many contributors to this thread are becoming more and more frustrated with Peacegirl's responses, that lack substantive answers or clarification. It is as if they, like I, am drawn to this thread in spite of the obvious dissatisfaction of being here. I know I often feel that I am compeled to be here even though it is 'greater dissatisfaction' and therefore contradicts what Lessans states in his book.

[Doctor X]

Trust me, sight is afferent.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

No, that was a direct question to LadyShea, and I never got a straight answer.

I gave you a straight answer ages ago and you thanked me for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Seeing as the book is made up of nonsense, I don't think it would be that hard.

Wildernesse, from that comment I don't think you know anything more about this discovery than when I first introduced this thread to everyone. Just sayin.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You did it again. That was vivisectus, not me. Please fix your quote tags and proofread your posts.

Sorry, but when I heard the word "souls", I immediately thought of Zombies. I'm not sure what quote tags I messed up.

[Henry Quirk]

"I know I often feel that I am compeled to be here even though it is 'greater dissatisfaction' and therefore contradicts what Lessans states in his book."

HA!

Actually: as dissatisfying as participating in the thread might be, the alternative is even more so, so: you 'are' following the path to 'greater satisfaction' (no matter how thorny it might be)...

[peacegirl]

[quote=thedoc;961016][quote=peacegirl;961007][quote=thedoc;960782
Actually it would help if you could demonstrate that you understand the book apart from quoting it, which does not indicate understanding, just the ability to recognize key words.[/quote]

How could I have put together a 600 page book without understanding what he was saying?

Originally Posted by thedoc

My wife has worked for a printing company her entire working life, and has put together many books, phamplets, programs, brochures, without needing to understand any of it. She just put it in the correct order, in the right place. Putting a book together for printing is not an indication of understanding.

You're wrong. I had to understand this book because it's not the same as putting together a pamphlet or a brochure. In that case, you're just following orders. In this case, it's connecting the concepts in a way that makes sense. I spent years fixing and refixing because I didn't like the way it flowed. So don't tell me that this is the same thing because it's not.

Originally Posted by thedoc

That the book is difficult to understand, and has been described as poorly writen

Put your money where your mouth is. Where is it poorly written?

Originally Posted by thedoc

...and awkward in style, may be an indication that you did not understand it enough to put it together properly.

What makes your opinion that it is an awkward style any better than my opinion that it is not?

Originally Posted by thedoc

That you do not understand the book would explain the errors and gaps in the reasoning

Since you know so much about the book, tell me where there are errors and gaps in the reasoning, and I'll show you it's your reasoning that's off.

Originally Posted by thedoc

... it would also explain why you can only quote passages to answer questions and objections. That you do not understand would explain why you continually ask readers to explain sections of the book to you, you are fishing for the explinations and answers that you do not have.

Not true. I don't answer only those questions that relate to the passages I posted. I have continually answered questions without the use of the book.

And for you to make a big deal about my trying to figure out what people understand by their answers is ridiculous. It's a means of evaluation. Don't we have quizzes in school? Isn't the teacher supposed to know where her student's are in their understanding? I don't want to move forward until I know what people understand and what they don't? Look where it's gotten me? Why are you fishing for ways to discredit me when you are the least person who is in the position to do so?

[Doctor X]

Actually, do not trust me, read the science.

But you are too much of a coward

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That you cannot explain the book in other words and phrases is another indication that you do not really understand it.

Accusing you of writing that book is not a compliment. But I can agree with part of your statement.

I think you're in elementary school to make a comment like that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I fixed the quote tag above, you attributed my words to Angukuk

Thanks!

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

We're talking about consciousness, not "you" in particular.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then the whole thing is indistinguishable from the materialistic view that death=cessation of an individual's consciousness (due to the death of a living brain) and birth=the emergence of an individual's consciousness (due to the formation of a living brain) and is therefor extraneous and should be eliminated due to Occams Razor.

How is it extraneous to learn that "you" are coming back. I think most people would want to know this even though there's no relationship between the "you" that just died and the "you" that has just been born.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because there is no relation between individuals, the idea provides no scientifically valid answer of any important questions

Oh really?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

, and solves no actual problems ...that makes it extraneous.

That's your opinion LadyShea. Just because it's not you that's coming back, doesn't make it extraneous.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only thing it does is possibly provide comfort to some people...and like the myriad ideas regarding afterlife it's probably false comfort

For someone who is supposed to be extremely objective, that's pretty biased. At least you added "probably."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is 100% accurate. I don't know what other word he could have used, but he meant the potentiality of existence that is everpresent in the germinal substance of mankind (or the sperm and ovum).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said it's a material substance with mass that takes up space, which would not describe "the everpresent potentiality of existence".

The germinal substance has mass, but the potentiality of existence that it holds does not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A physical substance can be directly observed and measured. As I know of no substance in the human body that has not been directly observed and identified, then this substance would have a name within the scientific community if it takes up space and has mass.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It seems to me you tacked on the description of it being a physical substance that takes up space and has mass to make it sound scientific,

I'm not trying to make it sound like anything...I'm just trying to help you understand the concept of "germinal substance."

Originally Posted by LadyShea

but Lessans was describing a metaphysical "substance" like chi or a soul or a Universal Force ala Star Wars or something.

So which is it? You going for the science angle, which makes you look completely ignorant, or the spiritual angle which makes the whole thing a bunch of woo?

Are you kidding me? Didn't you read the first part of that chapter where he writes...

I am not speaking of
reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of
the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you
are this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric
Johnson refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free,
or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core
was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first
hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be
skeptical, but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my
discovery after you have studied the relations, not before.

It's not my fault if you can't see the accurate but difficult relations. I do understand though because it's taken me many years to finally have an "aha" moment, as Oprah says.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Observation and reasoning is just another way of saying inference based upon observations. In other words, Lessans is doing exactly the same thing that he criticizes his reader for doing, reasoning from personal observations. The only difference is that these are his observations and his reasoning. Why should we believe that his observations and his reasoning are any better than our own?

Because his observations and reasoning is anything but personal, that's why.

Because his observational skills and reasoning ability were particularly astute.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no evidence on which to base a belief that his observations were particularly astute. Since he regularly used very poor reasoning, we know those skills were not particularly astute.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But his reasoning was anything but poor. You don't know the tremendous reasoning ability this man had that allowed him to see relationships that no one else saw. Why do you think he was able to make these discoveries when no one else did? If they were that easy to uncover, they would have been uncovered a long time ago.

His reasoning was spot on, and I hope it won't be too much longer before you all realize this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His reasoning skills as presented in the book are poor. If he had skills that were not demonstrated in his writing, well then there's no way for you to provide evidence for that. All you can do is assert that he was particularly astute and hope that someone, somewhere, at some time agrees with you.

Who are you LadyShea to tell me his reasoning skills are poor? Did you ever think that it is you who might not have the intellectual capacity to determine whether this knowledge is truly genuine or not? I didn't mean this to be nasty, but for you to say something like this is very narrow minded, and I know you pride yourself on being open minded. You won't let go of the fact that he didn't come to his findings by means of empiricism. That's why you're losing your way, and will continue to do so.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems that many contributors to this thread are becoming more and more frustrated with Peacegirl's responses, that lack substantive answers or clarification. It is as if they, like I, am drawn to this thread in spite of the obvious dissatisfaction of being here. I know I often feel that I am compeled to be here even though it is 'greater dissatisfaction' and therefore contradicts what Lessans states in his book.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have an unhealthy fascination with crap.

Reading Lessans' book is much like watching "Crank: High Voltage" to me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you're in elementary school to make a comment like that.

Then perhaps a response that is more on your level of understanding, - Nanny nanny poo poo.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"I know I often feel that I am compeled to be here even though it is 'greater dissatisfaction' and therefore contradicts what Lessans states in his book."

HA!

Actually: as dissatisfying as participating in the thread might be, the alternative is even more so, so: you 'are' following the path to 'greater satisfaction' (no matter how thorny it might be)...

Trouble-maker.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained early on that these words are synonomous. Something does not have to have numbers in them to be mathematical. This is a mathematical two-sided equation whether you see it or not.

There is no math and there is no science. You and Lessans can play around with redefining words until the cows come home. We are under no obligation to accept those idiosyncratic definitions. Your persistance in describing ideas that are neither scientific nor mathematical as being both scientific and mathematical is disingenous, at best.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can anyone argue with knowledge that turns out to be flawless?

Irrelevant. We are not arguing with knowledge that has turned out to be flawless. We are arguing against Lessans' very flawed ideas, observations and arguments.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that was a direct question to LadyShea, and I never got a straight answer.

What does it matter to you who answered the question? You are not engaged in a private conversation. Answers have been given.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because your questions are not met with the answers that you deem necessary for this discovery not to be woo...

There is no discovery

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is the crux of the discovery...

Shame on you LS, you know perfectly well that there is no discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wildernesse, from that comment I don't think you know anything more about this discovery than when I first introduced this thread to everyone.

There is no discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but when I heard the word "souls", I immediately thought of Zombies. I'm not sure what quote tags I messed up.

The ones where you attributed to me something that vivisectus wrote. Please try to pay attention.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I had to understand this book because it's not the same as putting together a pamphlet or a brochure. In that case, you're just following orders. In this case, it's connecting the concepts in a way that makes sense. I spent years fixing and refixing because I didn't like the way it flowed.

You failed, rather spectacularly.