A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So should I fake it LadyShea just to please you?

Why not? You fake everything else.

Thats better.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why not? You fake everything else.

Thats better.

You know who does NOT fake it?

show spoiler

YOUR MOM!

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Hiya Liminus. I have links to PG's various Internet interactions on pages 1-2 of this thread. I think thedoc came here after interacting with her somewhere else too.

Unlike IIDB/FRDB and other forums, we don't close threads. We also don't censor, edit, or ban people (except for posting illegal stuff, commercial spam, or divulging private information). peacegirl seems to have a self control problem in that she feels this thread is a lost cause, a waste of time, and hopeless...yet is compelled to respond daily

I was a mod at IIDB 100 or so years ago, but left before PG posted there

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by liminus

Hey guys, thanks for the welcome!

Some spontaneous googling brought me here; I remember PG from her 10,000-post thread "New Discovery" on IIDB (now FRDB) 3 years ago. I was randomly reading bits of it the other day and thought I'd see if PG was still going on another forum, and of course discovered this latest gargantuan train-wreck. I haven't read much of it but random sampling has confirmed that the conversation is virtually identical to the one I remember.

I wasn't heavily involved in the FRDB thread but I've read the book (except for the elusive 10th chapter) and I've seen people try, over the span of about 9 months in the end, to explain to PG how light and sight work. I don't really care about the rest of it, it's the insane denial of completely understood physics (and biology) that I find fascinating.

Also, Hello Peacegirl! Dunno if you remember me but I could hardly forget you! How are you? Have you actually been doing this over and over on various forums for the last 3 years since FRDB? I know you were at it for at least 3 years before that. It's like you're frozen in time or something.

I would like you to take a look at my last post (#8799 on p352) and have a go at answering it, if you don't mind. Red light? Blue light? Purple? Ta very much.

There's a hell of a lot less moderation here than FRDB in fact moderation wise this is its polar opposite. Some may hate that I kinda like it. And welcome, although I'm a n00b myself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by liminus

[
Hey guys, thanks for the welcome!

I would like you to take a look at my last post (#8799 on p352) and have a go at answering it, if you don't mind. Red light? Blue light? Purple? Ta very much.

Since you have read the book as well, I would say close your eyes and let your mind project your favorite color. One time I was in a choir and the directer had the stupid idea that we should all get to know each other better by saying things like our favorite food, music etc. We were doing color and everyone was picking the typical choices and then they got to me. I already had a bit of a reputation but when I answered 'flesh' it just stopped everything. We just went on with singing after that.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you going to sue someone out of frustration?

I suggest President Obama. He's all distracted over the debt ceiling kerfuffle at the moment, so he might forget he's being sued and fail to file an answer. Hellooooo, default judgment!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You know who does NOT fake it?

show spoiler

YOUR MOM!

--J.D.

No, she doesn't fake much of anything anymore.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think thedoc came here after interacting with her somewhere else too.

That was on 'Dissadent Philosophy' but that got hopelessly distracted and off topic, she left on page 3 and some of us chatted for another page, I think it's still open.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am the judge of this work because I've read it many times and understand it; you haven't read this book even once. Your opinion isn't worth a can of beans.

You may be an expert on Lessans work but you are not an expert in biology or physics, both of which are relevant to Lessans claims. Lacking expertise in the relevant sciences means you lack the ability to accurately judge their relevance to your father's claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already. Under changed conditions no one in the entire world (thus, a universal law) could desire to strike someone with a first blow. THIS CAN BE TESTED EMPIRICALLY BUT IT'S NOT EASY TO COME BY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT. IF WILL WAS FREE, THE TEST WOULD FAIL.

In short, your claim is that Lessans' ideas have the potential to transform the world but this can only be proven by their actually transforming the world.

I have a used car I would very much like to sell to you. Considering that it has been parked in my corn crib for the past ten years you may reasonably be skeptical about its condition. However, I assure you that it is a perfectly functioning automobile. This fact can easily be confirmed once you have purchased the vehicle from me. If it works you will know that I was telling you the truth. Cash in advance, please.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

A discovery implies he actually was right and not just as the comic sketch puts it full of shit. And no its not a lie some people reviewed his book, us mostly at the moment and they didn't buy it for one second. That's peer review I believe.

He was right; it's not full of shit Sidhe, like you're trying to make it out to be. No one reviewed the book, and if they did, how do we know they were capable of understanding it? A peer review implies there is full understanding, which no one to my knowledge has acquired. That's not a put down; it's just the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yeah let's face it most cult leaders don't convince people by being right, they have some charisma thing going on. Perhaps he was not as approchable as the usual cult head, David Koresh or that guy who was wating for the mother ship in South America.

This doesn't even fit the description of a cult Sidhe. The fact that you are trying to compare the two is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Of course if you are right you don't need to have a winning personality, I'm told Newton was a complete asshole and few people liked him. Gravity did happen to work according to his inverse square law and its effect was although not instantaneous as he argued, as fast as light, inventing calculus simultaneously with Liebniz was pretty cool too and the other stuff with prisms and so on.

Well then...just put Lessans in that category. He was a quiet man so people might have said the same thing about him. But you can't fault him for that. He wasn't out to win a popularity contest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

There are people here who do understand the science you are welcome to convince me if you like. Showing me some experiments would be a start. What experiments have you or anyone done?

If I couldn't get past page 45 in all this time, what makes you think I can now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

...this thread is a (sad) example of 'irresistible force versus immovable object'.


"Well, PG won't stop!"

Then, why don't 'you' stop?

"Hell no! The Honor of Science, Logic, and all things Good is at stake! Besides, I'm bored and got nuthin' better to do..."

That's why I'm here. Boredom is a strong force.

[LadyShea]

Way to dodge his question. He asked what experiments have been done on Lessans ideas. The answer is "none", and you know it.

Sidhe, the only support we've been able to get is that Lessans made "astute observations".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by liminus

Hello, hello, hello.

PG, in regards to this real-time sight business.

One light-minute (18 million km) away from me is a light which can shine either red or blue.

The light switches on shining red. According to you, I will instantly see it as red even though no red light has reached me yet.

After one minute, the red light reaches me, and I will definitely see it as red whether in your real-time sight scenario or in the standard sight scenario. There is now an 18 million km-long beam of red light between me and the light source.

Now, the light switches to shine blue. What do I see? According to you, I instantly see the light shining blue. However the blue light will not reach me for one minute and for that whole minute, the beam of still-travelling red light will still be streaming into my eyes. So do I see red light? Do I see blue light?

Do I see purple light?

Thanks.

You will see the blue light instantly because it's not like drops of water that travel from another source. In this instance, we are not interpreting the color from the lightwaves. We are seeing the color changes in real time.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

That link you sent me by pm has a large amount of pages from the book you could link that.

To answer his question though of course since the information never travels through space or time and instantaneously arrives at your brain for interpretation any human observer will always see whatever colour the source is and that alone. A machine placed in the beam (at any point between the observer and source) would of course see either blue or red which teaches us nothing and makes the assertion still hopelessly unprovable. The fact is experiments using radio telescopes record light as blue or red shifted and light appears to attenuate according to the motion of the source, which is why peacegirls so far unsubstantiated opinion is just that. We see things not as they are in experiment but as they were, and we see effects as they are affected in real time by their motion from the source. If we did not then science is broken and all the evidence is a grand illusion. This is what she is suggesting, that science is just in its entirety utterly wrong. Problem is of course that means we cannot use the scientific method to explore this and so it has to be taken on faith. And faith is dangerously unconvincing to me.

You can use the scientific method; it's just that it's not easy to set up an experiment, but it can be done. It is falsifiable as I've said many times. I would be so happy if this could finally be resolved, one way or another. But tests have to be reliable. I'm not going to let bias ruin it. Do you not think some of these empirical studies aren't biased, skewing, or misinterpreting, the answers that they are looking for?

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will continue to see a red light. Look, you don't seem to understand what I mean by seeing images in real time. This has nothing to do with light that is traveling toward me. Efferent vision doesn't contradict your example in any way, shape, or form.

Why would you continue to see red light if the source has changed to blue and the light doesn't need to travel to our eyes to see the color?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

There are people here who do understand the science you are welcome to convince me if you like. Showing me some experiments would be a start. What experiments have you or anyone done?

I need to somehow prove to everyone that conscience works the way Lessans predicted. No scientific studies have been done because no one has come close to uncovering these findings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You want us to swallow some unexplainable renewable consciousness but I am the one with troublesome pseudoscientific beliefs.

That is not the chapter I wanted to focus on. In fact, I would have never given it to you because, until the other discoveries are recognized as undeniable, this discovery won't be taken with any seriousness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You want leading scientists and world leaders to read and understand this book, and put its principles into worldwide use, but their inevitable demands for evidence would be considered equivalent to asking chimpanzees to do math.

He said that the very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand this work may be so full of skepticism and false pride, that they will reject what they don't want, or believe, to be true. But I'm sure there are people who will help in this effort because they believe there is something to it, and want it verified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

What demonstration? He never demonstrated anything. At best, he gave a description. That is not the same thing as a demonstration. Or is this like where you/he use 'mathematical' and 'scientific' when there is no math or science involved at all?

He demonstrated why man's will is not free. His observations were not a tautology, nor were they a modal fallacy. I never got past page 45, so I don't know if you recognized where he proved this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Just pointing out the question that you seemed to have missed.....

I believe I answered this question, but I'll repeat: It was a process of reading, studying, and years and years of careful analysis that brought him to these findings. Other people who might have read and studied the same things as he did might not have been able to make the same discovery. He had a tremendous ability to see relationships that others did not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never got past page 45...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know that nobody can run scientifically valid tests without a testable hypothesis. I know that "greater satisfaction" is neither measurable or quantifiable empirically. That's all I need to understand

And talk about too big for your britches arrogance! You are the one who claims to have an Undeniable Truth to bless us with and won't even consider that Lessans might have been wrong.

Great, HOW can it be tested?

And why isn't it a hypothesis?

The proof that man's will is not free is that, under the changed conditions, no man can hurt another with a first blow. This can be tested only when we create the new world conditions that allow this fact to come forth. If will was free, we could hurt someone in spite of the new conditions. That is impossible. Don't you see why it's an undeniable principle? If man could hurt others under these conditions, it wouldn't be a universal law.