A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You had a step by step summary Spacemonkey, but you did not really understand how the two-sided equation works because of the questions that came afterward.

What questions? Be specific. You're bluffing, just like you were bluffing about your memory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You could not see how not blaming could prevent conscience from allowing a person to move in the direction of hurting others with a first blow.

That relies upon his listed presuppositions about conscience which you've never once even tried to support.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why can't you face up to and acknowledge your own memory impairment?

Because it's not just memory impairment, it's also faulty reasoning. You have to have sufficient reasoning ability to detect perception or memory problems. peacegirl has repeatedly and consistently displayed dysfunctional reasoning.

[Spacemonkey]

EVIDENCE OF MEMORY IMPAIRMENT.

Peacegirl, it is time for you to face up to at least one small part of your cognitive impairment. You recently posted this:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not here to start the conversation again, but I do want to express my gratitude to those who helped me make certain changes. As much as I didn't like the things Vivisectus accused Lessans of, I can now see how he looked arrogant to those who didn't know him. I know he wasn't, but that doesn't change how the words he used made him appear. Thank you Vivisectus, if you're reading this. The other person I want to thank is LadyShea. Even though he didn't cite references, you helped me to take out that one sentence that people could have misinterpreted. I also want to thank you for sharing your ideas on marketing. I'm just about at that stage, and anything that could be helpful is greatly appreciated. I really felt the need to express my appreciation because I believe you have my best interest at heart.

To which I replied:-

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's exactly what you said last time. Do you remember that?

Obviously I was referring to this post:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not posting to start another conversation. I just wanted to give people a heads up on my progress. Because of input from this forum I have revised the introduction to make it less redundant. I feel more confident than ever, thanks to the constructive criticism I received. Thanks again.

This was from the 22nd of April, when you returned after having successfully quit posting here for a full 20 days. You said then, just as you did more recently above, that you were not returning to restart the conversation (and were only returning to let us know that you had made some alterations to the introduction), yet you immediately went on to post hundreds of further posts discussing both of your father's non-discoveries (and to complain whenever anyone else appeared to show a lack of willingness to discuss them).

So my point in saying that you had said before that you weren't returning to restart the conversation was that the last time you said this it turned out to be complete bollocks. Yet when I pointed this out you showed no recollection at all of the April post. When I asked you if you could remember what I was talking about you had no idea, and could only recall a different post from three days ago where you said:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, that's not what is happening. The eyes are not reaching out to capture the image. The image is there already. You are not grasping why light is at the eye because of how the eyes work, which is the opposite of light needing to travel. This changes the phenomenon completely and it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I really don't want to start this conversation again because it's going to go nowhere. Why can't you wait until more empirical proof is done? If you don't believe what he's saying is even plausible, then why care what his claims are, you won't believe it anyway.

When I explained that this was not the post I was referring to, and asked you if you knew what post I was talking about, you bluffed by claiming to know exactly what I was talking about but failing to actually show that you did. You then tried to pass it off as something you probably don't remember because it was unimportant, yet this was the biggest change in your posting behavior in your entire time here - an entire three week break where you had tried to quit, only to return with the exact same words as above (which turned out to be completely false).

You have significant memory impairment, Peacegirl. Why can you not admit to this obvious fact?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know nothing about his first discovery David.

Were you going to address the above questions, peacegirl? Here, let me repeat them for you:

Can you explain why NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies, if we see in real time?

How many times have you been asked this question, and how many times have you run away from it? And you have the audacity to ask questions of us?

It's all of a piece of your disgusting hypocrisy. You demand that everyone read Lessans' stupid book, which several of us in fact did read, but you still refuse to read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight, don't you?

As for Leassan's alleged first discovery, it has already been explained to you why it commits two logical fallacies, of circularity and modality, and there is nothing more to say about it. It's just a boneheaded exercise in incompetent argumentation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

EVIDENCE OF MEMORY IMPAIRMENT.

Peacegirl, it is time for you to face up to at least one small part of your cognitive impairment. You recently posted this:-

To which I replied:-

Obviously I was referring to this post:-

This was from the 22nd of April, when you returned after having successfully quit posting here for a full 20 days. You said then, just as you did more recently above, that you were not returning to restart the conversation (and were only returning to let us know that you had made some alterations to the introduction), yet you immediately went on to post hundreds of further posts discussing both of your father's non-discoveries (and to complain whenever anyone else appeared to show a lack of willingness to discuss them).

So my point in saying that you had said before that you weren't returning to restart the conversation was that the last time you said this it turned out to be complete bollocks. Yet when I pointed this out you showed no recollection at all of the April post. When I asked you if you could remember what I was talking about you had no idea, and could only recall a different post from three days ago where you said:-

When I explained that this was not the post I was referring to, and asked you if you knew what post I was talking about, you bluffed by claiming to know exactly what I was talking about but failing to actually show that you did. You then tried to pass it off as something you probably don't remember because it was unimportant, yet this was the biggest change in your posting behavior in your entire time here - an entire three week break where you had tried to quit, only to return with the exact same words as above (which turned out to be completely false).

In April I thought I was leaving but because people were still asking relevant questions, I decided to stay. This time I don't feel there is anything left to add to the conversation on the eyes, so I do not want to start the conversation again. If it happens again, then something that someone said made me change my mind, but at this point I don't want to discuss it anymore. As far as thanking people for their input, yes, I said this a couple times for different reasons. I cut down on some of the wording in the introduction because it was too long winded thanks to people telling me this. The second thank you was for different reasons. I still don't understand your obsession with my memory which has nothing to do with the validity of this discovery.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have significant memory impairment, Peacegirl. Why can you not admit to this obvious fact?

Because I don't believe I do, and it's none of your concern.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Were you going to address the above questions, peacegirl? Here, let me repeat them for you:

As for Leassan's alleged first discovery, it has already been explained to you why it commits two logical fallacies, of circularity and modality, and there is nothing more to say about it. It's just a boneheaded exercise in incompetent argumentation.

You are absolutely 100% wrong as far as his first discovery being circular or a modal fallacy. You keep harping on this because you have nothing else in your bag of refutations that will make this book go away. Face it, you don't like Lessans because of his claim regarding the eyes. But this is never going to stop this knowledge from becoming well known. One day this claim will be tested empirically, and don't tell me it has already been tested. The truth always comes out in time, even if we're all dead.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What questions? Be specific. You're bluffing, just like you were bluffing about your memory.

That relies upon his listed presuppositions about conscience which you've never once even tried to support.

The presuppositions about conscience can also be empirically tested, so that's not even a problem. Right now, I'm not going to be interrogated by this one question when you have not read the book in its entirety. You have no understanding of how this law works in the real world, and I'm tired of talking to you on either subject. You are so antagonistic and skeptical that I can't even demonstrate his reasoning, and I'm tired of it. If you want, when I get my website up, buy the first three chapters, then decide if you want to read the rest.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In April I thought I was leaving but because people were still asking relevant questions, I decided to stay. This time I don't feel there is anything left to add to the conversation on the eyes, so I do not want to start the conversation again. If it happens again, then something that someone said made me change my mind, but at this point I don't want to discuss it anymore. As far as thanking people for their input, yes, I said this a couple times for different reasons. I cut down on some of the wording in the introduction because it was too long winded thanks to people telling me this. The second thank you was for different reasons. I still don't understand your obsession with my memory which has nothing to do with the validity of this discovery.

No-one is asking about your reasons or motivations. I'm simply showing you the undeniable evidence of your memory impairment. You had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of your previous behavior and actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't believe I do, and it's none of your concern.

Why can't you face up to the obvious fact of your memory impairment? Why deny something that must be obvious to everyone, even to yourself?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The presuppositions about conscience can also be empirically tested, so that's not even a problem.

Who cares if they can be tested? The point is that you don't get to criticize my understanding of his two-sided non-equation on these grounds. My disagreement with presuppositions that you've never once even tried to support does not constitute a lack of understanding on my part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right now, I'm not going to be interrogated by this one question when you have not read the book in its entirety.

What one question? And again, I've read all of his book that you've been willing to share.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no understanding of how this law works in the real world, and I'm tired of talking to you on either subject. You are so antagonistic and skeptical that I can't even demonstrate his reasoning, and I'm tired of it.

So then why are you still here, replying to my posts?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want, when I get my website up, buy the first three chapters, then decide if you want to read the rest.

Why on Earth would I buy what I've already read?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who cares if they can be tested? The point is that you don't get to criticize my understanding of his two-sided non-equation on these grounds. My disagreement with presuppositions that you've never once even tried to support does not constitute a lack of understanding on my part.

No, but your questions regarding the two-sided equation do show me that there is a lack of understanding on your part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right now, I'm not going to be interrogated by this one question when you have not read the book in its entirety.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What one question? And again, I've read all of his book that you've been willing to share.

Regarding his presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no understanding of how this law works in the real world, and I'm tired of talking to you on either subject. You are so antagonistic and skeptical that I can't even demonstrate his reasoning, and I'm tired of it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then why are you still here, replying to my posts?

I already answered this, don't you remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want, when I get my website up, buy the first three chapters, then decide if you want to read the rest.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why on Earth would I buy what I've already read?

Because there is no way you can get a complete understanding of how these principles revolutionize every area of human interaction (assuming the principles on which the two-sided equation are based are 100% accurate), without reading the book at least twice. Ironically, you would be a person who would get a lot out of listening to the mp3, if you would just let go of your stubborn resistance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but your questions regarding the two-sided equation do show me that there is a lack of understanding on your part.

Again, such as? Be specific. What questions have I asked that show a lack of understanding?

(Not agreeing with unevidenced and unargued-for presuppositions does not count.)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are absolutely 100% wrong as far as his first discovery being circular or a modal fallacy. You keep harping on this because you have nothing else in your bag of refutations that will make this book go away. Face it, you don't like Lessans because of his claim regarding the eyes. But this is never going to stop this knowledge from becoming well known. One day this claim will be tested empirically, and don't tell me it has already been tested. The truth always comes out in time, even if we're all dead.

You're a pathetic liar, though it is possible you also have significant cognitive impairment and memory dysfunction. For hundreds of pages, we have given you hundreds of examples of empirical testing that have ruled out Lessan's claims on light and sight. These examples of empirical testing date back hundreds of years. There is nothing more to test! You might as well claim that the earth is flat and we just await "more empirical testing" to confirm this "fact." Do you think that no one notices that you refuse to answer the question on Mars and NASA? You refuse to answer it, because you know this one example alone rules out Lessans' claims. An honest person would acknowledge this, but not you. You have no honesty in you.

And, yes, his so-called "first discovery" is nothing but a piece of transparent sophistry. It is circular because it simply defines whatever choice is made as giving the most pleasure, which renders it an empty tautology. And, yes, it straightforwardly commits a modal fallacy, confusing necessary truth with contingent truth. The fallacy can be formalized in modal symbolic logic, and hundreds of pages ago I pointed you to those formulations. No doubt you ignored it. The truth is not in you.

Now then: why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other bodies? And did you read the Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight? If not, why not?

Do you think ignoring these questions and trying to change the subject whenever I bring them up makes you or Lessans look good among the (non-existent) lurkers you imagine are hankering for this "knowledge"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, such as? Be specific. What questions have I asked that show a lack of understanding?

(Not agreeing with unevidenced and unargued-for presuppositions does not count.)

Scroll back, you'll find them Spacemonkey. I'm not going to work harder than you do, sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You're a pathetic liar, though it is possible you also have significant cognitive impairment and memory dysfunction. For hundreds of pages, we have given you hundreds of examples of empirical testing that have ruled out Lessan's claims on light and sight. These examples of empirical testing date back hundreds of years. There is nothing more to test! You might as well claim that the earth is flat and we just await "more empirical testing" to confirm this "fact." Do you think that no one notices that you refuse to answer the question on Mars and NASA? You refuse to answer it, because you know this one example alone rules out Lessans' claims. An honest person would acknowledge this, but not you. You have no honesty in you.

And, yes, his so-called "first discovery" is nothing but a piece of transparent sophistry. It is circular because it simply defines whatever choice is made as giving the most pleasure, which renders it an empty tautology. And, yes, it straightforwardly commits a modal fallacy, confusing necessary truth with contingent truth. The fallacy can be formalized in modal symbolic logic, and hundreds of pages ago I pointed you to those formulations. No doubt you ignored it. The truth is not in you.

There is no modal fallacy. I don't care if there are a million pages to go through. You are creating a phony attack against Lessans based on phoney observations. I don't care who is running the space mission. If they're wrong, own up to it. This just shows me how difficult it is to get through the ignorance that pretends to be knowledge.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now then: why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other bodies? And did you read the Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight? If not, why not?

Do you think ignoring these questions and trying to change the subject whenever I bring them up makes you or Lessans look good among the (non-existent) lurkers you imagine are hankering for this "knowledge"?

Now then? Let time be on Lessans' side and you will see that he was correct. But only time will tell and empirical evidence to bear this out. You are not in charge of this process David. Do you get that?

[LadyShea]

There is no modal fallacy.

You keep asserting this but you've YET to demonstrate this.

I asked you numerous times to go through davidm's formulation or even my examples and show exactly where the charge of modal fallacy are mistaken.

All you've done is say "There is no modal fallacy" or more hilariously recommit the modal fallacy yourself in trying to refute the charge.

[LadyShea]

Here you go

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's the modal fallacy, right there. If there was more than one possible truth, it could have been otherwise.

Do you understand after the last several posts why you are being charged with the modal fallacy?

Do you understand why what you are saying and how you are saying at least appears fallacious to others?

[LadyShea]

Long ago, I laid out what I saw as the tautology as presented by Lessans. It's apparent and obvious to me. Demonstrate that it is not circular and that I am wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The foundational premise, "Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a tautology because Lessans defined all actions/choices as movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. His conclusion that "Mans will is not free because humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is therefore also a tautology, because all actions/choices are already included in the premise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep asserting this but you've YET to demonstrate this.

I asked you numerous times to go through davidm's formulation or even my examples and show exactly where the charge of modal fallacy are mistaken.

All you've done is say "There is no modal fallacy" or more hilariously recommit the modal fallacy yourself in trying to refute the charge.

I'm not willing to work that hard LadyShea. You haven't even met me a quarter of the way. Do you think I'm going to prostrate myself for your approval of this work? No way. I don't need you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Long ago, I laid out what I saw as the tautology as presented by Lessans. It's apparent and obvious to me. Demonstrate that it is not circular and that I am wrong.

You laid out? Are you kidding me? Do you think what you laid out proves that Lessans is wrong? That puts you in a place that is far beyond your capabilities. Give it up LadyShea. You are not that knowledgeable.

[LadyShea]

It doesn't prove Lessans wrong. I didn't claim it proved Lessans wrong.

I only stated Lessans argument regarding the foundational premise was circular and demonstrated how it is circular.

This is in response to your claim

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are absolutely 100% wrong as far as his first discovery being circular or a modal fallacy.

But, of course you will weasel and call me names instead of responding intelligently. I met you half way by clearly stating my criticism and demonstrating the basis for it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care who is running the space mission. If they're wrong, own up to it.

What the fuck is the above even supposed to mean, peacgirl?

Are you saying NASA is WRONG? Wrong about what? WTF are you talking about? Do you even know or care anymore what you are trying to say?

FACT: NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other locations.

FACT: If Lessans were right and we saw in real time, NASA would always miss Mars and other targets.

FACT: They don't.

CONCLUSIONS: We don't see in real time.

What parts of the above to do you fail to follow, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It doesn't prove Lessans wrong. I didn't claim it proved Lessans wrong.

I only stated Lessans argument regarding the foundational premise was circular and demonstrated how it is circular.

This is in response to your claim

But, of course you will weasel and call me names instead of responding intelligently. I met you half way by clearly stating my criticism and demonstrating the basis for it.

You did not meet me halfway. I explained why this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but it went in one ear and out the other. You believe that the supposed experts in the field automatically know more than someone who comes from outside of the professional arena. You have too many preconceived ideas for me to share this knowledge with you in any open minded way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What the fuck is the above even supposed to mean, peacgirl?

Are you saying NASA is WRONG? Wrong about what? WTF are you talking about? Do you even know or care anymore what you are trying to say?

FACT: NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other locations.

FACT: If Lessans were right and we saw in real time, NASA would always miss Mars and other targets.

FACT: They don't.

CONCLUSIONS: We don't see in real time.

What parts of the above to do you fail to follow, peacegirl?

You are such a broken record, it's funny at this point. I think you repeat your mantra again and again in the hopes of maybe convincing yourself that science is right and Lessans is wrong. After all, your entire worldview is based on relativity. As far as conversing with you anymore, it's a total waste of my time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did not meet me halfway. I explained why this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but it went in one ear and out the other. You believe the people you find online who are the supposed experts than someone who comes into this arena without the credentials you believe are so necessary. Don't deny this, or you are a liar.

No, you simply asserted that it was not a tautology or a modal fallacy. You have not explained why it isn't. This is all of a piece with your incompetence and dishonesty with respect to light and sight. You can't explain why NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations. You can't explain your bogus model of real-time seeing. Your so-called explanation was, "Voila, we see!" which is in fact not an explanation of anything.

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you have a valid model of real-time seeing or not. The fact is, we don't see in real time. So your can throw out that entire section of Lessans' book. Anyone who reads his eye-popping nuttery on light and sight will laugh his/her ass off at him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are such a broken record, it's funny at this point. I think you repeat your mantra again and again in the hopes of maybe convincing yourself that science is right and Lessans is wrong. After all, your entire worldview is based on relativity. As far as conversing with you anymore, it's a total waste of my time.

at your transparent, dishonest evasions!

Answer the goddamned question!

If real time seeing is true, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other locations in space?

It's a simple question, you little weasel, and you can't answer it because you know EXACTLY what the answer is: Lessans was WRONG.