A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

World peace isn't the half of it!

In Teh Golden Age, women will all go around showing their tits and other "charms" and people will immediately begin fucking on meeting without bothering to even strike up a conversation (will they even know each other's names?) and then be wedded for life, with no possibility of divorce!

However! Rumpy pumpy will take place in bed, but couples will no longer sleep together! Just a quick in-and-out, and then Seymour gets some fucking peace and quiet and doesn't have to make chit-chat with the old lady!

Rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table is fine, provided the little ones are not present.

Do not ever wake your child! To wake your child is to blame it for sleeping!

Mom is going to have to undertake a comprehensive study of the art of cooking! You betcha! Seymour likes spaghetti and meatballs on Monday night, so Mom better make damn sure she produces the best spaghetti and meatballs ever, every Monday night!

There will be no more vaccinations! Vaccinations are just wrong! (Probably they cause mental retardation or something.)

Anyone can be a doctor. Just hang out a shingle saying that you're a doctor! So-called "real" doctors don't know shit!

Everyone alive today will experience the Golden Age, even if it happens after they are dead! Why? Because Man does not stand alone! God has worked it all out. You used to be alive, only you don't remember who you used to be! And you will be alive again and again and again, only you don't know who you will be! But since you will be somebody after you are dead, then you will experience The Golden Age just as soon as scientists discover that we actually live on the surface of the sun.

Hope that clarifies matters.

btw, Lady Shea, I think that the question your quoted is from N.A., not thedoc. Probably an artifact of peacegirl mangling quote tags somewhere, which she always does.

You are such a bully David, I don't even care to read more than the first line of your rant.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that we see things according to speed, and therefore may see an object earlier than someone who sees the object when there is no speed involved, has no bearing on the fact that we live in the present.

It's not just seeing, it's the perception of all the experiences that make up "living in the present". There is no objective present because "the present" is relative.

If in my present I am experiencing sunrise, and in someone else's present they are experiencing sunset, would that would mean sunrise and sunset coexist in the same present?

Originally Posted by Wiki

the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not just seeing, it's the perception of all the experiences that make up "living in the present". There is no objective present because "the present" is relative.

Perception is not reality. We can have 100 different perceptions, but one reality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If in my present I am experiencing sunrise, and in someone else's present they are experiencing sunset, would that would mean sunrise and sunset coexist in the same present?

Yes. Sunrise in the morning when the sun comes up is experienced by those on one part of the world, and sunset at night when the sun goes down experienced by those on another part of the world. Neither is wrong. This does not mean that there is more than one sun, or that our physical laws are changed because of these apparently contradictory phenomena. That means that if someone is across the world experiencing a sunset while someone else is experiencing a sunrise, that does not change the fact that the world rotates on its axis, which is a constant even though it appears as if our relationship to that constant results in relativism, which it does not.

Originally Posted by Wiki

the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe.

What we see and when depends on where we are in relation to the physical laws that exist (such as speed), but this in no way changes the fact that presentism (or the fact that the "here and now" is all that exists) is a false perception.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How we see the present depends on physics and how it relates to reality, but that doesn't change the fact that presentism (or the fact that we see in the here and now) is a constant.

Define here and now.

The present is constantly becoming the past, every passing nanosecond is now the past.

[LadyShea]

Also your view of reality is that it all happens by magic, so whatever you consider the present is probably also magical thinking.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your eyes are not separated by space and time from the object they are seeing? Really? That's your explanation of reality?

So you are not separated from your computer monitor by several inches?

There is physical distance between your physical eyes and the object you are seeing. Measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time. You can't deny this! What are you talking about??

What are you talking about??

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that we see something differently when in a still position versus a moving position, has no bearing on the fact that we see the present.

Yes, what anyone sees is in his or her own present, but different observers in different relative states of motion will not agree on what is in the present! That is what the relativity of simultaneity means, and would be impossible with real-time seeing, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you. If real-time seeing were possible, everyone would share the same plane of simultaneity, which they don't! Ergo, Lessans was wrong.

Every thought comes from afferent vision. It is very mixed up, and I'm not going to defend Lessans anymore. You can call it a cop-out, or whatever you want to keep your position, but it is absolutely flawed.

Her Royal Highness seems to be forgetting, also, that they eye has been demonstrated to be an afferent structure.

Why did Lessans believe that scientists thought that the eye was afferent? According to the Great Man, they assumed the eye was afferent, because Aristotle said so.

Breathtakingly, we are forced to conclude that Lessans failed to realize that scientists had actually studied the eye, and empirically confirmed it to be an afferent structure. The idiot actually seemed to believe that no one had actually looked at the eye, or taken it apart, or studied it; he seems to believe that scientists just assumed it was afferent, on the say-so of Aristotle!

He probably picked up this notion in his half-assed reading of Durant's History of Philosophy, which no doubt discussed how at one time, people did take Aristotle's word as authority. Unfortunately, that was, oh, about five centuries ago. Things have changed since then, and in fact we now know that Aristotle was wrong about most things.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, I don't even care to read more than the first line of your rant.

WOW, Who-da thought that Peacegirl would refuse to read what someone else has posted. I can't believe it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

He probably picked up this notion in his half-assed reading of Durant's History of Philosophy, which no doubt discussed how at one time, people did take Aristotle's word as authority. Unfortunately, that was, oh, about five centuries ago. Things have changed since then, and in fact we now know that Aristotle was wrong about most things.

Lets see 7th grade dropout, and his reading list so far included books with a lot of polysyllabic words in them. It's no wonder he wore out several dictionaries. I wonder what his pool hall buddies thought of him, constantly asking them what that big word is?

In one way Lessans in much like Aristotle, we now know that Lessans was wrong about most things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also your view of reality is that it all happens by magic, so whatever you consider the present is probably also magical thinking.

The only reason you think that my view of reality is that it all happens by magic is because you can't fit my view of reality into your frame of reference.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your eyes are not separated by space and time from the object they are seeing? Really? That's your explanation of reality?

It is obvious that you don't understand the meaning of efferent vision. When sight is not dependent on the transference of the image due to light, there is no time involved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are not separated from your computer monitor by several inches?

Yes there is. And light travels at a finite speed, but efferent sight is not dependent on the time it takes for that image to reach me due to light; it sees the monitor instantly. I think you forgot that light is a condition of sight; do you even know what that means?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is physical distance between your physical eyes and the object you are seeing. Measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time. You can't deny this! What are you talking about??

I don't deny that there is measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time when we're talking about light, but we're talking about efferent vision which implies that the image does not have to travel, not even a nanosecond, to be seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no point A and point B which would indicate "information transfer."

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about??

Exactly what I said. There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen. So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, what anyone sees is in his or her own present, but different observers in different relative states of motion will not agree on what is in the present! That is what the relativity of simultaneity means, and would be impossible with real-time seeing, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you. If real-time seeing were possible, everyone would share the same plane of simultaneity, which they don't! Ergo, Lessans was wrong.

Her Royal Highness seems to be forgetting, also, that they eye has been demonstrated to be an afferent structure.

Why did Lessans believe that scientists thought that the eye was afferent? According to the Great Man, they assumed the eye was afferent, because Aristotle said so.

Breathtakingly, we are forced to conclude that Lessans failed to realize that scientists had actually studied the eye, and empirically confirmed it to be an afferent structure. The idiot actually seemed to believe that no one had actually looked at the eye, or taken it apart, or studied it; he seems to believe that scientists just assumed it was afferent, on the say-so of Aristotle!

He probably picked up this notion in his half-assed reading of Durant's History of Philosophy, which no doubt discussed how at one time, people did take Aristotle's word as authority. Unfortunately, that was, oh, about five centuries ago. Things have changed since then, and in fact we now know that Aristotle was wrong about most things.

That wasn't the reason he came to his conclusions regarding efferent vision. He was just showing that the belief that the eyes functioned like the other four senses began with Aristotle in his classification system. FYI, studying the structure of the eye does not necessarily translate to how the eye actually works. It may appear obvious that the eyes are afferent, but an underlying assumption can be wrong. Once it is assumed that something is a certain way, it is easy to set up an experiment to make the data fit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define here and now.

The present is constantly becoming the past, every passing nanosecond is now the past.

The past is an important part of one's memory. But if you should lose your memory, there is no such thing as the past. Please reread post 11019.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[

Yes there is. And light travels at a finite speed, but efferent sight is not dependent on the time it takes for that image to reach me due to light; it sees the monitor instantly.
Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is physical distance between your physical eyes and the object you are seeing. Measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time. You can't deny this! What are you talking about??

[quote peacegirl]
I don't deny that there is measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time when we're talking about light, but we're talking about efferent vision which implies that the image does not have to travel, not even a nanosecond, to be seen.

Exactly what I said. There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen. So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.[/quote]


So in the objective physical world an object is a measurable distance from a person, but when that person looks efferently at that same object there is no distance between the person and the object. That would mean that when we look at an object it is in 2 places at once, at the measurable physical distance, and in direct proximity to our eyes. Well call me a bit of a skeptic, but I would think that this would violate some physical law somehow?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Man's will is not free as one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction (and this is not a modal fallacy at all!)

Nobody can be forced to do something they don't want to do (you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink)

Therefore nobody can be blamed for their actions

Without blame, nobody can rationalize or justify causing a hurt, so nobody every will cause a hurt as their conscience won't allow it (conscience is predictable)

This is a well trod path to all sorts of atrocities and are obviously wrong in hindsight. So it is obvious that Lessans was educated by an idiot, and he was by his own admission self educated.

People think "beautiful" is an objective reality because of the conditioning that can only happen with efferent sight. Using these terms causes hurt so this conditioning will be eliminated by eliminating certain words

World peace

This is very muddled thinking. And it appears that peacegirl thinks that the way around it, is to dole it out in small chunks so that people won't connect the dots. It makes me think that peacegirl is completely aware of the major problems with Lessans but as his daughter is devoted to it anyway.

It is a tragic story.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this case, he was pointing out that light is present, but it doesn't pass along the optic nerve to allow for normal sight.

Fortunately, no one else has claimed that light passes along the optic nerve either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen. So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

It is really all quite simple. If you are looking at something (whether afferently or efferently) it is over there and you are over here. Therefore, the object you are viewing is seperated from you, the viewer, by the distance between here and there. Do you dispute this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Man's will is not free as one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction (and this is not a modal fallacy at all!)

Nobody can be forced to do something they don't want to do (you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink)

Therefore nobody can be blamed for their actions

Without blame, nobody can rationalize or justify causing a hurt, so nobody every will cause a hurt as their conscience won't allow it (conscience is predictable)

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

This is a well trod path to all sorts of atrocities and are obviously wrong in hindsight. So it is obvious that Lessans was educated by an idiot, and he was by his own admission self educated.

What well trod path to all sorts of atrocities are you talking about? Please be clear. And what are you implying when you say Lessans' was educated by an idiot? Because he was self-educated? Are you accusing him of knowing less than someone who was formally educated? I am not going to let you get away with this because you are spewing ignorance in the guise of wisdom.

People think "beautiful" is an objective reality because of the conditioning that can only happen with efferent sight. Using these terms causes hurt so this conditioning will be eliminated by eliminating certain words

World peace

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

This is very muddled thinking. And it appears that peacegirl thinks that the way around it, is to dole it out in small chunks so that people won't connect the dots. It makes me think that peacegirl is completely aware of the major problems with Lessans but as his daughter is devoted to it anyway.

It is a tragic story.

What is so tragic about my desire to enlighten people regarding knowledge that I believe will help our world? This has nothing to do with devotion, although I loved my father. If I didn't see the undeniable relations involved for myself, do you think I would be spending all this time here? There are no major problems as you profess and there is no muddled thinking. BTW, I did put the entire book online for the exact reason you mentioned. I wanted people to be able to read the book carefully so they could connect the dots, but his words were taken out of context and the book was corrupted. Just look at what davidm has done. He has turned this knowledge into something that is unrecognizable so people will not take this book seriously. Now I can only dole out small chunks, which makes this entire discussion very unpredictable and disjointed. If you really are interested in this knowledge, you will now have to buy the book and read it for yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Fortunately, no one else has claimed that light passes along the optic nerve either.

He didn't say "passes along". He said "strike" and "impinge on". He could have said strike the retina which transmutes to impulses along the optic nerve, but he didn't because it wasn't necessary in order to get across his point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen. So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is really all quite simple. If you are looking at something (whether afferently or efferently) it is over there and you are over here. Therefore, the object you are viewing is seperated from you, the viewer, by the distance between here and there. Do you dispute this?

It is over there and you are over here, which is why we see the effects of finite light traveling from point A to point B, but it's not that way where the eyes are concerned. The eyes don't know that within their field of vision they are looking at an object that is over there. They see the object because it is there to be seen due to there being no information transfer on the waves of light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What well trod path to all sorts of atrocities are you talking about? Please be clear. And what are you implying when you say Lessans' was educated by an idiot? Because he was self-educated? Are you accusing him of knowing less than someone who was formally educated? I am not going to let you get away with this because you are spewing ignorance in the guise of wisdom.

To be clear, Lessons was an idiot because he did not learn from history. And because he was self taught he was taught by an idiot. I have nothing against self-learning. In fact I think that is pretty much how education will proceed in the future. But not everybody is a genius, no matter how high their opinion of themselves is. I've told you this before. Lessons was full of himself and not very bright. If his ideas are any good you and he should be the last person in the world to constantly remind us how amazing they are. That should be for others to decide.

And others have decided, and it conflicts with your clearly biased views of how wonderful those ideas are. Sorry about that. And you need to get help, because you are clearly over the edge.

As for the lessons of history, whenever you get some yahoo proclaiming that they know the way to the perfect life then that historically has been when life gets very bad for a lot of people.

What is so tragic about my desire to enlighten people of knowledge that I believe will help our world? This has nothing to do with devotion, although I loved my father. If I didn't see the undeniable relations involved for myself, do you think I would be spending all this time here? There are no major problems as you profess and there is no muddled thinking. BTW, I did put the entire book online for the exact reason you mentioned. I wanted people to be able to read the book carefully so they could connect the dots, but his words were taken out of context and the book was corrupted. Just look at what davidm has done. He has turned this knowledge into something that is unrecognizable so people will not take this book seriously. Now I can only dole out small chunks, which makes this entire discussion very unpredictable and disjointed. If you really are interested in this knowledge, you will now have to buy the book and read it for yourself.

Based on what's been doled out and how you have accounted for it I will never buy the book, and if asked by others I will strongly recommend that they not waste their time on such an obvious work of quackery. Unless of course they were looking for source material of self delusion. But that is unlikely to happen since there are so many examples freely available that it is unnecessary to buy one.

And you may have tried to enlighten people but for some strange reason thought that the best way to do that was to completely ignore what they had to say and not address their objections in any kind of reasonable, fair or open minded fashion at all. And you can see how far that has gotten you.

You seem to accept that Lessons might not be perfect but for some strange reason are not able to find or accept any examples of imperfection.

You need to get help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

First off, Lessans never used the word "genius" in terms of himself. He was not full of himself at all. I am the one trying to keep his work alive. What is wrong about that if he turns out to be right natural.atheist? What else can I do, since he is gone and I'm left to carry on? He can't remind us, he's dead, remember? I am letting others decide, but they can't decide unless they get a true understanding of the principles involved. No one understands the two-sided equation, even though they think they do. Should I just give in and say "you're right, Lessans was mistaken", when I know he wasn't? I am not going to do that whether I move on or not.

That is not true. I am not over the edge at all. I'm sorry that you don't see this, but you have not even been here long enough to say something as cynical as this. That makes me wonder about your true intentions for being here.

It is the time of upheaval that gets people to search for answers. There's nothing odd about that.

What is so tragic about my desire to enlighten people regarding knowledge that will help our world? This has nothing to do with devotion, although I loved my father. If I didn't see the undeniable relations involved for myself, do you think I would be spending all this time here? There are no major problems as you profess and there is no muddled thinking. BTW, I did put the entire book online for the exact reason you mentioned. I wanted people to be able to read the book carefully so they could connect the dots, but his words were taken out of context and the book was corrupted. Just look at what davidm has done. He has turned this knowledge into something that is unrecognizable so people will not take this book seriously. Now I can only dole out small chunks, which makes this entire discussion very unpredictable and disjointed. If you really are interested in this knowledge, you will now have to buy the book and read it for yourself.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Based on what's been doled out and how you have accounted for it I will never buy the book, and if asked by others I will strongly recommend that they not waste their time on such an obvious work of quackery. Unless of course they were looking for source material of self delusion. But that is unlikely to happen since there are so many examples freely available that it is unnecessary to buy one.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

There are no examples that are freely available that truly explain this knowledge.

Of course there aren't; this knowledge is unprecedented.

I could care less if you recommend this book or not. It has no effect on the end result, which will come about in due time. It's not up to me, it's up to another force that drives us to figure out the truth of our nature.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And you may have tried to enlighten people but for some strange reason thought that the best way to do that was to completely ignore what they had to say and not address their objections in any kind of reasonable, fair or open minded fashion at all. And you can see how far that has gotten you

I cannot address people's objections when they are in a state of ridicule. I told LadyShea this, as well as many others. There is no way their mind is going to be still enough to even hear these relations. They don't believe Lessans is right and they are comparing him to a fundamentalist. They really don't know but they think they do. This is dangerous thinking on their part. They are using their ability to discriminate between truth and untruth by a methodology that does not give 100% results. Therefore they think there is nothing more to talk about. Very sad indeed.

Originally Posted by Natural.atheist

You seem to accept that Lessons might not be perfect but for some strange reason are not able to find or accept any examples of imperfection.

You need to get help.

No, I don't need help. I can accept if Lessans is wrong. He was wrong on many occasions because he was a human being. But as far as this subject, he was spot on.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there aren't; this knowledge is unprecedented.

This is the kind of self aggrandizing I'm talking about. Nothing that Lessans has propounded is unprecedented. All I see is Lessans quoting others and then proclaiming how he has made some great discovery. There is nothing at all about that which is unprecedented.

I could care less if you recommend this book or not. It has no effect on the end result, which will come about in due time. It's not up to me, it's up to another force that drives us to figure out the truth of our nature.

If you actually thought that then you would not have spent the last 400+ pages wasting your time to no effect. If it will happen then it happens. The only reason to go on like this is if you are desperate to make sure Lessans gets the credit if it does happen. Just more hubris.

I cannot address people's objections when they are in a state of ridicule. I told LadyShea this, as well as many others. There is no way their mind is going to be still enough to even hear these relations. They don't believe Lessans is right and they are comparing him to a fundamentalist. They really don't know but they think they do. This is dangerous thinking on their part. They are using their ability to discriminate between truth and untruth by a methodology that does not give 100% results. Therefore they think there is nothing more to talk about. Very sad indeed.

You don't even try to address objections. You just regurgitate the same stupid stuff Lessans wrote over and over and over again.

No, I don't need help. I can accept if Lessans is wrong. He was wrong on many occasions because he was a human being. But as far as this subject, he was spot on.

Read what you just posted. Get help.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sight is dependent on information from point A being attained at point B.

You say the information is not carried with light, that still leaves you to explain how the information gets from point A to point B.

I am not talking about light, I am talking about information (the properties of what is being seen).

If it's not the light carrying the information between A and B, then it must be the eyes or the brain somehow reaching out over that distance. How does that work?

It is not possible for information to be attained "instantly", it has to get from point A to point B by some mechanism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deny that there is measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time when we're talking about light, but we're talking about efferent vision which implies that the image does not have to travel, not even a nanosecond, to be seen.

The measurable, objective, physical distance applies to all things, including information, not just light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen.

Wrong. Information at point A is attained at point B. You have to explain how that happens. It cannot be attained without traversing the distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

You have concluded wrongly. Information has traversed the distance between the two points.

You have to explain how.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The past is an important part of one's memory. But if you should lose your memory, there is no such thing as the past.

If one loses their memory there is no past in that person's personal perception. But as you said, perception is not reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Perception is not reality. We can have 100 different perceptions, but one reality.

The past exists in reality, and in the perception of those who have not lost their memories.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is really all quite simple. If you are looking at something (whether afferently or efferently) it is over there and you are over here. Therefore, the object you are viewing is seperated from you, the viewer, by the distance between here and there. Do you dispute this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes don't know that within their field of vision they are looking at an object that is over there.

Your eyes do not perceive distance and see a 3 dimensional world? Of course they know "over there".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They see the object because it is there to be seen due to there being no information transfer on the waves of light.

In reality, information at point A is attained at point B. Something is traversing that distance. What is it? Your brain waves? Some kind of eye aura?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This is the kind of self aggrandizing I'm talking about. Nothing that Lessans has propounded is unprecedented. All I see is Lessans quoting others and then proclaiming how he has made some great discovery. There is nothing at all about that which is unprecedented.

In all seriousness natural.atheist, how can you tell me this knowledge is not unprecedented when you don't know what knowledge he is referring to?

I could care less if you recommend this book or not. It has no effect on the end result, which will come about in due time. It's not up to me, it's up to another force that drives us to figure out the truth of our nature.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

If you actually thought that then you would not have spent the last 400+ pages wasting your time to no effect. If it will happen then it happens. The only reason to go on like this is if you are desperate to make sure Lessans gets the credit if it does happen. Just more hubris.

This just shows me how wrong a person can be. I spent the last 400 pages to answer people's objections, but I have no control over when this discovery comes to light. It's not up to me. That's what I meant when I said "in due time". I didn't mean that I shouldn't try to do what I can to pass this knowledge along.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And you may have tried to enlighten people but for some strange reason thought that the best way to do that was to completely ignore what they had to say and not address their objections in any kind of reasonable, fair or open minded fashion at all. And you can see how far that has gotten you

I cannot address people's objections when they are in a state of ridicule. I told LadyShea this, as well as many others. There is no way their mind is going to be still enough to even hear these relations. They don't believe Lessans is right and they are comparing him to a fundamentalist. They really don't know but they think they do. This is dangerous thinking on their part. They are using their ability to discriminate between truth and untruth by a methodology that does not give 100% results. Therefore they think there is nothing more to talk about. Very sad indeed.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

You don't even try to address objections. You just regurgitate the same stupid stuff Lessans wrote over and over and over again.

That might be how you feel because you have no idea what the book is about. Telling me I regurgitate the same stupid stuff is due to your limited understanding. If I am repeating myself it's because I am answering the same questions over and over.

Originally Posted by Natural.atheist

You seem to accept that Lessons might not be perfect but for some strange reason are not able to find or accept any examples of imperfection.

You need to get help.

No, I don't need help. I can accept if Lessans is wrong. He was wrong on many occasions because he was a human being. But as far as this subject, he was spot on.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Read what you just posted. Get help.

If that's all you have to say, we really don't have to converse anymore.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In all seriousness natural.atheist, how can you tell me this knowledge is unprecedented when you haven't read the first two chapters?

The last thing in the world you want to happen is for me to read the first two chapters. If you think I'm critical now based on your cherry picked quotes about "efferent vision" then just imagine what would happen if I had access to the full bore nonsense.

Have you learned nothing from all the reactions you've received in the last 400+ pages? Are you that deluded?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot address people's objections when they are in a state of ridicule.

Sure you can. Most objections to a scientific or philosophical work come from a state of disbelief or even ridicule. You have to overcome the objections with superior argument and evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way their mind is going to be still enough to even hear these relations.

The relations you have presented don't fit with reality as we know it, and aren't supported by evidence. How many times do we have to tell you that what you have and are presenting simply isn't sufficient to convince anyone that Lessans was on to something?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't believe Lessans is right and they are comparing him to a fundamentalist. They really don't know but they think they do.

Follow the evidence

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are using their ability to discriminate between truth and untruth by a methodology that does not give 100% results.

As compared to discriminating between truth and untruth using no methodology at all? That's called faith or belief.

He doesn't need to "know what the book is about" to see you floundering trying to address objections you don't even comprehend. Your answers are incoherent and/or unsatisfactory

[LadyShea]

She posted the first two chapters at this other forum here if you want to read it

New Discovery - FrostCloud Forums

[LadyShea]

Here's another puzzle from that forum

Originally Posted by Lessans

Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far enough in
history you will find that we believed pregnancy was caused by the bite of
an enamored snake which prevented many girls from bathing at certain
times, but never prevented them from mating. Today we have thousands of
lesser Aristotle’s preventing breakthroughs into various hermetically sealed
doors. We call them professors and Ph.Ds. Again, this is not a criticism
but they accept what has been taught to them and pass it along from
generation to generation which makes it very difficult for them to listen to
any explanation that must contravene their reputation as leading authorities.
That is why they reject people; put anyone down who does not have what
they are proud of – their formal education. But please remember they too
are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction and it isn’t fair to criticize
them for being proud of their scholastic achievements. I refused to let a
Ph.D. in math read my book not because he gave me the wrong answer to a
math problem, but because he said my answer must be wrong since he was
a Ph.D. and I was not. You might find this problem of interest since it was
originated with Sir Isaac Newton. If it takes 3 cows two weeks to eat two
acres of grass and all the grass that grows on the two acres in two weeks;
and if it takes two cows four weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the
grass grown on the two acres in the four weeks; how many cows would be
required to eat 6 acres of grass in 6 weeks and all the grass that grows on
the 6 acres in the six weeks? Because it was difficult for this Ph.D. to
accept the fact that he could not work out this problem, it gave him greater
satisfaction to put me and my answer down. Are you beginning to
recognize how difficult it has been for me to bring this knowledge to light
when it is utterly impossible for our leading authorities to get greater
satisfaction listening to any explanation of new knowledge that must reveal
their unconscious ignorance that they never knew the truth, only thought
they knew? I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and
one day as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to
light, “My time will come.” Now let’s continue.