|
|
04-05-2011, 11:02 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
It was based on his belief that these principles would have been thoroughly investigated. Vivisectus, I know I am ruffling your feathers like a lot of people in here. I do appreciate your interest but I cannot keep answering your questions when I know you don't understand the simplist aspect of this discovery. There are other people waiting to have their questions answered, so I have to give them a chance too. It's only fair. I'm really sorry about this, but I'm just one person, as Regis Philbin is famous for saying.
|
Then correct my understanding, in stead of simply dismissing my - valid! - objections. You cannot, so in stead of re-examining your own beliefs, you move on.
I have no problem changing mine - but I must be convinced first, with evidence. If you could produce some evidence that blame is the sole cause of justification, or even a compelling reason to believe it is so, you would pretty much be there. But so far neither you nor Lessans have done so, to my knowledge.
So far I have not used words like "talking to a brick wall". Do you not find such statements offensive? I might even see that as something harmful.
|
He never said one time in the entire book that blame is the sole cause of justification.
|
04-05-2011, 11:08 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
What's wrong with the word "beautiful"?
|
04-05-2011, 11:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
These words hurt because of the conditioning they cause, and because they set a standard for everyone, when no such standard exists. Why would you want to use a word that is not accurate?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Because the words have definitions that are accurate descriptors of a human's subjective experience. Beautiful means only "pleasing to one's mind or senses", how is that "inaccurate"? Ugly means "displeasing to one's mind or senses", again which can certainly be an accurate description.
|
If a word is describing my personal taste regarding objects or events, no one can be hurt. I even say look at that beautiful sunset. Even if a difference of opinion occurs, it doesn't have the power to destroy self-image. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone they are wonderful, or great, or stupendous. These descriptors are not hurting anyone unless you say these things in front of children who might conclude that they are not wonderful, or great, or stupendous because you didn't say it to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Also, with no such conditioning or standard set because there would be no intention to cause hurt, then words would only mean what they mean, correct?
|
Right, but just as you said anytime you use a word to describe one child and not another, then that one child may think that he doesn't measure up, or that you don't love him as much as the other. Words can absolutely devastate and we have to be careful when using them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And there is no analogy or comparison to be made between the N word to be made with accurate descriptors like beautiful, lovely, pretty, pleasing, ugly, homely etc. . That word was a pejorative from the beginning of it's use.
|
Yes, that's why the N word is so despised. Are you now saying that words like beautiful and ugly people are accurate descriptors?
|
04-05-2011, 11:20 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?
|
04-05-2011, 11:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If you have time I would like a response to this post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We then arrive – at last! – to the first time we hear of the central issue. Is man’s will free? According to Lessans, it is not, and for the following reason:
Once a decision has been made, there is no way to go back and then see if, under identical circumstances, a person would have chosen otherwise. Since it is impossible to prove that will is free, the opposite must be true.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He did not say that. He is only showing that we can't prove free will true and why, but there is still a possibility that we can prove determinism true. He hasn't proved determinism true in this excerpt. How in the world could you have come to that conclusion? I will give everyone this excerpt and let them decide for themselves.
|
|
The passage below is what led to Viv's conclusion, and I read it the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context the opposite of free will) was proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock?
|
I parse the bolded above as:
If determinism is false, then free will is true (THIS IS CORRECT)
He has "proven" free will is not true. WRONG. HE HAS DEMONSTRATED WHY FREE WILL CANNOT BE PROVEN TRUE -- BECAUSE WE CANNOT REVERSE TIME WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR ABSOLUTE PROOF.
Therefore determinism must be NOT FALSE. WRONG. THEREFORE, DETERMINISM CAN STILL BE PROVEN TRUE AND CONSEQUENTLY FREE WILL FALSE.
How do you parse it?
|
Ya'll need to read this more carefully.
|
04-05-2011, 11:24 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Hello, stone, may I have some blood? I may? Why, thank you, that was much easier than trying to get peacelass to explain why "beautiful" should be abolished.
|
04-05-2011, 11:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?
|
Dave, this discussion has been going on for days now. I don't think people want to rehash this again. I'll say one thing only. Beautiful should be abolished because it's not symbolic of reality. If we weren't conditioned by this word, we may find an attraction to someone who in today's world is thought to be ugly. All that exists in truth is our personal likes and dislikes, but to call someone ugly or to imply that someone is ugly by calling others beautiful is a subtle form of injustice that could not be rectified because we didn't understand how the brain works.
|
04-05-2011, 11:33 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?
|
Perhaps someone here isn't, and feels discriminated by it?
|
04-05-2011, 11:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
[quote=LadyShea;933262]
Quote:
I've said this numerous times, his solid evidence comes from his observations regarding how we learn words. This beautiful person is not traveling from the light to the eyes, through the optic nerve, and to the brain where this beauty is seen.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Beautiful means "pleasing to one's mind or senses". It's a descriptor of a subjective experience one has when seeing or sensing something (therefore it can be used to describe sounds, tastes, odors, and tactile sensations as well)
|
But it isn't a descriptor of a subjective experience, that's just the point. The experience has been manipulated.
Quote:
I don't think you're clear on how absurd it is to be arguing over who is more beautiful; even to say who is more beautiful to me, because it assumes just by the word itself, that this beauty that this individual possesses cannot be denied.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Who is arguing over who is more beautiful? I've never had such an argument in 40 years of life. Everyone I know seems to understand that "beautiful" is a descriptor of a subjective experience.
|
It can't be because the word itself creates a standard for everyone. You may feel it's subjective, but it's not. If it was truly subjective, you wouldn't have been conditioned already. None of us can remove ourselves from this conditioning.
Quote:
I'm sorry if it screams crackpot to you. His observations were astute. Why do you think it's so hard to get people to believe that this simple observation was somehow overlooked? It's seems too easy. People are looking for something more mysterious; more difficult.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think you are trying to make his "observations" into something they aren't.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea"You are assuming his observations apply to all, when he seems to have only observed himself.[/quote]
I am not even going to respond to that.
Quote:
Why are you repeating yourself? I told you that this knowledge did not come from experiments, yet his observations hold weight.
|
[quote="LadyShea
He tried to manipulate the reader into viewing the work as something more authoritative than it is, which is mere musings and hypotheses, by using terms like scientific and mathematician and comparing himself to famous scientists and discoverers.
|
As much as I appreciate your questions, that remark is below the belt. He is doing no such thing.
Quote:
The word does not create the dog as it does words like heaven, soul, spirit, etc.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Wait what? That makes no sense. You're saying that by giving concepts names, the concepts are created?
|
Yes, people think that certain concepts are real because they give it a name. They take for granted that heaven and hell exist, or that we have souls and spirits. These words do not represent anything in the real world, and yet many believe they have absolute existence.
Quote:
Blind people can identify objects through touch. But they don't have the ability to be conditioned by words like beautiful and ugly. That's why they don't judge people the same way sighted people do.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
A blind person can find sounds, smells, and tastes "beautiful" because beautiful has a specific definition of "pleasing to one's mind or senses". They can certainly label a discordant or jarring sound, or music they find displeasing as "ugly".
|
I am going to keep repeating that to use the word beautiful in regard to music is not hurting anyone. I often say certain music is beautiful. I also say I love that music. But more importantly, we are talking about how the eyes are conditioned when it comes to someone's features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
They can judge people by the sound of their voice, their odor, and their personalities...the only type of judgment eliminated for a blind person is appearance and that's only one of many, many, many aspects of a person.
|
I agree.
Quote:
That goes back to his belief that light does not send signals with the information contained within it to the brain to be interpreted. Rather, the brain is able to see objects in the real world because of the properties of light (such as wavelengths and frequencies) as we look through the eyes, as windows, to see what exists..
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I followed up on this this morning, let me know when you get to it.
|
Okay.
Quote:
he takes issue with the claim that light is sending chemical messages, as in sound, to the brain. And this is because of the fact that this beauty and ugliness would exist externally, which it doesn't. I don't think you're getting this yet.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not getting it because it makes no sense. Why would beauty and ugliness, which are merely words use to describe a subjective internal experience, have to exist externally for sight to be a sense?
|
If it existed externally, we wouldn't be conditioned by the word itself. The light would bounce off of this beautiful person and would be seen as an image in the brain. If you really want to understand what he's saying, you need to read this chapter again. I can't keep repeating myself. I'm sure I'm boring a lot of people.
Quote:
You are going back to the idea that the only truth can be found from empirical testing. I told you that empirical testing would help to confirm his observations, but if his observations turn out to be sound, then his claims that the eyes function differently are also sound.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am just wondering who he observed? Did he only observe himself and family?
|
He observed how the brain functions in general. He didn't observe one or two people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no basis for empirical testing unless one can point out some aspect of sight that science has missed so far, form a testable hypothesis, design some tests etc.
|
The only way this could be tested is to have children grow up without hearing these words, and see how children (especially girls) are affected. Certainly, they will not grow up with the feelings of inferiority that we see today. It is true that children in this society feel so insecure, that if you don't tell them they look beautiful, they would begin to doubt themselves. This can only work when children have not been exposed to these words, and have not yet been conditioned.
Last edited by peacegirl; 04-06-2011 at 12:02 AM.
|
04-05-2011, 11:52 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?
|
Dave, this discussion has been going on for days now. I don't think people want to rehash this again. I'll say one thing only. Beautiful should be abolished because it's not symbolic of reality. If we weren't conditioned by this word, we may find an attraction to someone who in today's world is thought to be ugly. All that exists in truth is our personal likes and dislikes, but to call someone ugly or to imply that someone is ugly by calling others beautiful is a subtle form of injustice that could not be rectified because we didn't understand how the brain works.
|
What the fuck are you talking about, you weird, insane, probably hideous nutjob?
First of all, beauty is relative (it's also in the eye of the beholder a lot of the time, ergo somewhat subjective, but we all know that through experience and the from viewing the world through beer goggles).
Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.
Thirdly, your claim that the word "beautiful" causes people to be unattracted to people who are considered not beautiful by society, and by abolishing the word, this wouldn't happen; well, it fucking would, because it's not the word per se that causes this discrimination. Even without any word that would be synonymous with beautiful, such a situation as you describe could and world still happen, because we have magazines with images of females, and those images make good use of make-up, airbrushing, photo-editting, shadow, etc.
It is thanks to magazines mentioned in the third point (well, it's thanks to a number of factors, but that's the clincher) that your plan to eradicate "beautiful" and "ugly" is naive, useless, and fucking idiotic.
|
04-06-2011, 12:04 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.
.
|
L.O.L. No I would never do that but I am digging a nice deep hole for you up in the woods. Do you like looking at Oak trees? from under the roots?
|
04-06-2011, 12:09 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?
|
Dave, this discussion has been going on for days now. I don't think people want to rehash this again. I'll say one thing only. Beautiful should be abolished because it's not symbolic of reality. If we weren't conditioned by this word, we may find an attraction to someone who in today's world is thought to be ugly. All that exists in truth is our personal likes and dislikes, but to call someone ugly or to imply that someone is ugly by calling others beautiful is a subtle form of injustice that could not be rectified because we didn't understand how the brain works.
|
What the fuck are you talking about, you weird, insane, probably hideous nutjob?
First of all, beauty is relative (it's also in the eye of the beholder a lot of the time, ergo somewhat subjective, but we all know that through experience and the from viewing the world through beer goggles).
Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.
Thirdly, your claim that the word "beautiful" causes people to be unattracted to people who are considered not beautiful by society, and by abolishing the word, this wouldn't happen; well, it fucking would, because it's not the word per se that causes this discrimination. Even without any word that would be synonymous with beautiful, such a situation as you describe could and world still happen, because we have magazines with images of females, and those images make good use of make-up, airbrushing, photo-editting, shadow, etc.
It is thanks to magazines mentioned in the third point (well, it's thanks to a number of factors, but that's the clincher) that your plan to eradicate "beautiful" and "ugly" is naive, useless, and fucking idiotic.
|
Obviously, we're in a society that is making tons of money off of women's insecurities. It's not idiotic at all. Every girl is bombarded with images of perfection and when don't measure up to this standard of beauty, they berate themselves. Women hate their bodies, hate their looks, hate everything about themselves. Their confidence is shaken to the core. Our society is definitely unhealthy in this respect. And please don't post anymore because you will be ignored.
|
04-06-2011, 12:09 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.
.
|
L.O.L. No I would never do that but I am digging a nice deep hole for you up in the woods. Do you like looking at Oak trees? from under the roots?
|
Include a couple of beeches and a weeping willow, and you've got yourself a deal.
|
04-06-2011, 12:22 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Obviously, we're in a society that is making tons of money off of women's insecurities.
|
Well, it's actually certain industries that are doing that, and they're just exploiting the psychology of the genders, along with cultural expectations, to make their money.
Of course. It's ignorant, naive, and fucking retarded, but it's not idiotic.
Quote:
Every girl is bombarded with images of perfection and when don't measure up to this standard of beauty, they berate themselves.
|
Don't repeat to me what I just said, as if YOU'RE trying to educate ME! Besides, as I already explained, this isn't why "beautiful" should be abolished. I used this to explain why abolishing the aforementioned word would be a waste of time, and you're trying to use it as a red herring.
Quote:
Women hate their bodies, hate their looks, hate everything about themselves. Their confidence is shaken to the core. Our society is definitely unhealthy in this respect.
|
You're generalising. While some women (you, for instance) hate their bodies, there are many that don't.
Quote:
And please don't post anymore because you will be ignored.
|
Who the you; the fucking internetz police? The fucking mayor? The fucking Gestapo? You don't have an argument against most of what I've said, so like the pathetic, ugly coward that you are, you choose to ignore me. I've a good mind to make you uglier than you already are.
|
04-06-2011, 12:33 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT
Include a couple of beeches and a weeping willow, and you've got yourself a deal.
|
Awww, you're being so nice I'll even include a pipe to pour hot soup down thru.
|
04-06-2011, 12:39 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X
I mean, heck, how can we have red-green color-blindness since, you know, the eye is not a sense organ?
|
He explained that. Color blindness results from an absence or malfunction of certain color - sensitive cells in the retina.
|
Which makes them sensory cells and the eye a sense organ
And you can objectively demonstrate people see different colors. Sort of the basic for color-blind testing.
He really is a complete FAIL with respect to even the basics.
I am beginning to feel like I am beating a baby seal to death. This one is not even challenging.
--J.D.
|
04-06-2011, 12:44 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I think this thread is losing its steam. If anyone has any last minute questions, I will try to answer them before leaving. It's been a true learning experience on many levels. Unfortunately, we didn't make the kind of progress I had hoped for.
|
04-06-2011, 12:45 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I was thinking about the Jupiter experiment. Even if we can't see an object until the light reaches us, and Lessans was wrong by saying that if the sun exploded we would see it immediately, it still doesn't negate his discovery that the brain is looking through the eyes to see the external world.
|
Lessans discovered that teh brain was looking through the eyes to see the external world?
Oh, holy shit! He discovered that we see with the eyes???!1
All hail Lessans!
Oh, but wait! I thought he said we don't see with the eyes, because the eyes are not a fucking sense organ!
Or ... wait. Just what the fuck is Lessans talking about, anyhoo??
Wow, what a retarded thread!
|
You can't stand that this book might have something of value.
|
You cannot sand that you can demonstrate nothing of value from it and every one else has show it is worthless.
Quote:
I think you've wasted enough time here.
|
The only one wasting time is you.
Why are you?
--J.D.
|
04-06-2011, 12:53 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
|
04-06-2011, 12:54 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Unfortunately, we didn't make the kind of progress I had hoped for.
|
You should cease trying to sell ignorant nonsense to critical thinkers, particularly those who actually know the subjects the author of said ignorant nonsense so pathetically pontificates upon.
--J.D.
|
04-06-2011, 12:59 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Unfortunately, we didn't make the kind of progress I had hoped for.
|
You should cease trying to sell ignorant nonsense to critical thinkers, particularly those who actually know the subjects the author of said ignorant nonsense so pathetically pontificates upon.
--J.D.
|
Doctor X, you never read the book so your opinion of him means nothing. I know you couldn't wait to say this. I hope you feel better now.
|
04-06-2011, 01:06 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Doctor X, you never read the book so your opinion of him means nothing. I know you couldn't wait to say this. I hope you feel better now.
|
On the contrary.
You really know nothing. Enjoy your temper-tantrum, child.
--J.D.
|
04-06-2011, 01:28 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
DaveT, have you ever seen the movie 'Battle Beyond the Stars'?
|
04-06-2011, 02:09 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I have not.
|
04-06-2011, 02:49 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
There is one sequence in the movie where Gelt (a mercenary played by Robert Vaughn) agrees to fight for the safety of a planet for a meal and a place to stay. In the end it's a grave and a full meal buried with him. The movie was based on the 'Magnificent Seven' which was based on 'Seven Samurai'.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 29 (0 members and 29 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 AM.
|
|
|
|