A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can determine, through mathematical calculations, the exact time a car will reach its destination by knowing its speed and how far it has to travel (taking into consideration any delays that may occur). We can determine, through mathematical calculations, the liftoff thrust it takes to get a space shuttle into orbit. We can determine, through mathematical calculations, that there will one day be peace on earth.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop it right there. There are principles that can be detected from observing a few. We cannot observe every single apple that falls from a tree, but we can make a general observation from the fact that we never see apples fall upwards.

Yeah! Like how every crow is black, for instance. This is an undeniable fact!

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah! Like how every crow is black, for instance. This is an undeniable fact!

show spoiler

An albino crow. Very cool. Thanks for the picture. TLR, can there be gravity and no gravity within the earth's atmosphere? Hypothetically, even if a person was born without a conscience, it wouldn't stop the new world from becoming a reality. It is true that the potential for conscience to control behavior can be strengthened or weakened depending on environmental conditions. I don't even want to get into Chapter Two (which shows how man becomes more responsible in a no free will environment) since no one seems interested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, not a single person agrees. You just equate understanding with agreement, because your belief in this book is a cast-in-stone dogma. A signed affidavit from God, Buddha and Oprah Winfrey would not change your mind on this.

You're right, and you still didn't answer the question. What is the discovery Vivisectus. You know so much about it so why not tell everyone what it is you disagree with. You can do that much, can't you?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, an albino crow. Thanks for the picture. TLR, it is a true observation that conscience can be strengthened or weakened depending on environmental conditions.

You would have to find a way to measure conscience that is objective enough not to be a waste of time. Then you would have to measure it, probably starting with a fairly homogenous group, thus limiting your initial study to "conscience in people selected with method X".

Then, when you make your claim, you have to submit your results so other people can check them, and can try to replicate that test independently.

THEN you can say something like that. Not before.

Also:



I present to you the hooded crow, only found here in Ireland and in Scotland.

This thread was worth it just for the opportunity to one-up The Lone Ranger on a point of ornithology

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG it's meant to be humorous.

How was I supposed to know it was meant to be humorous? I thought I broke a major rule and was going to be banned by the administrators.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, an albino crow. Thanks for the picture. TLR, it is a true observation that conscience can be strengthened or weakened depending on environmental conditions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You would have to find a way to measure conscience that is objective enough not to be a waste of time. Then you would have to measure it, probably starting with a fairly homogenous group, thus limiting your initial study to "conscience in people selected with method X".

Then, when you make your claim, you have to submit your results so other people can check them, and can try to replicate that test independently.

THEN you can say something like that. Not before.

Noooooo Vivisectus. You're 100% wrong! All babies are born with the potential to develop a strong conscience. It's the environment that causes conscience to be weakened. In a free will environment we are able to rationalize, shift responsibility to something or someone else as the responsible party, or to justify our actions. I don't want to have to put you on ignore too but you're getting real close. I have no desire to continue this conversation with people who are not truly interested, and you're one of them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also:



I present to you the hooded crow, only found here in Ireland and in Scotland.

This thread was worth it just for the opportunity to one-up The Lone Ranger on a point of ornithology

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

TLR, can there be gravity and no gravity within the earth's atmosphere?

Ever heard of the "Vomit Comet"?

The real world is a more complex place than you seem to realize -- or more to the point, than Lessans realized. Paradoxically, we know a great deal more about how it works -- and how it doesn't work -- than either you or Lessans seemed to be capable of understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

TLR, can there be gravity and no gravity within the earth's atmosphere?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ever heard of the "Vomit Comet"?

Simulating a no gravity environment is not living in a no gravity environment.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The real world is a more complex place than you seem to realize -- or more to the point, than Lessans realized. Paradoxically, we know a great deal more about how it works -- and how it doesn't work -- than either you or Lessans seemed to be capable of understanding.

Oh my gosh, have you completely lost it?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You would have to find a way to measure conscience that is objective enough not to be a waste of time. Then you would have to measure it, probably starting with a fairly homogenous group, thus limiting your initial study to "conscience in people selected with method X".

Then, when you make your claim, you have to submit your results so other people can check them, and can try to replicate that test independently.

THEN you can say something like that. Not before.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Noooooo Vivisectus. You're 100% wrong! All babies are born with the potential to develop a strong conscience. It's the environment that causes conscience to be weakened. In a free will environment we are able to rationalize, shift responsibility to something or someone else as the responsible party, or to justify our actions. I don't want to have to put you on ignore too but you're getting real close. I have no desire to continue this conversation with people who are not truly interested, and you're one of them.

You can claim I am wrong as much as you like, but until you actually support that claim it remains a mere puff of hot air.

I know you like to think that. But what reason do you have to believe it except for your desire to believe it? Please note all copypasta will be ignored. I read the damn thing and I was not impressed. Say it succinctly and say it yourself or do not say it at all.

Also please note you just objected to any kind of sensible testing of what you proposed. Apparently you do not want that kind of thing: what you want is anything that could possibly be thought of as supporting your dogmatic belief.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Simulating a no gravity environment is not living in a no gravity environment.

It's not "simulating" a no-gravity environment. It is a (temporary) no-gravity environment, strictly speaking. Do you even know what the phrase "no gravity environment" means? Apparently not.

Oh my gosh, have you completely lost it?

Nope. Just pointing out an observation. Not a very astute one, admittedly; it's a very obvious and easily-demonstrated observation.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, have you completely lost it?

Wow, you are an arrogant little twat. Getting all sorts of undeserved attention, which is what you crave.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How was I supposed to know it was meant to be humorous? I thought I broke a major rule and was going to be banned by the administrators.

First clue, Vivisectus post

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Congratulations! You have invoked Hitler (or the nazi's) in an internet discussion! According to the well-established Rules of the Internet, you have now lost the debate and thread is over

Note the use of the rhetorical and not even real "Rules of the Internet"
Note that losing the debate is your "punishment"
Note the smiley
All indicate sarcasm/parody/humor

Second clue, First sentence of the Wiki link: Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990


How many times have we told you we almost never ban people at ?

The only rules are no posting of illegal material (like child porn), no making death threats, no revealing other poster's personal info, no spamming, no copyright violations

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess we're finished then.

One more thing you obsess over.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just confirms to me that you are very biased investigator.

You should know.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, put my subjectivity aside? You are asking me to take myself out of my own analytical processes.

Who is it you are trying to convince? If it's me, then you have to deal with who I am. If it's not me, you'll have to come to terms with the subjective mentality of whomever you are dealing with.

She would have to come to grips with her own mental state first, since it will be one of the first things people notice about her. And it works against her. She would be better off just giving up.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This book does not reduce all human reactions to a simple system. You can't even begin to envision how different the world will be, so the comparison is useless.

Your ability to comprehend is useless as well.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well, it seems that the book does have some power, 2 threads on this forum and how many other forums for almost a decade, and no sign that she will stop. The book has definitly changed Peacegirl's life.

That thread has little to do with the book and everything to do with peacegirls mental illness.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times have I said that mathematical, in this context, does not have to do with numbers but is still accurate because it means "undeniable". I will continue to use this word, and I will not retract this claim.

There are all sorts of words that you and Lessans use incorrectly. It is what you would expect from someone who has no idea of what they are talking about and is soooo mentally ill that they can't be corrected.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, just because the observation was just below the radar of what the average person could see doesn't make it wrong.

Are you kidding me? He read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times because he was beginning to see patterns in behavior that we couldn't see from just one lonely apple falling from one lonely tree. Seriously LadyShea, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have read decline and fall many more times than that. So what?

When people read other books and claim there is information in the book that supports their case then they cite page and paragraph. Otherwise they are not taken seriously. And even if they cite page and paragraph, its just a book. You can read it 100 times and it can still be wrong. Reading it many times doesn't make it right.

But his knowledge came from actual observations. I don't understand you because you are totally dismissing what I have shared with you this entire time.

You just said that his knowledge came from another book. That is not an actual observation, that is second hand knowledge at best and if it is about the Roman empire then it is fourth, fifth, nth hand knowledge at best.

First hand knowledge is when you see it yourself. Like watching an apple fall. That is first hand knowledge. Anything from a book is at very best second hand knowledge.

So even Lessans book is at best second hand knowledge and not very good second hand knowledge because Lessans didn't bother to provide enough information for others to reproduce his observations.

peacegirl you've been told this many dozens of times and it still just does not sink in. Your brain just does not work.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That thread has little to do with the book and everything to do with peacegirls mental illness.

Well, if the book or Lessans did not cause, they at least contributed to Peacegirls mental illness. So if the book does not have power, it is having an effect.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't even want to get into Chapter Two.

Of course you don't, there is even more wrong with that one, but the entertainment value of the thread might increase.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times have I said that mathematical, in this context, does not have to do with numbers but is still accurate because it means "undeniable". I will continue to use this word, and I will not retract this claim.

The phrase "mathematical calculations" implies real math, not Lessans' made up math.

Show the calculations that demonstrate that there will one day be peace on earth. Either that or retract the claim that this has been calculated mathematically.

[Angakuk]

Proof that Lessans was right about the word 'beautiful'.

Ugly People Prejudice - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 11/14/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[Gonzo]

I don't know, guys. Tim Brewer hasn't posted much lately. Do you think peacegirl is his alter ego?