A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dunno about Spacemoneky, but if that happens in my lifetime I will get on the TV or YouTube or whatever and say "I am a codfish"

Wow, that's a nice thought, but I wouldn't want you to do that. This isn't about saying "I told you so", even though I have to admit I would get a twinge of satisfaction knowing that Lessans was finally vindicated.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the antithesis of what I'm saying.

What you really mean is quite often the antithesis of what you are actually saying. So LadyShea probably has it right.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you, correct? Einstein didn't need your approval, and neither did Lessans. Just remember the following because it seems you are using certain standards that you believe can determine whether Lessans is right or wrong, and you have concluded that he is wrong. Just remember that this knowledge is not an opinion. Just maybe you will have the decency to stop acting as if you know he is wrong (because you don't), and give him the benefit of the doubt before throwing this knowledge into a scrap heap which you will eventually do if you keep on this path.

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

Not arrogant at all, there. I dare you to find a quote from Einstein that says anything like that.

Only a crackpot tells you that they have the undeniable truth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the antithesis of what I'm saying.

No it's not. You say man is compelled by his nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. The word compel introduces the element of "necessary" or "must" because compelled means forced

Are you defining compelled in some other way? What are you saying if I got it so wrong as to be labeled antithetical?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The most you can say is that people did choose the way the did and that you believe, think, or of the opinion that the choice was in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that people can only observe humans acting, but they can find a thread in their actions that prove something true.

Well yeah, they can often prove that a human acted a certain way.

You can't even entertain the possibility that Lessans is right (for whatever reason), which feeds into the way you respond. I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong. That's what is happening, without one shred of proof, and it's ironic because this brings into question who is really blind.

You can't even stop weaselly evasions on the simplest of basic questions like "What and whom did Lessans observe astutely?"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Not arrogant at all, there. I dare you to find a quote from Einstein that says anything like that.

Only a crackpot tells you that they have the undeniable truth.

Yeah, my favorite part is the whole "the proof is contained within itself" circle.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that people can only observe humans acting, but they can find a thread in their actions that prove something true. You can't even entertain the possibility that Lessans is right (for whatever reason), which feeds into the way you respond. I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong. That's what is happening, without one shred of proof, and it's ironic because this brings into question who is really blind.

There are actually places in the book where Lessans is not wrong, or wouldn't be wrong if he didn't tie his correct ideas with his more stupid notions.

One of the reasons I find Lessans' book so compelling is that he takes correct observations, like "words and ideas can affect perception" and then expands that into "vision is efferent and real time." It's epic failure in ways I haven't experienced before.

[LadyShea]

You never responded to this exchange peacegirl. Did you honestly think that when I was discussing "encyclopedias" and "science teachers" that I was discussing the excerpt you posted, or did you post that in a dishonest attempt to make it look like I was the liar?

Did you forget about the actual excerpt I was referring to? Do you think the actual excerpt I posted is presented as an "abstract example"?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you pasted the portion that doesn't contain the claim about that being in the encyclopedia and the conversation with a science teacher.

You dishonest lying little weasel, you!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For those who never read it, here is the claim I am referring to when I call Lessans a liar with the false statement in red

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What you really mean is quite often the antithesis of what you are actually saying. So LadyShea probably has it right.

Exactly what I said. We're not talking about after the fact; we're talking about before the fact. These are opposites.

an·tith·e·sis   [an-tith-uh-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural an·tith·e·ses  [-seez] Show IPA.
1.
opposition; contrast: the antithesis of right and wrong.
2.
the direct opposite (usually followed by of or to ): Her behavior was the very antithesis of cowardly.
3.
Rhetoric .
a.
the placing of a sentence or one of its parts against another to which it is opposed to form a balanced contrast of ideas, as in “Give me liberty or give me death.”
b.
the second sentence or part thus set in opposition, as “or give me death.”
4.
Philosophy . See under Hegelian dialectic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antithesis

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah, my favorite part is the whole "the proof is contained within itself" circle.

You're too thickheaded for me to discuss this book with you. You come back with an assinine response when I offered a legitimate point. Knowledge can contain proof of its own veracity. And it's a big fat lie that someone can't claim they have an undeniable truth. You're the liar now. How does it feel?

[LadyShea]

We're not talking about after the fact; we're talking about before the fact. These are opposites.

Who is we? Which position were you claiming is Lessans and which did you think I was positing as the antithesis? How about you state exactly why what I was said was "antithesis" instead of throwing out ambiguous statements like this one?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're too thickheaded for me to discuss this book with you. You come back with an assinine response when I offered a legitimate point. Knowledge can contain proof of its own veracity. And it's a big fat lie that someone can't claim they have an undeniable truth. You're the liar now. How does it feel?

"Knowledge can contain proof of its own veracity" this is a nonsense statement. Please enter something in place of the word knowledge (not from Lessans, some other knowledge that isn't controversial), into that sentence and its self contained proof it its truth. Only religious textx make such claims

Anyone can claim they have an undeniable truth, sure, specious didn't say it was impossible. He said only crackpots do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You never responded to this exchange peacegirl. Did you honestly think that when I was discussing "encyclopedias" and "science teachers" that I was discussing the excerpt you posted, or did you post that in a dishonest attempt to make it look like I was the liar?

Did you forget about the actual excerpt I was referring to? Do you think the actual excerpt I posted is presented as an "abstract example"?

Yes, he offered a specific example to make a general point regarding the belief in delayed time seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you pasted the portion that doesn't contain the claim about that being in the encyclopedia and the conversation with a science teacher.

You dishonest lying little weasel, you!

You are really turning into a nasty smartass bitch, you know that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The example of Rigel and Columbus was just that, an example. This is exactly what scientists are saying. You can't stop from making these meaningless accusations, can you? Maybe he didn't express the concept to your liking, but this doesn't change the validity of the concept. Here is what he said for those who never read it:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality: pp. 119-120

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away.

If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen.

The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not my fault that Lessans chose to lie to make his points.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For those who never read it, here is the claim I am referring to when I call Lessans a liar with the false statement in red

I have no reason not to believe that this example was in the encyclopedia, and if for any reason it wasn't, then he was only using this example to explain the concept of delayed time seeing. It is true that present day thought states that we would be able to see the past due to light alone (e.g., we would be able to see Columbus discovering America if we were sitting on a star and the light reached our telescopes). This is considered a fact. You are hypercritical of this man which is causing you to be myopic. Your investigative skills are terrible because you're trying desperately to make him look like a fraud, and he wasn't, therefore the picture you're portraying (which is a joke because you didn't know this man at all) is the BIG fat lie. You're completely misrepresenting who this man was so people will jump on the anti-Lessans bandwagon. You need an attitude adjustment or you will never understand this book because you are too busy criticizing it. You cannot approach new knowledge with such an accusatory tone and expect to learn anything.

[LadyShea]

you are using certain standards that you believe can determine whether Lessans is right or wrong, and you have concluded that he is wrong.

Yes, I am using the standards of evidence and reality.

Just remember that this knowledge is not an opinion.

Is too an opinion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, he offered a specific example to make a general point regarding the belief in delayed time seeing.

That wasn't my question

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really turning into a nasty smartass bitch, you know that?

So? You purposefully chose the wrong excerpt and posted it as if that was what I was referring to. That was dishonest and nasty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The example of Rigel and Columbus was just that, an example. This is exactly what scientists are saying, even to this day. You can't stop from making these meaningless accusations, can you? Maybe he didn't express the concept to your liking, but this doesn't change the validity of the concept. Here is what he said for those who never read it:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality: pp. 119-120

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away.

If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen.

The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

Now you're lying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that if he said this that it was in an encyclopedia, then it was, and if it wasn't, then he was only using this to explain that it IS in the enclopedia that we see in delayed time, whether or not the Rigel example was the specific example given. You are hypercritical of this man, and he did nothing to give you reason to act with such disdain. Your investigative skills are terrible because you're trying desperately to make him look like fraud, and he wasn't, therefore the picture you're trying to portray is the big lie here. It's YOU that's the liar because you're misrepresenting who he was.

He lied to make his point. He stated that this specific example was in encyclopedias and taught by science teachers as fact. That's a lie.

When I pointed out the obvious lie you pasted the wrong excerpt as if that was what I was referring to. Another lie, this time by you.

Lying liars lying.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, it's not a satire so I can't pretend it is. I know you wish it was because then the conflict of real time vision vs. delayed vision would be gone, and everything would be honkey dorey!

Unfortunately for Lessans and his claims, there is no conflict, because there is no real-time seeing, nor could there be. Have you already forgotten that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets? This fact kills Lessans' claims. The fact that you never deal with this issue, and simply pretend it has not been posted, is why people think, quite accurately, that you are wholly dishonest.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, that's a nice thought, but I wouldn't want you to do that. This isn't about saying "I told you so", even though I have to admit I would get a twinge of satisfaction knowing that Lessans was finally vindicated.

Only a twinge? If I didn't know you were Lessans daughter I would have thought you were his mother.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're too thickheaded for me to discuss this book with you. You come back with an assinine response when I offered a legitimate point. Knowledge can contain proof of its own veracity. And it's a big fat lie that someone can't claim they have an undeniable truth. You're the liar now. How does it feel?

The only one thickheaded is you. You are thickheaded about simply everything, as well as dishonest. Did you actually ever go to school? Or did Lessans homeschool you with his idiot book as the primary teaching device?

"Knowledge," which is a slipshod use of the term in this case, CANNOT contain proof of its own veracity. This is well known. The only exception is in the case of deductive logic, and even this is open to challenge if you accept other formal logics. Mathematics partially contains proofs of of its own truth, but it known today that there are in any axiomatic mathematical system propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system.

Moreover, the philosophical skeptic will argue with some persuasiveness that we cannot have knowledge at all. So you are, again, flat wrong, and so was Lessans. His claim of undeniable proof was the cry of the conceited crank.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are hypercritical of this man

No I am not. This is a reasonable level of criticalness given the claim that you are presenting the most important bit of scholarship ever in the whole history of the world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he did nothing to give you reason to act with such disdain.

He wrote a book claimed to be the answer to all evil, and used shitty scholarship, self aggrandizement, lies, poor, circular and fallacious reasoning, and introduced it by saying that any reader who didn't agree with him was either stupid or arrogant. That's enough to make reasonable people feel disdain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your investigative skills are terrible because you're trying desperately to make him look like fraud

He made himself look like a fraud, my "investigative skills" simply helped me find the lies and fallacies and poor reasoning and crackpot red flags.

and he wasn't, therefore the picture you're trying to portray is the big lie here

I have stated my opinions and my findings that led me to conclude he was a liar in some cases and gravely mistaken in others. The bad writing and arrogance is on display for everyone who reads the book. Not my fault

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's YOU that's the liar because you're misrepresenting who he was.

I didn't know the man, I have know idea who he was. I only know what he wrote.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, don't you have a clue as to what you're doing? NA's constant badgering has really gotten to you. I now put you in a category of someone who is so off the mark that I refuse to talk to you, unless, you change your attitude. I am not here to be attacked, degraded, and made to feel that I am mentally ill for believing very strongly that Lessans was right. When he is proven right, what will you have to say then Spacemonkey? And don't tell me this can't happen because you know he's wrong.

peacegirl, nobody accepts your claim that you are not here to be attacked, degraded, or to be seen as mentally ill. For the last 10,000 posts that is pretty much all you've been getting. And yet you come back for more. How could people not see you as mentally ill? It is you that is getting to everybody, just not in the way your delusion intended.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Knowledge can contain proof of its own veracity" this is a nonsense statement. Please enter something in place of the word knowledge (not from Lessans, some other knowledge that isn't controversial), into that sentence and its self contained proof it its truth. Only religious textx make such claims

3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 contains proof of its veracity. Obviously, you have to understand what these symbols mean, but this equation does contain its own proof and you don't need an expert to verify it if you understand the equation. And I am asking people not to tell me that 3 is to 6 is not what 4 is to 8. It will fall on deaf ears.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyone can claim they have an undeniable truth, sure, specious didn't say it was impossible. He said only crackpots do so.

There you go again. This is getting us nowhere and I'm not spending hours and hours of my time defending the book when nothing productive is being discussed. This has turned into an all out attack on this man because you don't like that he was so sure of his claims, and you'll find anything you can (even if it's trivial nonsense) to discredit him.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot approach new knowledge with such an accusatory tone and expect to learn anything.

Sure I can, valid ideas stand up to intense criticism.

[LadyShea]

3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 contains proof of its veracity.

Tautologies are trivially true, yes, saying .50 = .50 is a true statement. How very profound! OMG call the newspapers! Half equals half!

Are you trying to express a similar tautology with the book and all of this? Because I'll grant you that "X = X" or "Lessans ideas = Lessans ideas"

[LadyShea]

This is getting us nowhere and I'm not spending hours and hours of my time defending the book when nothing productive is being discussed.

Sure you are, you've been doing it for 10 years.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 contains proof of its veracity. Obviously, you have to understand what these symbols mean, but this equation does contain its own proof and you don't need an expert to verify it if you understand the equation. And I am asking people not to tell me that 3 is to 6 is not what 4 is to 8. It will fall on deaf ears.

I guess you missed my post. Mathematics is PARTLY self-provable. Have you ever heard of a non-crackpot named Godel? Or didn't Daddy homeschool you about him?

Lessans' claims are manifestly NOT deductive. Claims about turning on the sun at noon, et al, are inductive and empirical, and NOT mathematical. Therefore such claims cannot be self-proving or in any sense a priori true. They must be tested against reality. When we test them against reality, we find Lessans to be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No I am not. This is a reasonable level of criticalness given the claim that you are presenting the most important bit of scholarship ever in the whole history of the world.

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he did nothing to give you reason to act with such disdain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He wrote a book claimed to be the answer to all evil, and used shitty scholarship, self aggrandizement, lies, poor, circular and fallacious reasoning, and introduced it by saying that any reader who didn't agree with him was either stupid or arrogant. That's enough to make reasonable people feel disdain.

We've been through this already and I'm not going to defend it again. His claims remain valid. I have explained why he wrote the introduction the way he did, and if you can't get past it, then you really should move on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your investigative skills are terrible because you're trying desperately to make him look like fraud

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He made himself look like a fraud, my "investigative skills" simply helped me find the lies and fallacies and poor reasoning and crackpot red flags.

There you go again taking these dialogues (which were only meant to clarify) and twisting them into something sinister. BTW, you cannot clump together "lies", "fallacies", and "poor reasoning" and then very surreptitiously conclude that he's a crackpot. Where is the poor reasoning? Where are the fallacies? Where is the circular reasoning, other than in your head? And as far as lies, he did not lie (he was a truthful man). You are trying to get people to jump on this hateful bandwagon, and for what? So you can prevent people from getting taken? If you don't believe that this book is valid, that's fine with me, but let others come to their own conclusions. Unfortunately, your suspicions are ruining it for you because, as paradoxical as it sounds, they will prevent you from grasping the very concepts you are suspicious of. You will be too busy searching for non-existent flaws.

and he wasn't, therefore the picture you're trying to portray is the big lie here

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have stated my opinions and my findings that led me to conclude he was a liar in some cases and gravely mistaken in others. The bad writing and arrogance is on display for everyone who reads the book. Not my fault

That's your opinion, and opinions don't mean shit. You know the saying: Opinions are like assholes; we all have one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's YOU that's the liar because you're misrepresenting who he was.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't know the man, I have know idea who he was. I only know what he wrote.

That's not enough for you to be slandering him the way you are.