A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread is at a standstill. No one is reading the book except to find things that make them laugh. All the conversation is about how wrong Lessans is, that he has only made assertions, and that there is no evidence. That is getting very redundant. I know what people think; but they keep repeating it as if repeating it is going to change my mind.

They're repeating it because you're not getting it. Well, some of them are, others are just basically trolling you.

I never read it, but I'd like to just to see how he persuades people. The thing is I am not trying to persuade anyone. I want them to test the accuracy of his premises. That's the only way they will come around, but by that time I'll be long gone.

Good luck with that.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if that proves that the features are what the dog sees. It could have been the hat, or the glasses that the dog was familiar with. I know that my dog is cautious when I come in the house. She is looking right at me but until I speak, or she smells me, she doesn't seem to know for sure that it's me. I know that's just one dog but I'd like to do more testing.

Yeah and so what if it was the glasses and the hat?

That's still using sight to pick out her master, since if she was using smell then she ought to have picked up on the fact that her master was the other guy.

Your dog might use more smell, but your dog might also be more near-sighted than other dogs, or might be going blind, who knows? The claim isn't that all dogs use primarily sight, because not all dogs have equally good sight or smell.

But this one dog very obviously using sight is strong counter-evidence to your claim that this shouldn't be possible.

In other words, there's an inequality in the positions here: your claim is invalidated by demonstrating that some dogs use sight to distinguish their owners. The claim by others is not that dogs only or even primarily use sight, but rather that dogs can use either sight, or smell, or both. In which case, if your dog doesn't use sight for whatever reason, it doesn't demonstrate your claims at all.

Your claim can only be demonstrated by a study of dogs in general, which requires many dogs. But it can be disproven by just a couple examples of dogs that do use sight, unfortunately for you.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They never will stop laughing. The reasons people have for not getting married are numerous. I did not mean to imply that their reasons have to do with why legal marriages will be obsolete in the new world. The only thing it shows is that people seem to be gravitating toward less obligatory, less controlling, more equitable, more loving relationships. Years ago, people would have been appalled at the thought of living together as a lifestyle.

When you say that [x] event is in keeping with the principles of the book, it implies that there is some relation between [x] event and the principles of the book. Earlier, you used the idea that people living together and not getting married as support for your assertions that "The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. " and "The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on. " In order for the idea of people living together and not getting married to be support for those assertions, you have to imply that the reason behind people not getting married is because of the accuracy of the ideas that are in the book.

Now you say that the idea that people living together and not getting married is not support for the idea from the book that marriage will be obsolete [I assume because of the principles that L espouses]. So why did you even bring it up? You brought this idea into the conversation, and now you don't think it applies.

This is an example of you flailing defensively and sputtering when someone attempts to pin down what you actually mean. In my opinion, you seem so convinced that we will harm the ideas that you try to negate everything that we say. Unfortunately, this means that you don't make a lot of sense and sometimes contradict yourself. That is one reason why people think you are a poor spokesperson and are amusing.

You aren't being specific. What lack of knowledge in biology, evolution, linguistics, etc. has the author misconstrued?

I have been specific before. Many other posters have been specific before. See the entire conversation about sight in this very thread that you have participated in. A good chunk of the past 70 pages have been people talking about how his ideas rest on misunderstandings of how the world works.

I thought of this thread tonight when I watched a Nova about space travel to Mars. Turns out, when astronauts sleep in space they visually experience cosmic rays that pierce their eyes. Also, people who drive Mars rovers do not do so in real time. Interesting, isn't it.

In order for this knowledge to rid our world of evil, it cannot be a hunch, a guess, a conjecture, or a philosophy. Science is not the end all of everything, that is true, but it is in this case. But to make people less volatile we can replace the word 'scientific' for 'undeniable'.

Why not? Philosophies have rid our world of much evil. The ideas that all people are equal before the law and have inalienable rights are not scientific facts, but I think they have and have the power to eliminate evil. The idea that there is unity for humanity in Christ is not a scientific fact, but I believe it has great power to eliminate evil.

I am not being volatile when I say that this isn't science. Just like I am not being volatile when I see a living creature with feathers and describe it as a bird. Science has certain features and characteristics and this work does not appear to have those. Therefore, not science. And science does not mean undeniable. Plus, I don't think that science absolutely makes the world a better place--there are many things that are scientifically feasible (or might be) that are morally wrong. So, even if it were scientific, that doesn't mean it is good. You can do scientifically valid experiments that are vile and inhumane, that is why there are ethics boards and rules.

Even if you switch the word to undeniable, that doesn't work for many people, because they object or DENY that the author is correct about how the world works and how it will change.

Of course your agreement or disagreement has no real bearing on whether someone is correct or not. Whether I agree that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 is irrelevant. I have said many times that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In addition, I never said that everything smart, capable people always do is good or right.

OMG, I did not say that you said that everything smart, capable people do is good or right. My point is that even if you can show that he was brilliant and analytical, that does not mean his ideas are any good. Technically, he can be brilliant and still ignorant on many topics. Most people are, brilliant or not.

And, I keep saying that "Saying so doesn't make it so." But you don't seem to understand that at all.

What are your objections? Tell me.

Start at the beginning of this thread and keep reading.

I am really sorry if people take offense that I am not building relationships. If I could I would, but I don't have the time. I have taken some of the advice given here, and I've listened carefully. I never leave a forum without gaining quite a bit of new knowledge or understanding, and I appreciate that.

You haven't shown any evidence of taking the first hint of advice from people here. SAYING SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. You still aren't even using the quote function correctly, much less providing supporting details for jack, or showing an understanding of any of the points people are bringing up that contradict you. If you are paying attention, why do you have questions about what my objections are and what people think Lessans was ignorant about?

These principles are definitely beyond the framework of present day thought. I think it's hard for people to wrap their minds around the idea that a no blame environment would create a world without war, crime, and hatred. I feel that if no one can at least temporarily accept the three pillars upon which this knowledge rests, then there is no where to go.

People seem to be able to contemplate it, but they don't agree that his conclusions follow. And they don't agree that he is generalizing too much when creating his framework.

Because people are becoming more open minded about certain topics that, in the past, could not even be discussed, it won't be as difficult to get people to read the book. For example, he mentions that formal religion is on its way out. Can you imagine people reading this years ago? When the universe is ready, that's when this discovery will come to light, and not a second sooner.

Well, if it's not going to happen until the universe is ready, why does it matter that you are promoting it? Couldn't you just keep your mouth shut and it would still happen anyway?

As I said earlier in the post, the only way we can continue to make any progress whatsoever is if people can [temporarily] assume that he is correct in regard to how conscience works, why man's will is not free, and why the two-sided equation prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point in continuing.

We aren't interested in making progress the way you want. And anyway, people have been willing to assume that there isn't free will, etc. LadyShea specifically did this a long time ago. Other posters have given charitable readings as well, but had questions about how the idea was applied or what it meant--and I don't think any of them felt you addressed them.

There is no point in continuing if you think that people here are going to agree with you. There is no evidence of any one interested in these ideas as true or useful. specious_reasons is right that people are interested in you and your reactions, but the ideas as truth, no.

Goodness gracious.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

They're repeating it because you're not getting it. Well, some of them are, others are just basically trolling you.

I, for one, initially engaged peacegirl in good faith. I don't think I can keep that up. If I do try to keep conversing with her I am very much afraid I will just end up trolling her. The temptation is just too great. It is a bit like trying to resist the urge to kick the guy with the "kick me" sign taped to his back. So, except for the occasional snarky aside, I think I am pretty much done with the active phase of my participation in this thread. I will keep reading though. Trying to stop reading this thread would be like trying to not look at that guy with the single drop of snot hanging off the end of his nose. I would always be wondering whether or not it ever finally fell off into his dinner plate.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want them to test the accuracy of his premises.

This is the crux of the whole thread, and apparently your life's work as well. In principle, you declaim 'go forth and test this in the name of progress and world peace!' but in practice you flat-out reject any tests that do NOT demonstrate accuracy for his premises. His entire chapter on the nature of words like 'beauty' and how they can harm people hinges entirely on his interpretation of how the eye works and how the brain processes that information, an interpretation which is demonstrably false. Tests have been done, and can be done right now, regarding this particular premise, and they have shown this particular premise to be, in the kindest possible terms, utter nonsense.

But, you don't seem to be interested in that, insisting that further testing will somehow eventually validate absurd and verifiably false notions like the brain projecting images through the eye instead of receiving information from it, and images of distant events propagating instantly instead of with a speed-of-light delay, and that no outside stimulus ever strikes the optic nerve.

It has been clear for some time that you are only interested in discussing this book and the ideas it proposes to the extent that people will agree with them, or at the very least not claim they are wrong. What the evidence suggests, what actual scientific inquiry has to say about it, is only relevant to you if it supports these ideas, and continually ignored if it does not. You are, in plainest terms, a believer, and not interested in that which does not bolster that belief in yourself or in others.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Yeah and so what if it was the glasses and the hat? P.S. My dog is not going blind. Her vision is good. She even has great night vision.

That's still using sight to pick out her master, since if she was using smell then she ought to have picked up on the fact that her master was the other guy.

Your dog might use more smell, but your dog might also be more near-sighted than other dogs, or might be going blind, who knows? The claim isn't that all dogs use primarily sight, because not all dogs have equally good sight or smell.

But this one dog very obviously using sight is strong counter-evidence to your claim that this shouldn't be possible.

In other words, there's an inequality in the positions here: your claim is invalidated by demonstrating that some dogs use sight to distinguish their owners. The claim by others is not that dogs only or even primarily use sight, but rather that dogs can use either sight, or smell, or both. In which case, if your dog doesn't use sight for whatever reason, it doesn't demonstrate your claims at all.

Your claim can only be demonstrated by a study of dogs in general, which requires many dogs. But it can be disproven by just a couple examples of dogs that do use sight, unfortunately for you.

No, that's not what Lessans claim was. He claimed that the image (features) of the owner was not entering the dog's eyes and being identified. Yes, a dog can be trained to recognize (through sight) his owner's gait (which was mentioned in the book), or some other cue that could help him. But the variable that would need to be tested is whether the features alone, with everything else being equal, would allow a dog to recognize his master. That is still an open question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They never will stop laughing. The reasons people have for not getting married are numerous. I did not mean to imply that their reasons have to do with why legal marriages will be obsolete in the new world. The only thing it shows is that people seem to be gravitating toward less obligatory, less controlling, more equitable, more loving relationships. Years ago, people would have been appalled at the thought of living together as a lifestyle.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

When you say that [x] event is in keeping with the principles of the book, it implies that there is some relation between [x] event and the principles of the book. Earlier, you used the idea that people living together and not getting married as support for your assertions that "The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. " and "The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on. " In order for the idea of people living together and not getting married to be support for those assertions, you have to imply that the reason behind people not getting married is because of the accuracy of the ideas that are in the book.

That's really not what I meant. It was an observation that as time goes by people will be more willing to read the book because it's already in keeping with their beliefs. As I said, years earlier if I gave the book to people, his saying that religion is coming to an end would have put an end to their desire to read, because they would have thought that was blaphemous. Religion coming to an end??? No way. Another example in the book is about circumcision. Now you tell me, how can I market a book that argues against circumcision when so many religious people believe this is a covenant between God and man, or that it's a healthy practice??? It's very difficult.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Now you say that the idea that people living together and not getting married is not support for the idea from the book that marriage will be obsolete [I assume because of the principles that L espouses]. So why did you even bring it up? You brought this idea into the conversation, and now you don't think it applies.

I'm going to say, once again, that I only mentioned this to indicate that the gap between this world as it is right now, and the new world that is yet to be here, is getting smaller, therefore the freedom that people will experience in the new world won't seem at all unusual, or hard to imagine.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

This is an example of you flailing defensively and sputtering when someone attempts to pin down what you actually mean. In my opinion, you seem so convinced that we will harm the ideas that you try to negate everything that we say. Unfortunately, this means that you don't make a lot of sense and sometimes contradict yourself. That is one reason why people think you are a poor spokesperson and are amusing.

It is true that I am defensive because it is upsetting that people are so quick to tell me this man discovered nothing. And I am just a child who can't let go of his book because I invested so much time and faith in it. That's what bothers me. I will say that this has nothing to do with me. It's either factual, or it's not, and I'm not any closer to being convinced that these principles are not factual.

You aren't being specific. What lack of knowledge in biology, evolution, linguistics, etc. has the author misconstrued?

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I have been specific before. Many other posters have been specific before. See the entire conversation about sight in this very thread that you have participated in. A good chunk of the past 70 pages have been people talking about how his ideas rest on misunderstandings of how the world works.

I have said over and over that he never disputed the knowledge scientists have so painstakingly accumulated about the structure of the eye. But that does not mean that his observations were wrong regarding how the brain works in concert with the eyes.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I thought of this thread tonight when I watched a Nova about space travel to Mars. Turns out, when astronauts sleep in space they visually experience cosmic rays that pierce their eyes. Also, people who drive Mars rovers do not do so in real time. Interesting, isn't it.

When people are sleeping, they visualize all sorts of things. They dream all sorts of things. But does this mean that you can now use their dreams or visualizations as proof that Lessans was wrong regarding the eyes? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that people who drive Mars rovers do not do so in real time? Are you implying that none of us are living in real time now, not just seeing the past but we're now living in the past?

In order for this knowledge to rid our world of evil, it cannot be a hunch, a guess, a conjecture, or a philosophy. Science is not the end all of everything, that is true, but it is in this case. But to make people less volatile we can replace the word 'scientific' for 'undeniable'.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Why not? Philosophies have rid our world of much evil. The ideas that all people are equal before the law and have inalienable rights are not scientific facts, but I think they have and have the power to eliminate evil. The idea that there is unity for humanity in Christ is not a scientific fact, but I believe it has great power to eliminate evil.

This is much more difficult because it is in complete contradiction with a free will environment where judgment, blame, and punishment are the very foundation of civilization up to this point. Yes, you are absolutely right that certain laws that have come into existence to protect human rights have helped our world, as well as certain religious beliefs, but this knowledge prevents the last vestige of evil, which no religion, and no protective law could accomplish. In other words, in spite of the laws to protect human rights, we still have people who abuse those laws. In spite of all the laws on the books to try to deter people from killing and stealing, we still have people who abuse those laws, and will kill on a dime. It is absolutely true that our world is making amazing progress by leaps and bounds. A lot of this progress has to do with the internet which has ushered in the information age. I'm not diminishing that progress at all, or taking it lightly. I wouldn't be talking to you without this technological advancement.

rest of post cont. shortly

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When people are sleeping, they visualize all sorts of things. They dream all sorts of things. But does this mean that you can now use their dreams or visualizations as proof that Lessans was wrong regarding the eyes? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that people who drive Mars rovers do not do so in real time? Are you implying that none of us are living in real time now, not just seeing the past but we're now living in the past?

It is perfectly clear what people are telling you, FFS. Lessans is wrong. The eye is a sense organ with which we see the world. Because light propagates at a finite velocity, we do not see the world in "real time," because the light takes time to reach our eyes, and then our eyes and brain take some additional time to process what we are seeing.

This is all very well understood. Lessans' claims about the eye are unmitigated bullshit. Morever, we could never see things in "real time" anyway, because -- and here is the big kicker -- there is no such thing as "real" time. There is only proper time, which is the time measured in a specific reference frame. This is a result of the theory of relativity: There is no absolute NOW, and this too is a consequence of the fact that the velocity of light is limited, but that its speed is the same as measured by all inertial frames. The theory of relativity has been repeatedly verified. If we all saw things instantly, then relativity theory would be wrong, but it's not.

Many pages ago I introduced you to Einstein's thought experiment of a moving train with two observers, one on the train and the other on the ground. The upshot of the experiment is that the observer on the ground sees two lightning flashes simultaneously, while the observer on the train seems them sequentially. Hence, the observers have different planes of simultaneity. This would be impossible if Lessans were correct; but, of course, he's wrong. I doubt he even knew anything about relativity theory and probably did not even know that light propagates at a finite velocity.

[peacegirl]

cont. from previous post...

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I am not being volatile when I say that this isn't science. Just like I am not being volatile when I see a living creature with feathers and describe it as a bird. Science has certain features and characteristics and this work does not appear to have those. Therefore, not science. And science does not mean undeniable. Plus, I don't think that science absolutely makes the world a better place--there are many things that are scientifically feasible (or might be) that are morally wrong. So, even if it were scientific, that doesn't mean it is good. You can do scientifically valid experiments that are vile and inhumane, that is why there are ethics boards and rules.

I totally agree. This knowledge is only about ethics, morality, and goodness meaning that one could never hurt another under these conditions.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Even if you switch the word to undeniable, that doesn't work for many people, because they object or DENY that the author is correct about how the world works and how it will change.

Thank you for at least understanding my dilemma. I so appreciate what you just said, even if you agree with the people who oppose him. At the very least you understand the problem the author had, and you don't know how much I appreciate that.

I need to emphasize that your agreement or disagreement has no real bearing on whether someone is correct or not. Whether I agree that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 is irrelevant. I have said many times that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In addition, I never said that everything smart, capable people always do is good or right.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

OMG, I did not say that you said that everything smart, capable people do is good or right. My point is that even if you can show that he was brilliant and analytical, that does not mean his ideas are any good. Technically, he can be brilliant and still ignorant on many topics. Most people are, brilliant or not.

I never said that his ideas, without understanding the concepts, meant anything at all. Brilliance is just a word; it means nothing, and if you read the rest of the book you would understand that. It is a false premise. But, in my defense, you did say exactly those words. I repeated them word for word.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

And, I keep saying that "Saying so doesn't make it so." But you don't seem to understand that at all.

Where in the world did you get this impression that just because saying it is so, makes it so. This is so antithetical to what this author was saying, that is makes me tearful. And please don't try any tricks by saying I am appealing to people's emotion because that's a last resort.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Quote:
What are your objections? Tell me.

Start at the beginning of this thread and keep reading.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did, now what?

Quote:
I am really sorry if people take offense that I am not building relationships. If I could I would, but I don't have the time. I have taken some of the advice given here, and I've listened carefully. I never leave a forum without gaining quite a bit of new knowledge or understanding, and I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You haven't shown any evidence of taking the first hint of advice from people here. SAYING SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. You still aren't even using the quote function correctly, much less providing supporting details for jack, or showing an understanding of any of the points people are bringing up that contradict you. If you are paying attention, why do you have questions about what my objections are and what people think Lessans was ignorant about?

Quote:
These principles are definitely beyond the framework of present day thought. I think it's hard for people to wrap their minds around the idea that a no blame environment would create a world without war, crime, and hatred. I feel that if no one can at least temporarily accept the three pillars upon which this knowledge rests, then there is no where to go.

People seem to be able to contemplate it, but they don't agree that his conclusions follow. And they don't agree that he is generalizing too much when creating his framework.


Quote:
Because people are becoming more open minded about certain topics that, in the past, could not even be discussed, it won't be as difficult to get people to read the book. For example, he mentions that formal religion is on its way out. Can you imagine people reading this years ago? When the universe is ready, that's when this discovery will come to light, and not a second sooner.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Well, if it's not going to happen until the universe is ready, why does it matter that you are promoting it? Couldn't you just keep your mouth shut and it would still happen anyway?

No wildernesse, you will not get away with telling me to keep my mouth shut. I feel the anger in those very words. If you are that angry, our conversation is over not because I don't want to talk to you, but because your emotions will negate everything that I am offering.



Quote:
As I said earlier in the post, the only way we can continue to make any progress whatsoever is if people can [temporarily] assume that he is correct in regard to how conscience works, why man's will is not free, and why the two-sided equation prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point in continuing.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

We aren't interested in making progress the way you want. And anyway, people have been willing to assume that there isn't free will, etc. LadyShea specifically did this a long time ago. Other posters have given charitable readings as well, but had questions about how the idea was applied or what it meant--and I don't think any of them felt you addressed them.

That is true, but no one will give the author the time of day if he offers HIS most accurate definition.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

There is no point in continuing if you think that people here are going to agree with you. There is no evidence of any one interested in these ideas as true or useful. specious_reasons is right that people are interested in you and your reactions, but the ideas as truth, no.

This is not about me, and if people are using this as an escape hatch, so be it. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME AT ALL. I don't need to be psychoanalyzed as if I'm a nut case. Please stop this wildernesse.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Goodness gracious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

SO WHY IN THE WORLD ARE PEOPLE STILL HERE. IF YOU LEAVE, I'LL LEAVE, IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

Why should I leave first Doctor X? That's a really slick cop out. I started this thread, so I want to be here for the people who are interested. You can leave anytime, so why don't you? It's probably like watching the WWF. I guess it's human nature to want your guys to win and the bad guy (me) to be crushed.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the variable that would need to be tested is whether the features alone, with everything else being equal, would allow a dog to recognize his master. That is still an open question.

I'm wondering how many more controlled studies which directly demonstrate that some dogs can recognize their masters by visual cues alone will have to be done before you'll abandon this demonstrably-false statement. I'm guessing ∞ + 1.

For someone who chides others for supposedly being close-minded, you demonstrate an amazing ability to simply ignore evidence which contradicts your claims, even when that evidence is very well-supported, is directly referenced, and has been repeatedly brought to your attention.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said over and over that he never disputed the knowledge scientists have so painstakingly accumulated about the structure of the eye. But that does not mean that his observations were wrong regarding how the brain works in concert with the eyes.

Show me one neuron -- just one -- that can convey impulses from the brain to the retina of the eye along the optic nerve. Just one. I dare you.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I, for one, initially engaged peacegirl in good faith. I don't think I can keep that up. If I do try to keep conversing with her I am very much afraid I will just end up trolling her. The temptation is just too great. It is a bit like trying to resist the urge to kick the guy with the "kick me" sign taped to his back. So, except for the occasional snarky aside, I think I am pretty much done with the active phase of my participation in this thread. I will keep reading though. Trying to stop reading this thread would be like trying to not look at that guy with the single drop of snot hanging off the end of his nose. I would always be wondering whether or not it ever finally fell off into his dinner plate.

Actually, most people started out engaging in good faith. But when you're dealing with people who are highly dedicated to their ideas, the process of engagement degrades at some point. You have 2 basic choices, give up and stop engaging, or engage them only for your own amusement.

"Trolling" was probably a bit too harsh of a term for most people posting, right idea, wrong connotation.

Oh, and I'm right with you until the end of this thread. For me, part of the fascination is gauging different people's endurance - when people give up and how they do it. That, and I have a well documented unhealthy fascination with crap.

[Vivisectus]

There is one way to settle this - we wait 25 years for the revolution to happen, which it definitely will this time because it is mathematical and scientific, and the knowledge is now out there, freely available, with no meanie scientific community to suppress it because of their conservative agendas and closed minds. Have you requested some time to explain it to Obama yet, or is that for later when the ball gets rolling?

I assume that the Lessanist movement will soon start to get more and more vocal as the revolution gains momentum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I, for one, initially engaged peacegirl in good faith. I don't think I can keep that up. If I do try to keep conversing with her I am very much afraid I will just end up trolling her. The temptation is just too great. It is a bit like trying to resist the urge to kick the guy with the "kick me" sign taped to his back. So, except for the occasional snarky aside, I think I am pretty much done with the active phase of my participation in this thread. I will keep reading though. Trying to stop reading this thread would be like trying to not look at that guy with the single drop of snot hanging off the end of his nose. I would always be wondering whether or not it ever finally fell off into his dinner plate.

I can't help but laugh. I just hope you know, Angakuk, that the final episode will be that the snot positively fails to fall off on the dinner plate. I am giving you the final episode, just so you can leave with the confidence that you didn't miss anything. Oh my goodness gracious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is one way to settle this - we wait 25 years for the revolution to happen, which it definitely will this time because it is mathematical and scientific, and the knowledge is now out there, freely available, with no meanie scientific community to suppress it because of their conservative agendas and closed minds. Have you requested some time to explain it to Obama yet, or is that for later when the ball gets rolling?

I assume that the Lessanist movement will soon start to get more and more vocal as the revolution gains momentum.

Did you not read what people in this forum tried in order to prove that Lessans was wrong?
They used very deceptive practices by laughing at Lessans' review. It's so antithetical to scientists who are really trying to find out what is true and what is not, that it's sad in the deepest sense of the word. In spite of this failed proof (according to certain people), Lessans did try with every fiber in his body to show that he knew whereof he spoke, but obviously he failed. Just as Mendel failed in his attempt to prove absolutely and positively that he knew what he was talking about was not wrong, Lessans tried and failed. Mendel failed, and he died trying. He gained recognition only posthumously. But this is a very different story because of the stakes involved. We are talking about war and crime, and the many people who die as a result of our present day thinking. It's too late for my father; he also died. My only hope is that his legacy will continue, not because of his brilliance, but because his proof is valid and sound.

[Vivisectus]

Indeed - amazing. All the people on this forum must have some sort of reason for not wanting to believe that allows them to keep themselves willfully ignorant - even after you have spent 70 pages decisively and eloquently wiping the floor with every argument they tried to drag up! Some people just don't know when they are completely trumped by an astute observation.

But never fear! Because it is mathematical, it will definitely happen anyway, and then we will see who has the last laugh! All we need to do is wait about a decade before we can see the first signs of the revolution. Lessans will be a household name, and my children will erect his statues. Incidentally, you should make a tidy sum out of the millions of copies of his books that will start selling like hotcakes as the knowledge spreads and takes hold faster and faster. How could it not?

So cheer up! A bright, profitable future awaits - and the quiet but satisfying pleasure of knowing how silly we will all feel for not having seen it earlier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

This is the crux of the whole thread, and apparently your life's work as well. In principle, you declaim 'go forth and test this in the name of progress and world peace!' but in practice you flat-out reject any tests that do NOT demonstrate accuracy for his premises.

Categorically false!

Originally Posted by kael

His entire chapter on the nature of words like 'beauty' and how they can harm people hinges entirely on his interpretation of how the eye works and how the brain processes that information, an interpretation which is demonstrably false.

No, you will not get away with is quick overview.

Originally Posted by kael

Tests have been done, and can be done right now, regarding this particular premise, and they have shown this particular premise to be, in the kindest possible terms, utter nonsense.

Where has it been shown that this is nonsense? Show me the undeniable refutations that you are referring to in your defense.

Originally Posted by kael

But, you don't seem to be interested in that, insisting that further testing will somehow eventually validate absurd and verifiably false notions like the brain projecting images through the eye instead of receiving information from it, and images of distant events propagating instantly instead of with a speed-of-light delay, and that no outside stimulus ever strikes the optic nerve.

I am not going to argue this anymore. The only way we will know, for sure, what is going on, and respecting Lessans' theory (if you want to call it that), is if we do more experiments. If I thought for one moment he was wrong, I would have given this up long ago, daughter or no daughter. For me to come here and look like a fool is a burden I don't want to carry.

Originally Posted by kael

It has been clear for some time that you are only interested in discussing this book and the ideas it proposes to the extent that people will agree with them, or at the very least not claim they are wrong. What the evidence suggests, what actual scientific inquiry has to say about it, is only relevant to you if it supports these ideas, and continually ignored if it does not. You are, in plainest terms, a believer, and not interested in that which does not bolster that belief in yourself or in others.

Not at all, but so much is against me. Anytime I dare to disagree with science, I am looked upon as if I'm from outer space. I don't want to cry foul play because you will all look at me with hatred in your eyes. If I dare to dispute something that is an accepted fact, what does that me look like? A dam fool.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Categorically false!

NO U!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you will not get away with is quick synopsis. It's incorrect whether you see it or not.

Can you explain how my synopsis is incorrect, WITHOUT simply copy-pasting entire chapters of the book all over again? If his ideas about the eye are incorrect, that entire section falls, since his assertion is based entirely on the idea that one is not actually seeing anything from the outside world through the optic nerve, but "projecting words onto a screen of undeniable substance." If this is not, in fact, how the eye and the brain works, what follows from it is completely suspect and probably false.

Originally Posted by peacegirle

Where has it been shown that this is nonsense? Show me the undeniable refutations that you are referring to in your defense.

There is a great deal of data on how light and the eye and the visual cortex of the brain work. None of the extant data even suggests your father's idea of this process is even possible, let alone true. Much of it flatly falsifies his idea of this process.

More importantly, though, you seem to be confused about how science works. I know this has been pointed out to you, but I'll do so again. The defense is yours, and it is your burden to produce proof that holds up these ideas. Stating an idea and then demanding of others to produce evidence that upholds or refutes it (not to mention ignoring evidence then provided that refutes it, AND claiming that unless proven false it is obviously true - you claim you don't do this, but that is effectively the way you are behaving with these ideas) is most decidedly NOT how science is actually done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to argue this anymore. The only way we will know, for sure, what is going on, and respecting Lessans' theory (if you want to call it that), is if we do more experiments. If I thought for one moment he was wrong, I would have given this up long ago, daughter or no daughter. For me to come here and look like a fool is a burden I don't want to carry.

If you do not wish to look like a fool it would behoove you to stop acting the part so thoroughly. Any idea that purports to be scientific should be approached with doubt and skepticism. You should think for a moment that he was wrong, because that's the only way you'll ever find out if he was.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all, but so much is against me. Anytme I dare to disagree with science, I am looked upon as if I'm from outer space. It is not a fair proposition. I am disadvantaged by the accepted belief that what science has accepted is categorically correct. So what does that me look like? A dam fool.

You are looked at like a fool when you make and defend claims of universal and undeniable truth without a shred of supporting evidence, and in the face of contradictory evidence. It is that simple.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to say, once again, that I only mentioned this to indicate that the gap between this world as it is right now, and the new world that is yet to be here, is getting smaller, therefore the freedom that people will experience in the new world won't seem at all unusual, or hard to imagine.

And I am saying that unless the gap is narrowing because Lessans' ideas come close to the reason WHY these things are happening, those ideas will continue to be irrelevant. I could say that these things are happening because purple people eaters are willing it to be so, but no one would take me seriously unless I show that purple people eaters exist and their will affects our world. Even if the world ends up working similar to the way that I predict the purple people eaters will would, that does not mean people should think that my "theory" is any good or relevant.

It is true that I am defensive because it is upsetting that people are so quick to tell me this man discovered nothing. And I am just a child who can't let go of his book because I invested so much time and faith in it. That's what bothers me. I will say that this has nothing to do with me. It's either factual, or it's not, and I'm not any closer to being convinced that these principles are not factual.

Perhaps if you weren't so quick to assert that he is the fount of great mathematical and scientific knowledge and great truth or if you framed these discussions as how you believed the world worked instead of absolute facts, you would get a different reaction. You could try that and see what happens.

I have to say that it does you no credit to say that you aren't any closer to being convinced that the principles are not factual. In the end, if the point of your posts and activity is to convince other people about the value of these principles, then you need to be less concerned with what is convincing to you and more concerned with what is convincing to others. In my opinion, you are not concerned with convincing others at all.

I have said over and over that he never disputed the knowledge scientists have so painstakingly accumulated about the structure of the eye. But that does not mean that his observations were wrong regarding how the brain works in concert with the eyes.

If he says that the optic nerve is made of different fibers than what scientists say, then that is a dispute he has with basic scientific knowledge. That means that you are wrong, despite your repetition. And he appears to be wrong about how the brain works with the eyes. He does not provide any information about why scientists are wrong, nor does his idea help us understand a variety of visual phenomena. Current scientific knowledge does explain these things.

You do not seem to understand that people are inviting you to apply his ideas to real life situations, and explain how his idea works in these situations. It is supposed to be challenging, but it is not necessarily oppositional. Posters here tend to be curious and creative, and would like to know how these ideas work with a variety of situations that neither Lessans nor you seem to have even heard of, much less contemplated. You have not done a good job, if you even attempted, of applying his ideas to these scenarios.

When people are sleeping, they visualize all sorts of things. They dream all sorts of things. But does this mean that you can now use their dreams or visualizations as proof that Lessans was wrong regarding the eyes? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that people who drive Mars rovers do not do so in real time? Are you implying that none of us are living in real time now, not just seeing the past but we're now living in the past?

I should not have said that they are sleeping when this occurs. They are not dreaming, and after reading more about it on wiki, do not even have to have their eyes closed. It is the same point about how people see things without engaging their other senses, the way that Lessans seems to think necessary. The Mars rover fact is on the point of the speed of light and how we cannot see what is happening on Mars at the same time that it happens. People have provided examples over and over again on these points which are in conflict with Lessans' ideas.

I am not a teacher and I don't care if you learn anything based on these examples. I think they are interesting, and I do not think (and you have not shown) that Lessans' ideas are able to adequately explain them. Don't you think these kinds of things are interesting, though, and have questions about how they fit into his ideas?

I want to restate what the two of us have said in this exchange, because I want to make it clearer to myself. You tell me if I have been fair to what you are trying to say.

peacegirl: Lessans' ideas cannot be philosophy and must be science, because philosophy could not rid the world of evil. Only science can. It is undeniable.

wildy: Some philosophies have diminished the evil in the world, in my opinion. Science is not about evil, and can be used for evil. Therefore, Lessans' ideas could be philosophy and still diminish evil in the world. Also, if Lessans' ideas are science, that does not mean that it would automatically diminish evil in the world.

peacegirl: Philosophies have diminished evil in the world, but have not been enough. Philosophies cannot deal with thinking about the new world without free will and no judgment, blame, punishment. Lessans' knowledge is about ethics, morality, and goodness.

I may not have captured what you said in reply to me well, because I have a hard time understanding what you are referring to sometimes. I do not think that you have shown in this exchange why Lessans' ideas are not philosophy and are science. It seems to me that the things you say only support the idea that his ideas are philosophical.

Thank you for at least understanding my dilemma. I so appreciate what you just said, even if you agree with the people who oppose him. At the very least you understand the problem the author had, and you don't know how much I appreciate that.

I don't really know what you appreciate, since this doesn't solve any problem that you are having with people denying what he says. What dilemma are you having?

I never said that his ideas, without understanding the concepts, meant anything at all. Brilliance is just a word; it means nothing, and if you read the rest of the book you would understand that. It is a false premise. But, in my defense, you did say exactly those words. I repeated them word for word.

Ok, I shouldn't have said he was brilliant. If you replace brilliant with smart and capable (words that you use), my point still stands. I did not say anything of the sort.

You said 1) Lessans was a smart, capable man. I said 2) That doesn't make his ideas right. Smart, capable people can be wrong. You said 3) Your disagreement doesn't make him wrong, and I never said that being smart and capable makes him right.

I did not say that you said him being a smart, capable man makes him right, but you imply that it has some relevance to the correctness of his ideas. Otherwise, why bring it up? My counterpoint to your implication is that these characteristics are irrelevant to the correctness of his ideas because smart, capable people can be wrong and ignorant. You say that you never meant for them to support his claims. So, why bring it up if you agree that it isn't relevant?

And no one is saying that our disagreement makes him wrong. But it also does not prove him right.

Where in the world did you get this impression that just because saying it is so, makes it so. This is so antithetical to what this author was saying, that is makes me tearful. And please don't try any tricks by saying I am appealing to people's emotion because that's a last resort.

I am under no impression that saying so makes it so. That is what I am disagreeing with. You are the one who is making assertions without providing any supporting details or reasons, which makes it seem as if you think that by merely saying something, it makes it so. When I say "saying so doesn't make it so", it is a request for reasons and support for an assertion.

No wildernesse, you will not get away with telling me to keep my mouth shut. I feel the anger in those very words. If you are that angry, our conversation is over not because I don't want to talk to you, but because your emotions will negate everything that I am offering.

I am frustrated with you, but I am not angry. That obviously came through, because I am not very patient. I would like you to answer my question, though.

Is this information dependent on you convincing other people, or is it going to happen anyway?

That is true, but no one will give the author the time of day if he offers HIS most accurate definition.

So, even if people do what you ask, there still can't be progress made. You asked for people to accept temporarily Lessans' ideas, people did, you still couldn't make progress, and you say that discussing the most accurate definition will be unproductive, too. So even you agree that it is hopeless.

This is not about me, and if people are using this as an escape hatch, so be it. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME AT ALL. I don't need to be psychoanalyzed as if I'm a nut case. Please stop this wildernesse.

You have no control over the reasons why people find this thread interesting, and neither do I. If they find it interesting to see how you react, that is not something you can do much about. Well, you could quit posting, but people would still think about what that means.

What exactly do you want me to stop doing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

I can't help but laugh at this picture and the sentiment that goes along with it.

[davidm]

Uh, peacegirl? This post.

Now, peacegirl, here is an experiment that you can do. This, too, I suggested many pages back.

Go out into bright sunshine. Linger for awhile. Then, immediately enter a very dark room.

What will happen?

In the dark room, for a short time, you will see nothing. You will be practically blind. Over a period of time, your blindness will gradually subside, and you will see stuff again.

Why do you think that is, and what does it mean, for your father's idiot "theory" of sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It is perfectly clear what people are telling you, FFS. Lessans is wrong. The eye is a sense organ with which we see the world. Because light propagates at a finite velocity, we do not see the world in "real time," because the light takes time to reach our eyes, and then our eyes and brain take some additional time to process what we are seeing.

This is all very well understood. Lessans' claims about the eye are unmitigated bullshit. Morever, we could never see things in "real time" anyway, because -- and here is the big kicker -- there is no such thing as "real" time. There is only proper time, which is the time measured in a specific reference frame. This is a result of the theory of relativity: There is no absolute NOW, and this too is a consequence of the fact that the velocity of light is limited, but that its speed is the same as measured by all inertial frames. The theory of relativity has been repeatedly verified. If we all saw things instantly, then relativity theory would be wrong, but it's not.

That's why he said our sight had nothing to do with light except as a condition. But then it would discredit the Jupiter experiment. So you have it all worked out logically, and, of course, that makes Lessans' claim a lie, and a bunch of BS.

Many pages ago I introduced you to Einstein's thought experiment of a moving train with two observers, one on the train and the other on the ground. The upshot of the experiment is that the observer on the ground sees two lightning flashes simultaneously, while the observer on the train seems them sequentially. Hence, the observers have different planes of simultaneity. This would be impossible if Lessans were correct; but, of course, he's wrong. I doubt he even knew anything about relativity theory and probably did not even know that light propagates at a finite velocity.[/QUOTE]

That experiment doesn't negate what Lessans was claiming. Light does travel at a specific velocity, that is true, so if one person was on the train and one person in the train, it is no surprise that they would see the light at different planes of simultaneity. Let's get off this subject okay?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Uh, peacegirl? This post.

Now, peacegirl, here is an experiment that you can do. This, too, I suggested many pages back.

Go out into bright sunshine. Linger for awhile. Then, immediately enter a very dark room.

What will happen?

In the dark room, for a short time, you will see nothing. You will be practically blind. Over a period of time, your blindness will gradually subside, and you will see stuff again.

Why do you think that is, and what does it mean, for your father's idiot "theory" of sight?

It means that your pupils have not adjusted to the amount of light in the room. What does this have to do with anything?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means that your pupils have not adjusted to the amount of light in the room. What does this have to do with anything?

It means the eye is a fucking sense organ -- the very thing your father denied!

Oh, and peacegirl, what about the linked post? I don't see any response. Is your wise and brilliant father also calling Einstein's theory of relativity wrong? Because it would have to be wrong, for Lessans to be right.

Amazing how the cranks always go after Einstein. And write letters to presidents, complain about martyrdom, etc. etc.