A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fucking frogs! They just can't accept that they might be wrong!

The frogs are ruining it for everybody!

[Dragar]

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So now she's back to saying we can't see "individual photons."

Photons are what we see. They are ALL that we see. And because they travel finitely, we do not see in real time.

Long, long ago I linked this asshat to a paper discussing the minimum number of photons needed to see. No doubt she did not read it, the miserable weasel.

It takes only nine photons to see and just one photon to excite a rod receptor.

But -- oh, no! -- the eye isn't a sense organ!

Exciting a rod receptor doesn't prove anything. We know that light causes a reaction, and it is also obvious that the more intense the light (the more photons), the greater the reaction will be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He was a pool player, an aluminum siding salesman (or some such) and a seventh-grade dropout. None of which makes what he said wrong. But those are correct descriptors of what he actually was.

What makes him wrong are the facts of the world. Had he been right about what he said, then indeed he could have been called a philosopher and a scientist, since one doesn't need credentials or even go to school to be those things, though the odds are much better that one will succeed as a scientist or philosopher if one gets an education.

Too bad he didn't.

If it wasn't for him dropping out in 7th grade, he would have never had the presence of mind to study on his own, which turned out to be a better education than anything he could have gotten in school. You're trying to paint a false picture of him. Even though each one of those accounts are true, in and of themselves, your motivation for bringing them up is to make Lessans appear as someone who would be incapable of making a discovery. Well guess what, he had more capability than you'll ever have.

[Spacemonkey]

Where were those red photons at the film just a moment before the object turned red and the photograph was taken?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL, peacegirl throwing a hissy fit again. Why are ignoring the point and changing the subject?

Because I'm sick of discussing this topic and if people aren't interested in his first discovery, I'm going to call it quits.

Originally Posted by davidm

It is not an opinion, it is a FACT that NASA uses the very delayed time seeing that Lessans denies, to navigate to Mars and other worlds. So, Lessans is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.

Repeat this over and over enough times maybe you'll convince yourself that you're right.

Originally Posted by davidm

As to free will, it does appear to be empirically testable at least in part. See the Libett (Libbet?) experiments of the 1980s, that showed that subconscious mind decided on a course of action before the subjects became aware of what they thought that they were deciding to do. However, these experiments are the subjects of much debate and interpretation.

What does this experiment prove? You are so biased, you will grab at anything to support your beliefs.

Originally Posted by davidm

Free will, under most understanding of it, requires personal agency. There are a lot of bad arguments against free will, such as those made by Lessans, which proves that Lessans is not alone in making bad arguments against free will. What seems fatal for free will, though, is if we lack personal agency -- is if the "I" is an illusion. And it looks as if it is.

You have no understanding of Lessans' reasoning. This isn't a bad argument. It's an undeniable proof as to why man does not have free will. You don't have the first idea what he's even talking about when you laugh at this remark, "we are compelled, of our own free will"... He explained this more than once, but did you read it? Of course not. And you have the arrogance to tell me that he has a bad argument? You are a poster child for the type of person he did not want to read this book.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Review: p. 572

Do you think our professors will be happy to learn
that someone who never completed the 7th grade wrote this book?
“How dare I do this, or claim what I claim?” Are you beginning to
recognize that they must react with resentment just by reading the
introduction and the foreword? This work in their eyes puts them
down and they might discover that I didn’t punctuate properly; that
my sentences are too long, or that I contradicted myself when I wrote
we must enter this world of our own free will. Another ‘expert’
remarked to me that I admit man’s will is free the very moment I
demonstrate that nothing in this world can make us do anything
against our will. Now if these people are our experts and do not have
the intellectual capacity necessary to perceive these fairly difficult but
undeniable relations, there is no telling how long it will take to bring
about this new world. Fortunately, only some of these people are that
way. There are many professors, many politicians, many theologians,
and innumerable number of people who will understand the principles,
but the question is how do we reach them? To help in this matter and
to further help you understand this book, I will recapitulate salient
points.

[Spacemonkey]

Are you presently in institutional care of any sort, or have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I'm sick of discussing this topic and if people aren't interested in his first discovery, I'm going to call it quits.

Sure you are. Peacegirl, you couldn't call it quits if you tried - and you have. And once more, YOU were the one you said she was refusing to discuss the first non-discovery anymore.

[LadyShea]

Because I'm sick of discussing this topic and if people aren't interested in his first discovery, I'm going to call it quits.

LOL no you're not.

Do you remember coming back after almost a month, and declaring you weren't staying, just giving us a progress report? How long ago was that?

Anyway, I am happy to discuss his first discovery. Can you explain the difference between possible truths, actual truths, and necessary truths?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure you are. Peacegirl, you couldn't call it quits if you tried - and you have. And once more, YOU were the one you said she was refusing to discuss the first non-discovery anymore.

Whether there are any pertinent questions to entertain or not, one thing is certain. You will not be part of the conversation. Your lack of intellectual capacity to even see what Lessans is saying disqualifies you. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL no you're not.

Do you remember coming back after almost a month, and declaring you weren't staying, just giving us a progress report? How long ago was that?

Doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, I am happy to discuss his first discovery. Can you explain the difference between possible truths, actual truths, and necessary truths?

Hold it right there. Are you telling me this question proves Lessans wrong, or that I don't undertand these principles? If that's the case, you have no leg to stand on. Do you even understand what this question means? You are trying so hard to discredit Lessans that you don't even know what you're asking. Actual and necessary are reconciled, do you not get this at all, or are you too caught up in your self-importance to not even care? You are just as much in a fantasy world about your own importance as Spacemonkey. Who are you to come off like this? I dare to ask.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, I am happy to discuss his first discovery. Can you explain the difference between possible truths, actual truths, and necessary truths?

Our last discussion about it indicated you don't understand the principles and therefore did not understand the charge of modal fallacy. If you don't understand why someone would think an argument was fallacious you can't effectively refute the fallacy charge.

You have never been able to demonstrate that the modal fallacy was not committed...you've asserted that it wasn't plenty, but no demonstration or explanations. Understanding these principles is the key to that demonstration and explanation.

So, do you want to have the discussion or not? If so

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actual and necessary are reconciled, do you not get this at all, or are you too caught up in your self-importance to not even care?

Actual and necessary are two different things. How do you figure they are "reconciled"?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Repeat this over and over enough times maybe you'll convince yourself that you're right.

Would you care to specify which part of "It is a FACT that NASA uses the very delayed time seeing that Lessans denies, to navigate to Mars and other worlds" is wrong? NONE of it is wrong, and you know it, you prevaricating harridan.

Do you remember when we hauled your sad ass over to a board of professional astronomers to discuss this very point? And you refused to read the thread, didn't you?

What does this experiment prove? You are so biased, you will grab at anything to support your beliefs.

Holy shit! Once again it's an open question of whether you are more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid!

Of course you don't know what the Libett experiments are, and you are too contemptuous of learning and intelligence to bother your sorry ass to find out, but those experiments support the idea that we lack free will. Isn't that what you've been arguing? You are so insane that you even repudiate people and studies that agree with Lessans, like the teachings of Wayne Stewart and Tom Clark on what happens after we die, which are identical to those of Lessans. Apparently you are so insane that you do not even want others to have some of the same ideas as Lessans, because then you fear he would not be unique. Are you really that insane?

Originally Posted by davidm

Free will, under most understanding of it, requires personal agency. There are a lot of bad arguments against free will, such as those made by Lessans, which proves that Lessans is not alone in making bad arguments against free will. What seems fatal for free will, though, is if we lack personal agency -- is if the "I" is an illusion. And it looks as if it is.

You have no understanding of Lessans' reasoning. This isn't a bad argument. It's an undeniable proof as to why man does not have free will.

As has been demonstrated, his argument constitutes a tautology as well as a fallcy of modal logic. Being logically invalid, nothing more need be said about it.

[davidm]

The falsity of Lessans' argument in mixing up necessary truth with actual truth or contingent truth can be demonstrated to be false in formal symbolic logic. In fact, I already pointed idiotgirl to the analysis that contained these formal logical demonstrations. Of course the harridan didn't read it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I really don't think he did even that. peacegirl has never played with a lens in the Sun, never used a mirror to create moving reflections to tease a cat or temporarily blind a sibling, never sent Morse code signals via flashlight, never looked through a fan and asked "how can I see through it?", never done any kind of photoprinting from what I can tell (with just light and photosensitive materials, I did that and don't even know what it's called!). What kind of child never does any of those things? A child with parents who don't do those types of things.

I don't think she ever played 'connect the dots', and has no concept that one thing can imply or lead to another. Any of these activities or experiments is very limited in what they demonstrate, but when things are taken together the implications can lead to a broader knowledge. Peacegirl seems to have extreme difficulty relating the meaning of the experiments that have been discribed to her, to vision in general and efferent vision specifically. Years ago there was a TV series called 'Connections' but it seems that peacegirl wouldn't even understand the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The frogs are ruining it for everybody!

You should ask Prak about Frogs.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will not be part of the conversation.

Then why do you contiue to reply to his posts?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Actual and necessary are reconciled,

So now we add 'actual', 'necessary', and 'reconciled', to the long list of terms that Peacegirl/Lessans have redefined or do not understand.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you have no idea what kind of thinker this man was. I am not here to try to get you to see the disservice you are doing to this man, and to yourself. Just go, okay?

If Lessans was a great thinker it certainly doesn't show in his book.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't think she ever played 'connect the dots', and has no concept that one thing can imply or lead to another. Any of these activities or experiments is very limited in what they demonstrate, but when things are taken together the implications can lead to a broader knowledge. Peacegirl seems to have extreme difficulty relating the meaning of the experiments that have been discribed to her, to vision in general and efferent vision specifically. Years ago there was a TV series called 'Connections' but it seems that peacegirl wouldn't even understand the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)

This inability is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The frogs are ruining it for everybody!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure you are. Peacegirl, you couldn't call it quits if you tried - and you have. And once more, YOU were the one you said she was refusing to discuss the first non-discovery anymore.

I refuse to discuss his first discovery with YOU Spacemonkey. Did you forget that quickly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The falsity of Lessans' argument in mixing up necessary truth with actual truth or contingent truth can be demonstrated to be false in formal symbolic logic. In fact, I already pointed idiotgirl to the analysis that contained these formal logical demonstrations. Of course the harridan didn't read it.

There is no way I would even attempt to wade through the logical cobwebs of faulty reasoning that you are employing, and instead I will focus my energies on trying to explain this to people who are truly interested.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way I would even attempt to wade through the logical cobwebs of faulty reasoning that you are employing, and instead I will focus my energies on trying to explain this to people who are truly interested.

Peacegirl hasn't the slightest idea of how to construct a logical argument and therefore does not understand what is wrong with Lessans book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Would you care to specify which part of "It is a FACT that NASA uses the very delayed time seeing that Lessans denies, to navigate to Mars and other worlds" is wrong? NONE of it is wrong, and you know it, you prevaricating harridan.

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual? You're more out in left field than I realized.

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you remember when we hauled your sad ass over to a board of professional astronomers to discuss this very point? And you refused to read the thread, didn't you?

I did read the thread, and you were so meek talking to them because you believed they were your betters, that it actually made me laugh.

Originally Posted by davidm

As to free will, it does appear to be empirically testable at least in part. See the Libett (Libbet?) experiments of the 1980s, that showed that subconscious mind decided on a course of action before the subjects became aware of what they thought that they were deciding to do. However, these experiments are the subjects of much debate and interpretation.

What does this experiment prove? You are so biased, you will grab at anything to support your beliefs.

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy shit! Once again it's an open question of whether you are more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid!

Of course you don't know what the Libett experiments are, and you are too contemptuous of learning and intelligence to bother your sorry ass to find out, but those experiments support the idea that we lack free will.

Lacking free will because someone made a subconscious decision? Maybe that's some sort of definition, but Lessans doesn't say there is no agent, for this is the problem with the definition of determinism as presently stated. How can the agent be removed from the equation, when this would free him of all responsibility for the choices he makes? With the definition Lessans proposes, responsibility is increased, not decreased David. I don't care about other definitions; I am trying to explain his definition and why it is valid.

Originally Posted by davidm

Isn't that what you've been arguing? You are so insane that you even repudiate people and studies that agree with Lessans, like the teachings of Wayne Stewart and Tom Clark on what happens after we die, which are identical to those of Lessans. Apparently you are so insane that you do not even want others to have some of the same ideas as Lessans, because then you fear he would not be unique. Are you really that insane?

Their teachings do not contain the same principles as Lessans. There might be some similarities, but it ends when they talk about a connection between the person who is born and the person who died. You hate Lessans because he says we see in real time. Admit it David.

Originally Posted by davidm

Free will, under most understanding of it, requires personal agency. There are a lot of bad arguments against free will, such as those made by Lessans, which proves that Lessans is not alone in making bad arguments against free will. What seems fatal for free will, though, is if we lack personal agency -- is if the "I" is an illusion. And it looks as if it is.

We don't lack personal agency David. "I" is not an illusion.

You have no understanding of Lessans' reasoning. This isn't a bad argument. It's an undeniable proof as to why man does not have free will.

Originally Posted by davidm

As has been demonstrated, his argument constitutes a tautology as well as a fallcy of modal logic. Being logically invalid, nothing more need be said about it.

His reasoning is not a tautology because it comes from an empirical observation. Neither of these definitions apply because this is not what he's doing.

Tautology (from Greek tauto, "the same" and logos, "word/idea") is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages). It is considered a fault of style and was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice," if it is not apparently necessary for the entire meaning of a phrase to be repeated.

A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially, the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

And his reasoning is certainly not a fallacy of modal logic.

MODAL (SCOPE) FALLACY
(also known as: fallacy of modal logic, misconditionalization)

Description: Modal logic studies ways in which propositions can be true or false, the most common being necessity and possibility. Some propositions are necessarily true/false, and others are possibly true/false. In short, a modal fallacy involves making a formal argument invalid by confusing the scope of what is actually necessary or possible.

Example #1:

If Debbie and TJ have two sons and two daughters, then they must have at least one son.

Debbie and TJ have two sons and two daughters.
Therefore, Debbie and TJ must have at least one son.

Explanation: We are told that Debbie and TJ have two sons and two daughters, so logically, by necessity, they must have at least one son. But to say that Debbie and TJ must have at least one son, is to confuse the scope of the modal, or in this case, to take the contingent fact that applies to the specific case that is conditional upon Debbie and TJ having the two sons and two daughters, to the general hypothetical case where they don’t have to have any children. Therefore, if they don’t have to have any children, then they certainly don’t have to (necessary fact) have at least one son.

Example #2:

If Barak is President, then he must be 35 years-old or older.
Explanation: Technically this is fallacious. There is no condition in which someone necessarily is a certain age. More accurately, we would say:

It must be the case that if Barak is President, then he is 35 or older.
The “must” in this second statement covers the whole condition, not just the age of the President.

Modal (Scope) Fallacy