A revolution in thought

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A dog could identify a shape of something, but to recognize a combination of shapes (eyes, noses, mouths) that would distinguish his owner from someone else is a different story.

You are still failing to explain why recognizing one combination of shapes (eyes, nose, mouth) would demonstrate that the eyes are a sense organ, but recognizing another combination of shapes (hat, moustache, sweater) would not.

There is no reason. They are both distinguishing by sight.

I'm not clinging to anything; I just want the experiment to be reliable and not have other interferences that could bring in inaccurate results. Isn't that what empirical testing is all about?

No, you're moving the goalposts so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

First you claimed that a dog couldn't identify its master by sight. Now you're claiming that a dog couldn't recognize its master by sight by facial features alone, and for some unknown reason claiming that only the latter would demonstrate that the eyes were a sense organ.

You don't want the test of sight to be have outside interferences like... other things that rely on sight? That's like giving a math test and saying the results are invalid because there was a question on the test that had a negative answer, so it can't truly compare the mathematical ability between the test-takers.

You were proven wrong and now you're squirming around pathetically in hopes that you can avoid admitting it.

If you can't admit that you were wrong on this, when the evidence IS PLAINLY IN FRONT OF YOU, ON VIDEO, then we all know you're a disingenuous little evangelist who doesn't give a shit about really finding the truth.

Not that we hadn't already figured that out.

I am trying to verify whether the image of his master is traveling as part of the light. If the dog cannot recognize the image of his master, then we have to question whether he is interpreting the image in his brain. It should be a slam dunk for him to be able to do this is the eyes are a sense organ.

The image of a hat and moustache, and the images that would allow a dog to see a difference in gait would also be traveling by light.

There is no distinction between those images, they all involve light traveling to the eyes and being sensed by the eyes.

It's either true or not. I am not trying to persuade anyone to believe something that isn't proven, especially something as absurd sounding as the eyes not being a sense organ. But please don't rule it out just because it sounds absurd.

It is true. It has been shown to be true.

I'm not ruling it out because it sounds absurd, I'm ruling it out because it is wrong and all the evidence shows that it is wrong. You have been presented with evidence, and you are trying to weasel your way out of admitting that you're wrong with this nonsense.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, in order to understand Lessans' reasoning, we need to first figure out if sight is efferent. That's the only reason he came to the conclusion that we could see the sun explode instantly, which AGAIN, he would have admitted if he was wrong. I know that the detailed explanation Lone Ranger offered explains how sight works because of what is [believed] to be going on. They also [believe] that the brain is interpreting signals given by the light.

Believed to be true? It is confirmed to be true. Too bad for your Dad! Unlike the case with your dad, the stuff that The Lone Ranger wrote about was not made up on the spur of the moment by a crack head after a long night's drinking binge.

But what if the light is not giving any information about the object it is being reflected off of, but instead is giving us the ability to use the brain and the eyes in order to see said object? What if?

What if we see through our nostrils, via nostril fairies that carry chunks of pictures up through our noses. What if?

Can't you open your mind just a little before it closes shut again?

The only mind closed here is that of the cultist: i.e., you.

I want to do more research on a dog's ability to see a combination of features without any other cues that would let him know it was his master, which would throw the whole experiment off.

Oh, do show us the results of your "research." We're all on tenterhooks!

Maybe the property of light allows the pupils to dilate and contract without the light having to directly impinge upon it.

I already asked you several times, Peacegirl, the following question. Here it is again: How can light pass through the pupils and fail to impinge on the optic nerve? What stops it from doing so? God? Invisible light-blocking fairies? What? Of course, we also observe light to impinge on the optic nerve and the effects that follow, discussed by The Lone Ranger in his excellent essay. The bottom line is that Lessans was wrong.

And, by the way, stop saying that Lessans would have admitted he was wrong, if he was wrong. You leave out the obvious third alternative: he was wrong, but did not know that he was wrong! Hey, maybe he needed more than a seventh-grade education after all to do science, ya think?

Believe me, I realize that anything I say that contradicts what is [believed] to be true regarding the eyes sounds idiotic, and it is definitely being used to make me look like someone who doesn't have higher order thinking ability.

Hey, if the shoe fits...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, in order to understand Lessans' reasoning, we need to first figure out if sight is efferent.

We've already figured that out!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, you're very astute that my tone changed. I didn't know how vicious people could be and I responded in kind by being as sarcastic as they were being. When I first came online, I was absolutely flabbergasted by the angry responses. One guy told me he was going to tar and feather me. Another guy told me he hoped I died. I was actually banned off of one board because I was returning the same retorts back to them. So I've learned. I am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction to have a different type of dialogue that will hopefully be more productive. I took my experiences and used them to help me make better choices the next time.

Why don't you address the substance of the post I linked to -- that you were inviting people to send you money to change the contents of Daddy's book!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why don't you address the substance of the post I linked to -- that you were inviting people to send you money to change the contents of Daddy's book!

David, you don't seem to get it. That was a retaliatory response. I was so upset when I said this because I knew that's what people wanted to hear. Let me say this once again. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN MONEY. I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE UP FOR THE INVESTMENT I PUT INTO THIS, BUT THAT IS NOT MY FIRST PRIORITY.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, here is something you might wish to consider: if you care about your dad's legacy so much, you should take down that book and stop posting about it. This thread, and all the other threads you've participated in for years, are basically permanently archived and anyone can find them via Google search. To the extent that you keep disseminating this stuff, you are not going to bring about a "revolution in thought." You might well, however, succeed in making the name "Lessans" enter the dictionary as a synonym for "crackpot." Just something to think about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still failing to explain why recognizing one combination of shapes (eyes, nose, mouth) would demonstrate that the eyes are a sense organ, but recognizing another combination of shapes (hat, moustache, sweater) would not.

But those are the variables that have to be isolated in order to know the truth.

Originally Posted by erimir

There is no reason. They are both distinguishing by sight.

No they are not.

I'm not clinging to anything at all; I just want the experiment to be reliable and not have other interferences that could bring in inaccurate results. Isn't that what empirical testing is all about?

No, you are the one moving the goalposts so that you don't have to admit you may be wrong.

Originally Posted by erimir

First you claimed that a dog couldn't identify its master by sight. Now you're claiming that a dog couldn't recognize its master by sight by facial features alone, and for some unknown reason claiming that only the latter would demonstrate that the eyes were a sense organ.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I admit I might have confused people, but now I'm saying that it was the facial features, without any interference, that would allow us to know what is going on.

Originally Posted by erimir

You don't want the test of sight to be have outside interferences like... other things that rely on sight? That's like giving a math test and saying the results are invalid because there was a question on the test that had a negative answer, so it can't truly compare the mathematical ability between the test-takers.

I know all about rounding out the test results so that some get A's when they don't understand a thing about their answers. That's not what is going on here erimir.

I am not eliminating the variables that have direct input. I am just eliminating the variables that would ruin the experiment. Don't you see the difference?

Originally Posted by erimir

You were proven wrong and now you're squirming around pathetically in hopes that you can avoid admitting it.

If you can't admit that you were wrong on this, when the evidence IS PLAINLY IN FRONT OF YOU, ON VIDEO, then we all know you're a disingenuous little evangelist who doesn't give a shit about really finding the truth.

There was no absolute proof erimir. It reminds me of a lawyer who in court can make the circumstantial evidence look airtight. But it turns out that it is not as airtight as he thought.

I am trying to verify whether the image of his master is traveling as part of the light. If the dog cannot recognize the image of his master, then we have to question whether he is interpreting the image in his brain. It should be a slam dunk for him to be able to do this is the eyes are a sense organ.

Originally Posted by erimir

The image of a hat and moustache, and the images that would allow a dog to see a difference in gait would also be traveling by light.

They are different, sorry. An image that is seen as a simple outline is not the same as something as difficult as features of an owner. We need to determine whether a dog could identify his owner without any other sense experience. What is so difficult about this?

Originally Posted by erimir

There is no distinction between those images, they all involve light traveling to the eyes and being sensed by the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a huge difference. I don't know if you see the difference or not, but that doesn't change what is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's either true or not. I am not trying to persuade anyone to believe something that isn't proven, especially something as absurd sounding as the eyes not being a sense organ. But please don't rule it out just because it sounds absurd.

Originally Posted by erimir

It is true. It has been shown to be true.

You are making a joke of this thread. Please stop.

Originally Posted by erimir

I'm not ruling it out because it sounds absurd, I'm ruling it out because it is wrong and all the evidence shows that it is wrong.

No, the evidence shows the explanation of what is believed to be going on. It is logical, but there is no absolute proof that this is what is happening. That is why it is based on logic, but could still be wrong! It is not absolute fact.

Originally Posted by erimir

You have been presented with evidence, and you are trying to weasel your way out of admitting that you're wrong with this nonsense.

If that's what you believe, then you will continue to think this knowledge is a bunch of bullshit. What can I say?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if the light is not giving any information about the object it is being reflected off of, but instead is giving us the ability to use the brain and the eyes in order to see said object? What if? Can't you open your mind just a little before it closes shut again?

The only problem is that light does give information about the object is being reflected off of. This is pretty well established, and more than one technology relies on this very fact. I mean, how do you think a camera works?

Stop pretending that we're the ones being closed minded, it's not open-minded to reject reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making a joke of this thread. Please stop.

No, it's you who are making a joke of this thread. This thread was a joke from Post One.

Yes, it has been shown to be true. Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay?

Now, you've been educated to the facts. If you traipse off to some other board and start evangelizing for Lessans' cockamamie speculations about how light and the eye work (he does not even present a theory, btw, which you would know if you knew what "theory" meant in science), then you will be dishonest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I, for one, am looking forward to her detailed and properly-referenced explanations for why retinal doesn't absorb photons, despite many, many observations to the contrary. And why photoreceptors in the retina don't transduce photons into neural impulses, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why these impulses aren't conveyed via the optic nerves to the visual cortex, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why ... well, you get the picture.

Believe me, I get the picture. I am ready to be tarred and feathered once again, but I will do whatever I can not to be. It's interesting how most observations can be correct but still get the wrong result.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

And, once again, when confronted with facts and observations, peacegirl runs away.

Prediction: when she returns she will ignore and whitewash all of that as she has consistently for years.

--J.D.

I am not ignoring any of the refutations. I am trying to learn what is true, and if it takes empirical evidence to determine this, then I'm all for it. If Lessans was wrong, then this will prove him wrong. If it is inconclusive, it will determine this as well.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's interesting how most observations can be correct but still get the wrong result.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that if the universe is not ready, no amount of convincing would matter, but the universe is ready. We need this knowledge more than ever. It might take another century for this discovery to be recognized, but it has to start somewhere, and there's no time like the present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the universe is ready, that's when this discovery will come to light, and not a second sooner.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

This is what you said that started my whole response to you along these lines. In this earlier sentence, you imply that the universe is not ready yet, otherwise the discovery would be recognized.

Exactly. Years ago the universe was so far removed from Lessans' observations, that he would have been given the hemlock that killed Socrates, if they had an opportunity.

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but it was his, and I won't touch his words. I could clarify his words, but not change them. The fact that his analogy could have been better still doesn't change the meaning which is that he was giving something to mankind that requires people to pass it on. How long it will take for this new world to become a reality depends on when this book is confirmed valid by leading scientists.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Whatever. So the universe isn't ready yet (again), because it is waiting on scientists to confirm the book. And people are required to pass it on, but not teach other people about this. Either way, it has no bearing on whether the discovery will come to fruition, because it will happen when the universe is ready.

That is true, but I am part of making this happen, just as everyone has an input into the ripple effect of this world. The universe is ready to at least hear what this man had to say. I am not even saying they have to agree. Years ago they would have rejected him because the world's thinking was so far removed from his findings. Can't you get this?

There you go again telling me what he was like when I knew him. He had no messiah complex wildernesse. Why did you throw that in? Up until the last sentence I was listening to what you had to say. Then you blew it.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I said that because he does not let the idea stand for itself and instead sets himself up as a benefactor of mankind. A person who thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement.

So according to you any person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible has a problem with self-aggrandizement. I don't agree.

But that's not what he meant. So now you are not only changing the wording, but the meaning. People will not teach others and in this way peace will come to fruition. Peace will come to fruition when the Great Transition occurs on a global scale.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I guess I am confused about how a request for people to spread information to others is not about teaching others. But I guess it doesn't matter, because I am still not sure whether the universe IS ready or WILL be ready or whether people need to share their understanding or not in order for this Great Transition to occur. I'm pretty sure you don't know either.

This knowledge HAS to be validated by science. It's as simple as that. Yes, you can help pass people onto the book, but that will in no way confirm that this book is authentic.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Ok, I'm tired of this pointless game. I hope you are a troll or some kind of machine.

No, I am just a person, not a machine. If you are tired of this, please move on wildernesse. It upsets me that I'm making you tired. I don't want to be responsible for your reaction, but that's how I feel.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. Years ago the universe was so far removed from Lessans' observations, that he would have been given the hemlock that killed Socrates, if they had an opportunity.

It's still far removed from Lessan's observations because his "astute observations" have been shown to be wrong. Read The Lone Ranger's essay. Q.E.D.

And comparing him to Socrates! My heavens!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, it has been shown to be true. Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay?

Reading and comprehension seem to be a problem here. You think peacegirl is in it for the money, but that can't be the only motivation. We have a true believer here, and I get the impression that she simply ignores anything that's contradictory to what's written in the book. While at some point, she acknowledged that Lessans might be wrong, she still doesn't think so, despite the plethora of evidence.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That isn't what the question is. Obviously, if we're in the dark and the lights are suddenly turned on, the pupils are going to have a delay in closing quick enough. But I was talking about whether the pupils could still react to light that is being reflected off of a distant object, and whether the property of light would cause a reaction in the pupils even if it wasn't directly impinging. I know you all think I'm crazy, so I need to take a break. I can only take so much of this onslaught of negativity.

For the sake of keeping this wonderful thread alive, I will attempt to address you as if you are simply confused, rather than crazy (I don't think you're crazy so much as completely invested in upholding what you have already accepted as undeniable truth, regardless of what the evidence you keep saying will validate it actually shows).


Let's pretend that light does not carry any information at all, that our retinas do not absorb it and utilize the resulting changes in energy states to send signals to our brain, which then reconstructs that information into an image. Let's pretend, instead, that light is, for some reason that is apparently inexplicable, necessary to see by but not the actual medium of sight, that this medium instead exists in our brain which only "looks outward" and does not receive any external stimulus during the visual process.

Immediately there are problems with this model, aspects of measurable, testable reality that it does not account for. Why should the amount of light matter if it is only a "condition of sight" and not the actual medium of that information? Where does the information about a distant object come from? If there is no medium by which the information comes to us, then it must already exist in the brain. If there is such a medium, but it is not light, what is it? How does it reach us instantly? How can we detect it with instruments besides our own eyes and brain? Why do cameras of all sorts work, even though they have no brain to "look outward" and "project words onto a screen of undeniable substance."*

Here's the thing. Lessans does not even attempt to address any of these questions, he simply continues to assert, as though it had already been demonstrated, that light does not stimulate the optic nerve, and that we see distant objects in real time rather than with the delay necessary in order for the information-carrying medium (light) to reach our eyes, and all the other facets of this absurd model that he puts forward as 'undeniable.' The current model already accounts for these things, and there is (so far) no phenomenon we have encountered that it does not account for. What that means, in the world of science, is that competing models have the bar set very high, and require a great deal of supporting evidence and explanatory power, at least equal to if not greater than the amount provided by the current model. Your father's book provides neither of these things. This is why scientists wouldn't give him the time of day, not because he only made it through the 7th grade. It is because his claims do not even begin to adequately explain observable reality which already has an adequate explanation in our current models.

You claim that further experimentation is necessary, and express certainty that it will eventually validate this idea, this 'revolutionary' model of sight. Lessans and yourself also continually use phrases like 'undeniable' and 'astute observations' to describe this idea as well as the rest of the book. These phrases cannot be honestly applied to something that has not yet been demonstrated. If you or Lessans understood how science works and why it works that way, you would know that, and even if the ideas put forward by the book remained unchanged all the grandiose language about undeniability and how the scientific community picks on Lessans by not embracing his ideas would not be there. It would be a much humbler book, and probably a great deal less ponderous a read.

Of course, it would still be demonstrably wrong about how light, the eyes, and the brain works, but at least it wouldn't pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with it is a dogmatically entrenched imbecile who simply doesn't understand it.

*As an aside, can you rephrase this? Because, believe it or not, it makes no sense whatsoever, even in the context of Lessans' ideas of sight. What screen? What substance? How is it undeniable?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not ignoring any of the refutations.

Of course you are. You have been refuted in this fashion for YEARS! Yet, after all of this time, you never bothered to study the basics of the subject upon which you pretend you have some special gnosis. So, no, we really cannot take you seriously.

If Lessans was wrong, . . .

He is wrong.

. . . then this will prove him wrong.

It has.

If it is inconclusive, . . . .

It is not. This is another reason why you choose to remain ignorant--you rather know it is not, he is wrong, and you have wasted a great deal of time trying to sell your book.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I was talking about whether the pupils could still react to light that is being reflected off of a distant object, . . .

They do. The retina careth not the source of the light.

I know you all think I'm crazy, . . .

No, we just know your ignorance is willful.

so I need to take a break. I can only take so much of this onslaught of negativity.

:dramaqueen:

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

. . . and my prediction proved correct.

--J.D.

[wildernesse]

To begin with, what the heck? Why, out of all the things that have been discussed since this post, do you go back to it? I'm going to randomly pick a post of yours from 30 pages ago and start responding to it.

It is really more coherent to respond to posts in the order in which they were posted. So, you would start with the post after your last post and respond to that, and then move the next post, etc. Otherwise, people think you are ignoring them, and you may screw up the flow of the conversation, because other people may have built their conversation around previous posts.

I think you do this because you are flailing around so much and just hammer at things randomly because, of course, we are all wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. Years ago the universe was so far removed from Lessans' observations, that he would have been given the hemlock that killed Socrates, if they had an opportunity.

That is true, but I am part of making this happen, just as everyone has an input into the ripple effect of this world. The universe is ready to at least hear what this man had to say. I am not even saying they have to agree. Years ago they would have rejected him because the world's thinking was so far removed from his findings. Can't you get this?

You are part of making this happen by spreading the word, and this is productive on your part because the universe is more ready than ever to hear what he had to say. Is this what you are saying?

We are so far removed from the point I was making (and I think it was about clarity in writing), that I'm not even interested in it any more.

Also, this is an example of you over-promoting Lessans. Socrates is a foundational figure in philosophy (not science!), and to compare Lessans to Socrates is to pretend that Lessans is similar. That is a big claim, which requires evidence. Otherwise, people are going to laugh at you and think you lack credibility because you are making overblown points. It is hyperbole when you say this without evidence.

So according to you any person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible has a problem with self-aggrandizement. I don't agree.

NO. A person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement. [A person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible] is not the same as [a person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind]. These are not synonymous concepts at all, and to restate my idea in this way shows either that you can't read or that you are dishonestly trying to attribute an idea to me that is not mine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am just a person, not a machine. If you are tired of this, please move on wildernesse. It upsets me that I'm making you tired. I don't want to be responsible for your reaction, but that's how I feel.

I appreciate that you did not deny you were a troll.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's still far removed from Lessan's observations because his "astute observations" have been shown to be wrong. Read The Lone Ranger's essay. Q.E.D.

And comparing him to Socrates! My heavens!

Yes, a zillion posts ago, I believe she agreed that even if the universe was changing in line with the book, that did not make the book's reasons for the changes correct. Of course, that was flailing and it would take a dozen more posts to get back to that point with her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Light is the way we see objects but not in the way it has been explained.

You don't seem to understand the point that I am attempting to make - that everyone is attempting to make when we read the section on sight as a sense.
This part, for instance:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards.

is entirely inconsistent with the concept of light as the source of vision. The instant the sun is "turned on", we would not see the sun until 8 minutes later because that is the time it takes for light to reach the Earth.

We know this through various experiments and observations.

For Lessan's example above to be true, something other than light must be the source for vision, hence Occam's Razor says this is a less desirable hypothesis.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This is not proof that the theory is wrong - but it's a good indicator that other hypotheses should be tested first. Not surprisingly, current scientific theory started with a better hypothesis and has found it works very well with observable reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A good indicator is not proof specious_reasons,

That would be why I said, "This is not proof that the theory is wrong." Why don't you think I understand that?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Maybe let's assume Lessan was trying to make a point and chose a clumsy way to express it. Suppose you accept that light is both necessary and sufficient for vision, and that Lessan's assumption about the 8 minutes is not correct, but still think that "Light is the way we see objects but not in the way it has been explained." We can throw away everything I wrote about Occam's Razor.

The problem now is that the current theory of sight is very well established with experimental results. The burden of proof is so very high that Lessan's text is sorely inadequate to unseating current theory. If scientists have any dogma, it's to use what works best, and Lessan does not even provide a good indicator that his ideas work better.

The only reason he made an issue over this is because of the faulty relationship man has with the external world. It's true that the burden is on him to prove his claim, but he's not here, so I guess I'm left with the burden. All the examples people gave regarding jupiter's moons and supernovas are very persuasive, but I believe other empirical testing will cause some doubt that signals are being interpreted in the brains of dogs, which would give some credence to Lessans' claims.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I would be much, much more tolerant of Lessan's ideas on sight if he argued that vision was psychologically or logically a different sense than the others. Instead he chose to write things that are egregiously incorrect.

Time will tell if he was incorrect. We need to do more specific testing, but should that discount all that he has written because you are not sure of this particular claim?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think one of the reasons I'm so focused on this section is that it exposes a tragic flaw in Lessan's writing - even if his discovery is a revolution in thought, the discovery is horribly tarnished by the fact that he chooses to hold discourse on subjects which he is plainly incorrect.

First of all, you don't know yet whether this is a tragic flaw or not. How can you say the book is tarnished because of his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, until we get further proof one way or another? Even Einstein was wrong on one of his theories. He said it was the worst mistake of his career, but you don't give up on Einstein because of that one mistake, do you?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Light is the way we see objects but not in the way it has been explained.

They way you have lied about it? No.

This part, for instance:

is wrong as has been demonstrated to you countless times. FAIL.

For Lessan's example above to be true, . . .

It is not. FAIL.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Apparently one of us rubes seekers after knowledge will have to buy the book to get the full lowdown on the Third Discovery, which does not appear in the online edition of the Sacred Text.

The Internet suggests the Third Discovery is that we shall all be born again. The evidence for that scientific mathematical undeniable truth apparently lies in pronoun usage. Srsly.

It has nothing to do with pronoun usage except to say that when I am conscious, and I see others born, they are not me. That's a simple observation, isn't it? It also has nothing to do with identity theory. Don't even respond to this because I am not going to answer back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Let me guess, Lessans did not know that "born again" is a mistranslation.

--J.D.

Yup, this phrase gets lost in the translation unless clarified, yet everyone thinks they know what he means.