A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because they are using this as a some kind of proof that he is wrong without attempting to read the book. People are following the many threads, and coming to very weird conclusions. It just shows how dangerous it can be to follow the crowd.

There you go again, using what has happened to me through the years (which has nothing to do with the veracity of this knowledge), against me. You are one of the followers, and you don't even see it.

I used the word intuitively for a reason. Please look the definition up.

Definition of intuitive
adjective
using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive:

So, what you are saying is that some people, namely those who do not apply conscious reasoning to Lessan's work, may find themselves in agreement with his conclusions. I, for one, would not be at all surprised if that were to turn out to be case.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not how he came to these conclusions. I've said this umpteen times, but you fail to recognize this because YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO BE RIGHT. It's really as simple as that.

And we have responded, umpteen times, that it does not matter how he came to his conclusions. What matters is whether or not he has demonstrated that his conclusions are correct and whether or not he has presented adequate grounds for arriving at those conclusions. He has done neither. It is really as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Definition of intuitive
adjective
using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive:

So, what you are saying is that some people, namely those who do not apply conscious reasoning to Lessan's work, may find themselves in agreement with his conclusions. I, for one, would not be at all surprised if that were to turn out to be case.

Are you also joining the bandwagon Angakuk? Lately, I've noticed that your posts sound like you're mocking me.

This is all about how one would feel if they hurt someone without justification. It doesn't take a lot of thought to know what the consequences of one's actions will be. In this world, we know the consequences of our behavior, just as we will know the consequences of our behavior in the new world. This is not unconscious reasoning. This is a conscious knowledge (an intuitive understanding) of what is ahead if we do certain things, and what the outcome will be. The only difference is that we will be prevented from doing those things that blame and punishment has not been able to deter.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, yeah talk about denial! In the future, in your imagination thedoc will be denying something that has been proven!

I believe that on your death bed you'll still be talking about how Lessans will one day be vindicated!

Your belief, Lady Shea, has the virtue of being based on evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And we have responded, umpteen times, that it does not matter how he came to his conclusions. What matters is whether or not he has demonstrated that his conclusions are correct and whether or not he has presented adequate grounds for arriving at those conclusions. He has done neither. It is really as simple as that.

But he has Angakuk. I'm sorry you don't see it just like the others don't, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. It's easy to go along with the tide, and that's exactly what you're doing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

WOW! talk about projection, Peacegirl refuses to read anything that could contradict Lessans, but continues to accuse others, who could not ask the questions they do without reading the book, of not reading the book. Willfull ignorance and denial don't even come close to describing Peacegirls actions on this forum.

I believe her claim to be true that no one has read the entire book, even once. I believe this on the basis of her own testimony that there are portions of the book that have not yet been made public. I also believe it on the grounds that she is continually altering the book so that it is true to say that the book you may have already read is not the book that she is talking about and the book she is talking about today may not be the same as the book she will be talking about tomorrow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your belief, Lady Shea, has the virtue of being based on evidence.

My prediction that thedoc would still be saying the same thing was tongue and cheek. His responses are so repetitive and predictable, that I wouldn't be surprised if he remained talking to himself in this thread, while the new world is being ushered in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I believe her claim to be true that no one has read the entire book, even once. I believe this on the basis of her own testimony that there are portions of the book that have not yet been made public. I also believe it on the grounds that she is continually altering the book so that it is true to say that the book you may have already read is not the book that she is talking about and the book she is talking about today may not be the same as the book she will be talking about tomorrow.

Wrong! The book is in the printers. There is no more altering anything, and the things I did alter had nothing to do with the discovery itself. I am making public the whole book, but at a price. Maybe people will then read it the way it was supposed to be read, instead of doing the exact opposite.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're absolutely wrong Angakuk. If some external force or circumstance eliminates the element of choice and leads us to do something we would not have chosen to do, had the choice been available, then that force or circumstance has led us to choose this as the lesser of two or more evils. We are still the ones doing the choosing. If another choice had been available, then you would not have had to choose what you did, as the lesser of two evils. Regardless of what options are present, you are still doing the choosing.

If someone would pry my mouth open and pour poison into it, I am not the one doing the choosing. This is external force, which has nothing to do with my will at all because it is someone else imposing his will onto me. This doesn't even enter into the definition. I suggest you carefully study this again, because it is 100% accurate.

Man either doesn’t have a choice because none is involved, as when something happens to him; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils (both considered bad for himself), the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

It is true that if someone poured poison down your throat (do you have this fantasy often?) you would not be choosing to swallow poison. We are, of course, assuming that you would not have chosen to swallow poison even if the opportunity to choose been offered. It follows then that the person pouring the poison down your throat is making you do something you would not have chosen to do, had such a choice been available to you. That is, said poisoner is making you do something against your will. Namely, ingest poison. That stands in direct contradiction to Lessans' claim that "nothing can make us do anything against our will". It is really just as simple as that.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you also joining the bandwagon Angakuk? Lately, I've noticed that your posts sound like you're mocking me.

Are you only just now noticing that? Here, have a clue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is all about how one would feel if they hurt someone without justification.

No, this (i.e. this particular conversation) is all about your fortuitous misuse of the word 'intuitively'. It really is just as simple as that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need you to support this work.

That is a good thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is true that if someone poured poison down your throat (do you have this fantasy often?)

Only since coming to this website.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

you would not be choosing to swallow poison. We are, of course, assuming that you would not have chosen to swallow poison even if the opportunity to choose been offered. It follows then that the person pouring the poison down your throat is making you do something you would not have chosen to do, had such a choice been available to you. That is, said poisoner is making you do something against your will. Namely, ingest poison. That stands in direct contradiction to Lessans' claim that "nothing can make us do anything against our will". It is really just as simple as that.

He qualified that Angakuk, it's as simple as that. He was not talking about someone making him do something against his will because this IS NOT HIS WILL. IF IT IS HIS WILL, NOTHING CAN MAKE HIM CHOOSE SOMETHING THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO, FOR OVER THIS HE HAS MATHEMATICAL CONTROL, WHICH IS TRUE. YOU DEFINITELY HAVE A BLOCK.

Man either doesn’t have a choice because none is involved, as when something happens to him; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils (both considered bad for himself), the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Last year the church council was asking for bids on replacing the roof on the church building. We had a representative from a company that was interested in bidding on the job come in and make a presentation to the council. He had an excellant product and a reasonable price. I think everyone on the council was pretty impressed with his presentation, except for one particular aspect. He repeatedly made the point that the warrenty on the product was transferable to the new owner, if the property was sold while the warrenty was still in force, and that this increased the value of the property in the event that it was put on the market. Not a single person on the council thought that was a relevant factor in making their decision, as there was absolutely no consideration of selling the property. It was as if the salesman was completely unaware that he was pitching this to a church, (and not a home owner) even though he was making his presentation in a church basement.

peacegirl reminds me of that salesman.

There is no one like that here.

Everything I'm saying is relevant. I'm not a salesman. If you think that way, then please don't take up my time anymore. I don't like being jerked around just for your entertainment.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What must follow if Lessans is right (which I believe he is), is that we would be seeing the actual object or substance, not just light.

Didn't answer the question again! Here, I'll repeat it:


If real-time seeing is true, how come NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets?


Also, be it noted (as it has been in the past) that the claim, "we see the real object or substance, not just light" is completely batshit insane, of course. If that were true, you have failed to answer HOW we see "the real object or substance, not just light." What does that even mean? You don't know yourself. Be that as it may, we DON'T see in real time, for if we did, Mars rovers would never reach their targets. So Lessans is wrong and you know it. And everyone knows you know it, since you cannot even attempt to answer the question.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like being jerked around just for your entertainment.

Then you shouldn't have come back here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you also joining the bandwagon Angakuk? Lately, I've noticed that your posts sound like you're mocking me.

'Lately?' My you are really slow on the uptake aren't you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone would pry my mouth open and pour poison into it, I am not the one doing the choosing.

I would certainly never consider doing anything like that. BTW, have you ever read or seen Hamlet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My prediction that thedoc would still be saying the same thing was tongue and cheek.

And my statements will still be based on evidence, rather than an over active imagination.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1083513]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are using the premise you are trying to prove to prove itself.

Not at all. I am not using any premise to prove anything. This is not a tautology. This is an accurate observation: Every movement from "here" to "there" is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

That is the premise that you have not yet proved! You can't just assert that it is so, you can't just assume it is a conceded fact. To do so is called a presupposition.

Your typing is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Your getting up in the morning and going about your daily activities is a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Every single thing you do is a movement away from the spot that you were just on because it was dissatisfying to stay there.

Prove it without referring back to the original premise, otherwise you are stating a tautology.

Just because we have to weigh certain choices before making a decision to decide which movement is more preferable doesn't alter the direction we are compelled to go.

Prove there is a compulsion. If you can't prove this compulsion exists, you are committing the modal fallacy.

You can't even discuss the premise without circling back, presupposing, and using fallacious reasoning..

[LadyShea]

Why are you responding to a post made a year and a half ago?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything I'm saying is relevant. I'm not a salesman. If you think that way, then please don't take up my time anymore. I don't like being jerked around just for your entertainment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you responding to a post made a year and a half ago?

Angakuk linked back to it. Peacegirl stupidly thought that meant he wanted her to reply to it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not a salesman.

Yes you are. You are just like your father trying to foist this rubbish on unsuspecting and gullible suckers.

[Angakuk]

On a related note. We are presently having new siding installed on our home.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

On a related note. We are presently having new siding installed on our home.

Did Lessans' ghost sell it to you? What color?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

'Lately?' My you are really slow on the uptake aren't you?

She has no uptake. From time to time she resets.