A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not what I said. I said that scientists don't know everything, so that should give you pause before jumping to premature conclusions that Lessans is wrong.

Scientists don't know everything, but they've pretty conclusively shown that Lessans is wrong.

Seriously, when are you going to find that one scientist that agrees with this statement?

If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

[Vivisectus]

No it doesn't, but you can't use this analogy to conclude that because we don't understand the complete workings of the brain, that the possibility that Lessans is right should now be compared to a fairy tale.

Nor was I saying that. What I am saying is that you cannot use it to make his ideas seem plausible.

No, that is not what I said. I said that scientists don't know everything, so that should give you pause before jumping to premature conclusions that Lessans is wrong.

It rather is what you said. You said "why cant people wait for future evidence to show up?"

No, there are many things that are not possible, but this discovery is within the realm of possibility because it is based on immutable laws that control the mankind system.

No, the ideas about sight are clearly impossible. I have already pointed that out in the other post, and you failed to address any of the points in there.

The rest can only be tested by applying it to entire societies, and is completely unsupported.

Again, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that their beliefs are valid until proven otherwise. It's amazing to think that the faith of those people who trusted in God; who believed that one day we would be delivered from evil, was not in vain.

This would mean that we should also assume that it is plausible that elves exist, that the world flies through space on the back of a giant turtle, and that heart-attacks are caused by witches. At least if we are to use your standards of evidence.

Also, they ignore the fact that this also means that directly opposing beliefs must be considered valid as they also have not been disproven.

That is sort of the point, which you seem to have missed. No-one has ever proven that diseases are not caused by evil spells. What they have done is found evidence that suggests very strongly that there are different causes, such as virusses.

You are so completely off base, it disturbs me. This man did more reading and studying than you'll ever do on one pinky.

It does not seem to have done him much good. Nor does it seem to have included any fact-checking, or perhaps getting even a little bit acquainted with the fields he was making broad sweeping statements about. Basic logic, philosophy 101, a simply biology textbook and perhaps an introduction to basic physics are all conspicuous by their absence from his reading matter.

This is not about an assumption Vivisectus, just because he didn't start off with a hypothesis.

It is opinion. He did not support it in any way. If not - why should be assume conscience works the way he said?

How dare you conclude that he was lazy or didn't actually learn anything, or was too proud to admit he didn't understand something, or that this was just a belief that he couldn't part with.

Actually I am calling you lazy. As the originator of the belief, I am merely calling him ignorant. Although he did have decades to acquire a basic high-school grade knowledge of physics and optics, which he seems to have neglected to do. He also seems to have not found the time to find any evidence. Or even to make a compelling case for his idea.

You know what? I changed my mind. I am calling him lazy after all. He was happy just making claims, and then pretending he did the work to check and support those claims. He did not do any of the actual work that is required, but wanted to claim the recognition anyway.

Five centuries of enlightenment has not given us the answers we've been searching for. So who is dumping on whom Vivisectus? Could it be that you, in your pride, cannot even begin to entertain the possibility that a discovery was made without your approval?

If it is merely my pride that is keeping me from accepting this, then you should be able to tell me that I am wrong and that there is evidence, or even just a compelling reason to believe it works that way. I should be irrational, and it should be easy to point this out.

But you never do. You say "You just don't believe it because you are a meanie!" and leave it at that.

Who is taking credit away from those who have made our world better? You are making a total fool of yourself Vivisectus by implying that in order to appreciate where we have come, that somehow we can't appreciate this discovery, which, by the way, will move us further along than ever thought possible. Again, this does not deny that we, as a species, haven't grown by leaps and bounds. This law of our nature, once understood and applied globally, will just take us to a whole new level.

Well, you are, really. You say there is no need for a rational approach: we should all just believe lessans, because he said so! And if we object, you say that this is not rational, because despite all the evidence pointing in the other direction, there could be something about the brain which we do not know yet which would make it NOT impossible for him to be right!

As I already pointed out - we don't know everything about the amazon jungle, so maybe elves live there! You cannot prove they don't, so by your logic that makes them plausible!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just because there is a lot more to learn does not mean that anything goes. There is no excuse for such a feckless attitude.

[/QUOTE]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about?

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Sound travels slower than light travels. That is why you can often see something before you can hear it. The light travels many times faster than the sound.

That's not even what I said. I said that we can often hear the sound of a plane before we see see it, even when the plane is in our direct visual field with no obstructions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know that you feel he was a genius, and I know that lessans claimed he was, but I see no reason to believe either of you are correct. In fact I see a lot of evidence to the contrary: mistakes that would make a high-school student blush. The man forgot to include any reason at all to believe he was right about how conscience works, and yet he happily prosed on as if he had established it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

That's because he did establish these claims beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He prated away about molecules of light, and he never even bothered to look up how the eye is structured! He never explained why we should believe sight works the way it does, or bothered to explain why centuries-old observations suggest that he was 100% mistaken! He does not even seem to have been aware of any of it! All he did was make grandiose claims, and for that he expected to be lauded as a benefactor to mankind. If he hadn't been so convinced of his own genius, this would have been rather tragic.

He never touted his own genius. He was not an arrogant man. I've said this before but it doesn't seem to sink in.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet here we have a man who tried to sue the president for not putting his system in practice. A system for which we have only one reason to believe it would work: Seymour's assurance that he was the biggest genius mankind had ever seen.

Why do you keep saying this, as if this was something he said? Are you jealous of him? He never said that his assurance was all that was necessary. He was never given a chance to have this knowledge investigated. Do you think you have done a good job at a thorough investigation? If you do, you're sadly mistaken.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet here we have a man who tried to sue the president for not putting his system in practice.

Oh, it was worse than that. He sued because the president had the temerity to blow him off. Lessans wrote in his spectacularly frivolous complaint that he'd drop the lawsuit if Carter granted him an audience. How terribly magnanimous!

For the lulz, here again is the full text of the complaint ol' Seymour filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

The United States Government:

Because Jimmy Carter refused to grant an audience for the purpose of demonstrating how a scientific discovery can now unite all nations in a harmonious agreement that will break the vicious cycle of inflation and solve to everybody’s satisfaction the problems that are costing the people billions of dollars in rising prices and excessive taxes, and because this refusal violates my rights and his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States which obviously includes doing everything in his power to solve these problems even to the extent of allowing someone outside the political arena to show him the answer, I, Seymour Lessans, representing the taxpayers who want to see a permanent solution, am taking Jimmy Carter to court as the only alternative to prove before 12 top ranking scientists, not political scientists, that his failure to faithfully execute his oath of office by investigating this discovery is a crime of the greatest magnitude and reason enough for the people who hired him and pay his salary to remove him from office. However, such removal is wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that no political party has the knowledge to cope with these complex problems. Therefore, if Mr. Carter will allow a demonstration in his office within 60 days from the date of this complaint there will be no need to go to court and he will be completely amazed and pleased with the solution even though it renders obsolete the age of politics, an age of opinions and promises by politicians who are voted into office only because we didn’t know what else to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding me? You don't think ruminating over two choices and determining which one would serve you best is a higher order skill?

quote="LadyShea"]Touching something is not a high order skill.

Who said it was?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs trained in drug detection can indicate to a handler which of two (or more) boxes contain marijuana. Bomb detection dogs can indicate which of multiple substances is the explosive.

That's because their sense of smell is much more sensitive than ours.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They can naturally discriminate between two substances, but they must be trained to impart that information to a human in an unambiguous manner to be useful data.

They can easily do that once they are trained to find the substance. You cannot compare this to identifying a familiar face. They should not need any kind of training to show a response. There was a dog on television that was so excited to see his master coming home from Iraq. He would be a perfect candidate for this type of test because he would no doubt have been excited to see a picture of his beloved owner.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Animals of all kinds can often distinguish between safe food and toxic food. They indicate their choice by eating the safe food, or they die.

And? Of course they can because their sense of smell is sharp and they can identify certain smells since smell is a sense organ. Duh!

When you give instructions to a human, you know they understand what you are asking of them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right. Animals are different, so we have to train animals to do something to indicate a choice in these experiments.

You can't use this as an analogy LadyShea. You are weaseling big time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All the data indicates is which picture the animals chose. If they choose the familiar picture 80% of the time, that indicates that they recognize and prefer the familiar. If they choose the color picture over the black and white picture well above 50% (which is random chance) that indicates they can see and prefer color. If they choose whatever is to their right most of the time...well they prefer the right.

Well, I say this result is misleading. Just as a dog does not have to be taught what is safe to eat, a dog would be able to indicate that he recognizes his master without being trained, as in the case of being trained to detect drugs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I gave you a series of pairs of pictures, and merely said "choose", without giving you further instructions, you would choose based on your own criteria. I could then look at that data for patterns in your choices. That's how these are done with animals.

They are saying that over 50% it is no longer random. I say this does not prove that dogs can identify their masters. Why is there no data that a dog recognizes a photograph without these props? Not even one? That doesn't bode well.

to be cont...

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not even what I said. I said that we can often hear the sound of a plane before we see see it, even when the plane is in our direct visual field with no obstructions.

This is not factual - did you even watch the videos?

[Vivisectus]

That's because he did establish these claims beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Then tell me why I should believe conscience works the way he said it does? You never do, no matter how many times I ask.

He never touted his own genius. He was not an arrogant man. I've said this before but it doesn't seem to sink in.

Did you read the book? He can barely finish a page without calling his work the greatest ever.

Why do you keep saying this, as if this was something he said? Are you jealous of him? He never said that his assurance was all that was necessary. He was never given a chance to have this knowledge investigated. Do you think you have done a good job at a thorough investigation? If you do, you're sadly mistaken.

And yet he did not seem to feel the need to include any evidence for his system. How do we know conscience works that way? We are expected to accept this on his say-so alone.

A say so expounded in "the greatest discovery" - one of many self-congratulatory descriptions of his own work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not a lie. I answer your questions.

It was a lie. I showed it to be a lie by quoting you evading my questions instead of answering them. You have evaded them again in this post. Therefore you lied when you said you never do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignore your questions unless you start frustrating me by your better than thou attitude, which I'm starting to feel.

IOW, you never ignore questions... except for when you do. If you purposefully ignore questions when you are feeling frustrated, then it is a lie to claim that you never do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[Weasel #1:] That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

[Weasel #2:]He was so clear in the book as to why this occurs under conditions of a no blame environment, and why we can't justify striking a first blow under these same conditions, that you either didn't read it, or you don't understand his demonstration.

Where am I evading anything? You do not understand the two-sided equation whatsoever, yet you think you do. This poses a real stumbling block.

Where are you evading anything? See above! Neither of your above responses to the question actually provide any kind of answer to it. Your first quoted response was an evasion. Your new response above is also an evasion. Telling me that I am lost or don't understand is a weaseling evasion. Telling me that it is clear in the book is a weaseling evasion. Anything that does not consist of providing actual support from Lessans for your claim (that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification) is a weaseling evasion. And claiming that we will be unable to justify harm is not the same as showing that we will be unable to harm without a justification.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[Weasel #1:] I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

[Weasel #2:] Maybe in their calculations there was a correction made. I really don't know, but this is not how this knowledge is going to be confirmed. If this claim is confirmed valid, then we have to go back to the drawing board to understand what is really going on, and why the trajectories are on target.

This is not a weasel. I am evading nothing. Empirical testing will be the ultimate judge of who is right.

Again, both of these responses are weaseling evasions. Neither of them answer the question by explaining how it could be that NASA does not miss while using delayed vision calculations, if vision is real-time. Explaining why you are not answering the question is simply explaining why you are evading it. Appealing to a need for further empirical testing is a weaseling evasion. It does not answer the question. And no correction is made. You have even been shown the calculations. So this is another weaseling evasion. The only legitimate part of your reply is where you admit that you don't really know how it is possible for Lessans to still be right. But of course, you are still certain that he is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before I ever give you an apology, you are you going to have to get down on your hands and knees and ask for forgiveness for calling me insane, mentally ill, and all the other crazy nutty things you have called me and accused me of in the space of a very short time.

I'm not going to apologize for telling you that you are mentally ill. You are. I am not using this as an insult. I am seriously concerned about your mental health, as are most of your audience here. My conclusion concerning your mental state is one based upon the evidence of your posts. When I say that you are crazy, I can support this by showing where you have said or done crazy things. Whereas you asserted that I had contradicted myself when I had not (merely because I have not agreed with your unsupported claim that compatibilism is wrong), and still refuse to retract the accusation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as your false indignation over my comment, explain to me how then can you reconcile the two opposite sides that compatibilists try to reconcile without it being a complete and utter contradiction? Are you saying that we don't have free will, or that we do have free will? And if you think we have both, show me how this works in a compatabilist framework.

Like I already told you, I already did explain this. But I'll be happy to explain it to you again just as soon as you retract and apologize for your lies and false accusations. You were wrong to say that I had contradicted myself. You were wrong to say that I had claimed that we both have and do not have free will. And you are blatantly lying every time you claim that you never weasel or evade anything.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not even what I said. I said that we can often hear the sound of a plane before we see see it, even when the plane is in our direct visual field with no obstructions.

You said there was a delay in sound and that it "takes time for the sound" to reach us but that sight works differently. And used "that's why" as if it explained something in response to my post.

What exactly was your point? How is your point relevant to question asked?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are saying that over 50% it is no longer random. I say this does not prove that dogs can identify their masters. Why is there no data that a dog recognizes a photograph without these props? Not even one? That doesn't bode well.

to be cont...

Without strict, unambiguous and duplicatable test parameters that do not rely on interspecies behavior interpretation and do not rely on choosing subjects that are known to exhibit the behavior you are looking for (talk about bias! Do you know how stupid you sound?), then it is not scientific data, it is anecdote and meaningless.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes or no?

Photoreceptors are afferent nerve endings in the eyes?

Bump

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, this really so idiotic, I would laugh if it wasn't so sad. You are, once again, trying to make Lessans wrong unless he gets approval from someone in optics. This is seriously flawed, and unless and until you see this, we cannot converse because you will continue to think that this knowledge needs approval from other people. It does not. That is exactly why he wrote the following which you could care less about:

You're the idiot who thought I mentioned anything about eye doctors...lol. Where'd that come from?

I am just super curious as to what your medical doctor son thinks about Lessans ideas regarding vision and your ideas regarding science. Does he hold to efferent vision and think optics is all wrong as you do?

I think it's the oddest thing that nobody you know and love seems to believe in or support Lessans work. Or if they do, they don't care enough to help you promote it or help fund your efforts. Don't they care about world peace?

And no, I don't give a shit about Lessans arrogance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your own conclusions, if wrong, could ruin it for others.

They should get their own conclusions and leave mine alone. WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look what has happened all over the world with wrong beliefs and wrong conclusions based on false premises and syllogistic reasoning?

LOL, what does that have to do with me? I am not the one out evangelizing religions, or peddling "discoveries", or promoting woo medicine. I am not campaigning nor am I selling anything.

I have reached conclusions about the information presented to me by you and Lessans, just as you reached the conclusion that Scientology is a cult. What if that's a wrong conclusion on your part...aren't you RUINING IT FOR EVERYONE???

So wait. You think you're right as well. So does thinking oneself correct equal "being God"? If so, then you are equally being God!

And you claim to be "serious"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you here if you don't want your words to mean something?

Communicating my thoughts and opinions using language is "being God"?

WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not going to trip me up, okay? You're not going to use false reasoning to laugh in my face. Won't happen. God, which I have already defined, only means the laws of our nature that push us in a certain direction. That is true, and we have no control over the direction our lives take.

Let me see the hard evidence for that claim

I don't believe any of the deities described to me exist. I do not claim various deities do not exist because I think that is not a testable proposition at all.

I am an atheist and I am an agnostic.

You used the word when you said "divine order". I didn't put the word in your mouth, you did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I said what I said because of your arrogance. You believe that you are right, and I am wrong, and you have no idea whether I'm right or wrong except for your belief that I couldn't be right because the claims are too unbelievable for them to be right. You have presupposed that I am wrong because of the claims, which is a no no in philosophy.

No, I have concluded you are wrong because you have convinced me you are wrong. You have no evidence, cannot address valid criticisms, and your logic and arguments are very poor.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's still a strawman, and a weasel, and an evasion because the discussion was not about images or patterns or traveling or any of that.

Let's make it simple.
Light makes direct contact with the photoreceptors on the retina. Yes or No?

Bump

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't trust your motives with a ten foot pole.

Add this one to the list.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is also why this knowledge came from outside of the fields of optics and physics.

That is also why it is not actual knowledge but mere opinion and factually incorrect.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Add this one to the list.

Nobody should ever leave LadyShea alone in the same room as a ten foot pole.

[Vivisectus]

Oooh I forgot he was going to cure inflation as well. No more supply and demand!

What would he have said if this "panel of top scientists (not political scientists)" had asked him the simple question "And why do you believe it works that way?"

He did not believe anything he wrote could be subjected to valid criticism: if you do not agree, just must not have understood, and you should go back and read it some more. Because it is all as undeniable as 2 + 2.

Only 2 + 2 comes with proof: 2 ones added to 2 ones can be counted, and then you have four. There is no such proof for conscience working the way he said.

He does not seem to have noticed that this means that his entire system is not in fact "Mathematically undeniable", and that it does not take you in small undeniable steps to an inevitable conclusion. Or maybe he just did not feel it was necessary. Had any of those naysayers devised a wonderful discovery that will save mankind? I should think not!

Of course, neither had he, but he seems to have missed that fact.

[LadyShea]

This man did more reading and studying than you'll ever do on one pinky.

This is on the list too

[Vivisectus]

LOL can't believe I missed that. And it is so true too! I have never studied anything on either one of my pinkies, so the moments Lessans read "see spot run" she had me bang to rights on that point.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Nobody should ever leave LadyShea alone in the same room as a ten foot pole.

You are absolutely right, if LadyShea is going to do a 'Pole Dance' she should always have an audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripper_dance_pole

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This man did more reading and studying than you'll ever do on one pinky.
.

The dificulty is not how much reading Lessans did, but what he was reading. Apparently is was not science, psychology, psyiology or anything that would educate him on how science or the human body works. 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' does not qualify him to critisize science and how it is done. It doesn't qualify him to critisize anything, other than someone's opinion on ancient history.

[Vivisectus]

But hey! It is an Important Looking Book with an Important Sounding Title well worth plagiarizing! Don't worry - no one will notice.

[peacegirl]

cont from previous post...

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All the data indicates is which picture the animals chose. If they choose the familiar picture 80% of the time, that indicates that they recognize and prefer the familiar. If they choose the color picture over the black and white picture well above 50% (which is random chance) that indicates they can see and prefer color. If they choose whatever is to their right most of the time...well they prefer the right.

If I gave you a series of pairs of pictures, and merely said "choose", without giving you further instructions, you would choose based on your own criteria. I could then look at that data for patterns in your choices. That's how these are done with animals.

But the patterns that we think are airtight have been manipulated by the very test that was supposed to give airtight results.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not the case with a dog. Just because a dog is supposedly trained to push a lever when a certain picture is shown to them, does not mean that the dog is actually identifying what you think he is when he pushes the lever, even if it seems statistically significant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're right, but it is evidence and data. If it is statistically significant over multiple tests and with different dogs and with different researchers, that is stronger evidence.

Where are these multiple test results. Show me where.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hence, the dangers of certain empirical tests which can be misleading.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's why tests are repeated and published and duplicated. No single experiment offers absolute proof of anything, nor has anyone here or any scientists claimed it does. A body of data and evidence indicates things though[/qutoe]

Things though? Is that your answer? Give me a break Ladyshea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there are not better ways. There is too much room for anthropomorphizing and seeing what you want to see, as you are doing.

Talk about defense mechanisms, your defense is a whopper.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have a preconceived expectation of how a dog should behave if he recognizes a photo, and that is a huge bias in an objective test.

Bias? All I'm asking is for a dog to respond to a picture. I'm not setting up any conditions like you are. You don't see this because you are so sure your standard of evidence disproves Lessans. It does no such thing LadyShea. YOU LOSE, but the world WINS!!! How can you be angry at that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For the results to be scientifically valid, the choice must be indicated unambiguously...what you are talking about is not research, it's layperson "horse sense" and worth no more than and old wives tale.

It is definitely research. This man researched more than you could do in a lifetime LadyShea. So to put him down by calling it "horse sense" is a disgrace, and you are passing on falsehoods just because LadyShea wants to be right NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Interpreting an animal's sounds and body posture is not consistent from one researcher to another, nor is it measurable or duplicatable. Touching a picture with its nose, pressing a button, etc. is consistent and measurable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might be measurable, but what good is the measurement if it's wrong. :

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can it be "wrong"? The animal does a task. Let's say it chooses between two pictures by touching one with its nose. The results are written down. It's data...neither right nor wrong.

The wrongness is the interpretation, not what the animal does that is written down. What's your problem? Are you drinking?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If that data indicates something, then it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

You cannot go in to an empirical test with expectations like that or with thoughts of right and wrong. That is not science at all

Huh? You are losing it, seriously. I can't even respond because what you're saying is so absurd. "If the data indicates something, then it does?" What kind of data is that if the data is wrong? What if the program itself is wrong LadyShea? How are you going to answer this except with more false accusations? I'm sure you will come up with something.