A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so there is evidence! Ok, lets have it then?

I got an idea Vivisectus. Why don't you read the book in its entirety, and then get back to me. Your spouting off that there is no rational basis for his claims is absurd. Have you noticed that for the last 100 pages, that's all it's been, attacking Lessans without even one solid refutation that proves him wrong? Telling me he's wrong is not good enough. This is not a productive give and take in any sense of the word.

[LadyShea]

without even one solid refutation that proves him wrong

And you've not given us a single rational reason to believe he was even possibly right.

When asked for evidence, you whine and tell people to read the book, because you're a weasel.

Why not post the excerpts you think provide the evidence being asked for? What reason, other than "Lessans said so" is there to believe conscience works as he assumed it does? What reason, other than Lessans probably mistaken ideas about dog and infant sight, and his complete misunderstanding of the physics of light, is there to believe sight is efferent?

Telling me he's wrong is not good enough.

Telling us he was exceptionally perceptive and read a lot of books is not good enough reason to assume he was anything but a crackpot. What else do you have?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm just saying be fair. It's so easy for scientists to make the results appear flawless, because they have their reputation to preserve. After all, they have claimed the eyes are a sense organ for centuries. Can you imagine if the tests did not confirm this? Do you think they could even admit this unless they were pressured to?

ROFL. woo woo woo Your ridiculous views about science and scientists are straight out of the woo catalog of weaseling.

Any scientist who could verify that the eyes were not a sense organ, and that everyone else before him/her had gotten it wrong, would be rich and famous and go down in history. "Scientists" is not a single entity, roped together for all time speaking with the same mouth.

You know, many scientists thought Einstein was nuts and the Theory of Relativity was publicly ridiculed, and some tried to disprove it. There was a decades long fight amongst some physicists over a claim Stephen Hawking made. They are people, they compete and try to outdo each other and prove each other wrong all the time.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm just saying be fair. It's so easy for scientists to make the results appear flawless, because they have their reputation to preserve. After all, they have claimed the eyes are a sense organ for centuries. Can you imagine if the tests did not confirm this?

Dadgum you're stupid sometimes!

You know what would happen if I could prove that the eyes aren't sense organs? I'd instantly become the most famous scientist alive, that's what! I'd be absolutely guaranteed a Nobel Prize, and I'd be showered with accolades.

Science babes with great big frontal lobes would flock to me. I'd get rich from the book sales and the speaking tours.


You'd better damn well believe that if some scientist finds conclusive evidence that something we thought was true isn't, that (s)he is going to publish it -- because there's no surer route to fame in the scientific community.


All of this has been explained to you before. And yet you continue to dishonestly insist that the exact opposite is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you've not given us a single rational reason to believe he was even possibly right.

When asked for evidence, you whine and tell people to read the book, because you're a weasel.

You love calling me that, but that's what I am LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why not post the excerpts you think provide the evidence being asked for? What reason, other than "Lessans said so" is there to believe conscience works as he assumed it does? What reason, other than Lessans probably mistaken ideas about dog and infant sight, and his complete misunderstanding of the physics of light, is there to believe sight is efferent?

Telling us he was exceptionally perceptive and read a lot of books is not good enough reason to assume he was anything but a crackpot. What else do you have?

In order for me to cut and paste excerpts is not going to do any good if you don't accept the first two principles which lead to the actual discovery. You already know why man's will is not free. You call it a modal fallacy and a tautology. You will keep coming back with this retort even after I cut and paste other parts of the book, so what good will it do? I don't think you will ever really truly take this book seriously until someone that you respect tells you he is right in this regard (i.e., that man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction which is why his will is not free). This is the foundational premise after all, and everything else follows suit.

[The Lone Ranger]

How 'bout some of the alleged evidence to support his claim that the eye contains no afferent nerve endings that are contacted by light?

I'd love to see that evidence!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Dadgum you're stupid sometimes!

You know what would happen if I could prove that the eyes aren't sense organs? I'd instantly become the most famous scientist alive, that's what! I'd be absolutely guaranteed a Nobel Prize, and I'd be showered with accolades.

Science babes with great big frontal lobes would flock to me. I'd get rich from the book sales and the speaking tours.


You'd better damn well believe that if some scientist finds conclusive evidence that something we thought was true isn't, that (s)he is going to publish it -- because there's no surer route to fame in the scientific community.


All of this has been explained to you before. And yet you continue to dishonestly insist that the exact opposite is true.

Well, the truth is Lessans didn't care about Nobel prizes or fame or speaking tours. He just knew what he knew and wanted to get this knowledge out the best way he knew how, before he left this earth. I'm just carrying the ball to the best of my ability. Heck, if you want to help me do testing, I'll give you half the credit. In fact, I'll even let you get all the credit and win the Nobel Prize.

[The Lone Ranger]

Here's the thing: I have done the testing already. Many times.


Guess what the results were?

[LadyShea]

His explanations are fallacious and tautological. I have given you all this time to demonstrate that there is no circulatory, and that the modal fallacy was not committed, and you've refused to even try.

Additionally, the premise "man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction which is why his will is not free" is not at all testable or measurable or provable at all. I don't even find it useful in any way, because I think the whole free will debate is useless outside of theology.

So, no, there is nobody I respect that can make that premise meaningful or unsilly to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How 'bout some of the alleged evidence to support his claim that the eye contains no afferent nerve endings that are contacted by light?

I'd love to see that evidence!

He didn't say anything to that effect. He never disputed that light strikes the optic nerve (or retina), so I'm not sure where you get this idea. The only thing he disputed was that light carries messages to the brain that can be interpreted as an image. I'm not even sure if dissecting the eye is a way science could ever figure this out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You love calling me that, but that's what I am LadyShea.

You really are though. All of your weaseling is here for anyone to read and reach the same conclusion

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say anything to that effect. He never disputed that light strikes the optic nerve (or retina), so I'm not sure where you get this idea. The only thing he argued was that this light carries messages to the brain that can be interpreted as an image.

He said it flat out, in those exact words. We posted the quote multiple times just last week. And you say you are not a weasel? You are totally fucking lying right here!

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His explanations are fallacious and tautological. I have given you all this time to demonstrate that there is no circulator, and that the modal fallacy was not committed, and you've refused to even try.

I have tried to show you that an actual truth is the same thing as a necessary truth, but you refuse to listen. If man's will is not free, every movement is in the direction of greater satisfaction, not just choosing between alternatives. You are separating this one behavior as if there's something special about weighing options.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally, the premise "man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction which is why his will is not free" is not at all testable or measurable or provable at all. I don't even find it useful in any way, because I think the whole free will debate is useless outside of theology.

That makes me feel like it's a total waste of time talking to you because your mind is made up. After all this time, and all you can say is that it's not useful when you have no idea how important this fact is?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, no, there is nobody I respect that can make that premise meaningful or unsilly to me.

That's because you don't understand the importance of this fact. I still have hope. I'm not giving up on you yet.

[LadyShea]

I have tried to show you that an actual truth is the same thing as a necessary truth

Uh no, they are not at all the same thing, so how can you hope to "show me" that they are?

Should I show you that apples and sausages are the same thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said it flat out, in those exact words. We posted the quote multiple times just last week. And you say you are not a weasel? You are totally fucking lying right here!

Well there's some confusion then. This is also what he said:

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Upon hearing this, my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian tone
of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive
because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you
are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block
to show me how positive you really are?”

[Angakuk]

Science You Can Believe In

The Experiment

A dedicated scientist at the Peacegirl Institute for Advanced Scientific, Mathematical and Undeniable Studies conducted the following experiment on a frog.

Step one: Train the frog to jump in response to the verbal command "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumps on command.
Observation: Frog can hear and respond to a verbal command.

Step two: Shout "JUMP" and measure the distance the frog jumped.
Result: Frog jumped a distance of 3 feet in a straight line.
Observation: Frog can jump a distance of 3 feet.

Step three: Cut off the right front leg and shout "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumped a distance of 2.5 feet in a straight line.
Observation: Frog with three legs does not jump as far as a frog with four legs.

Step four: Cut off left front leg and shout "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumped a distance of 2 feet in a straight line.
Observation: Frog with only two legs does not jump as far as a frog with either three or four legs.

Step four: Cut off right rear leg and shout "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumps six inches at a 45 degree angle.
Observation: Frog with only one leg does not jump as far, or as straight, as a frog with two, three or four legs.

Step five: Cut of left rear leg and shout "Jump".
Result: Frog does not jump at all.
Observation: Frog with no legs is deaf and cannot recognise its handler.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh no, they are not at all the same thing, so how can you hope to "show me" that they are?

Should I show you that apples and sausages are the same thing?

In this context, they are absolutely the same thing. Whether we decide to make a choice or not, doesn't change our nature LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

There is no confusion, it is just you lying and weaseling because Lessans was wrong

He said

this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ

.

There are afferent nerve endings in the eye. Lots and lots of them. He was wrong.

Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Light is the external stimuli, and light is received by specialized receptors in the eye.

So where is this fallaciousness Lessans talks about? There is no difference between the eyes and the other senses even using Lessans very own criteria in this passage!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Science You Can Believe In

The Experiment

A dedicated scientist at the Peacegirl Institute for Advanced Scientific, Mathematical and Undeniable Studies conducted the following experiment on a frog.

Step one: Train the frog to jump in response to the verbal command "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumps on command.
Observation: Frog can hear and respond to a verbal command.

Step two: Shout "JUMP" and measure the distance the frog jumped.
Result: Frog jumped a distance of 3 feet in a straight line.
Observation: Frog can jump a distance of 3 feet.

Step three: Cut off the right front leg and shout "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumped a distance of 2.5 feet in a straight line.
Observation: Frog with three legs does not jump as far as a frog with four legs.

Step four: Cut off left front leg and shout "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumped a distance of 2 feet in a straight line.
Observation: Frog with only two legs does not jump as far as a frog with either three or four legs.

Step four: Cut off right rear leg and shout "JUMP".
Result: Frog jumps six inches at a 45 degree angle.
Observation: Frog with only one leg does not jump as far, or as straight, as a frog with two, three or four legs.

Step five: Cut of left rear leg and shout "Jump".
Result: Frog does not jump at all.
Observation: Frog with no legs is deaf and cannot recognise its handler.

I have to give it to you. That was mighty clever, but it doesn't pass the litmus test.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this context, they are absolutely the same thing. Whether we decide to make a choice or not, doesn't change our nature LadyShea.

That's an assertion not a demonstration.

In the context I am thinking of, apples and sausages are absolutely the same thing (and I can demonstrate it).

You demonstrate his premise without being circular and I will demonstrate how apples and sausages are the same.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no confusion, here is just you lying and weaseling because Lessans was wrong

He said

.

There are afferent nerve endings in the eye. Lots and lots of them. He was wrong.

Light is the external stimuli, and light is received by specialized receptors in the eye.

So where is this fallaciousness Lessans talks about? There is no difference between the eyes and the other senses even using Lessans very own criteria in this passage!

He didn't believe that there was a direct contact that would carry visual information from the optic nerve to the brain where it is decoded as such. Scientists are still trying to understand how visual information is transduced from the retina to the optic nerve. Regardless, this is not the way the truth of how we see is going to be determined. It will most likely be determined by empirical testing, not dissection.

[Angakuk]

Obviously there are no sights striking any afferent nerve endings in the eye, only light. Whereas with the sense of taste there are actual tastes striking the taste buds. With the sense of hearing there are actual hears striking the ears.

I hope this clears thing up for you so we can get on to the really important discovery about genital love.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's an assertion not a demonstration.

In the context I am thinking of, apples and sausages are absolutely the same thing (and I can demonstrate it).

You demonstrate his premise without being circular and I will demonstrate how apples and sausages are the same.

Anything and everything Lessans says is an assertion according to you. Unless I give you empirical data, you're not going to even consider the possibility that his observations were right. For you to dismiss his findings flat out like you're doing, without giving it a second thought, is being foolhardy, but don't let that stop you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientists are still trying to understand how visual information is transduced from the retina to the optic nerve.

And you know this ... how, exactly? [Here's a hint: We actually understand the process in great detail. This is something you'd know if you would make even a minimal effort to educate yourself.]

Regardless, this is not the way the truth of how we see is going to be determined. It will most likely be determined by empirical testing, not dissection.

It has been determined beyond any reasonable doubt through empirical testing, you unbelievable buffoon. Why on Earth do you think we can describe the process of visual transduction in such astonishing detail? Hell, you could enroll in a university-level program and do some of the empirical tests for yourself! [Oh, silly me: I forgot for a moment your repeated declarations that you have no intention of educating yourself on the matter.]

For cryin' out loud, try to make at least some effort not to look like a complete idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Obviously there are no sights striking any afferent nerve endings in the eye, only light. Whereas with the sense of taste there are actual tastes striking the taste buds. With the sense of hearing there are actual hears striking the ears.

He had his reasons for saying that although light strikes the eye, the ability to turn it into an electrical impulse that can be decoded into an image, was a faulty observation.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I hope this clears thing up for you so we can get on to the really important discovery about genital love.

This just shows me how something can be so misconstrued. You are making a fool of yourself by acting as if you understand what this chapter is even about.