A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I have, twice in fact. The version I have does not have the parts about not-reincarnation though.

The problem I have is that the rest of the book - at least the part of it that is not to do with sight - is all predicated on conscience working the way it is described, and I cannot find any reason to assume that it does.

And I disagree - he has been refuted many times, whenever he made a claim that could be checked. You are the only one who feels he has not.

But the vast majority of the book deals with what he claims would happen if his ideas were put into practice, a claim that you yourself admitted cannot be checked without creating such a society.

It all hinges on the question if conscience works as described in the book. The book supplies no evidence that it does. It does not even make a case for it. It just claims that it does. If I am mistaken, then please show me the passage where it does, as I genuinely am unable to find it.

You say we should believe he was right, because he was able to "spot patterns" and because he "was incredibly in tune with what was going on in the world". Currently I see no reason to attribute such abilities to him, which is why I have been asking you to make a case for it. So far you seem reluctant to answer what I think is a reasonable question in the circumstances: Why is it likely that he had those capabilities?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And you know this ... how, exactly?

I was reading about it.

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.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It has been determined 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 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.

I don't look like an idiot except to people who want me to look like an idiot. What you want to see is what you will see, but that doesn't make it true. And guess what, you just blew it! I guess you don't take it seriously that I am not going to talk to people who have to call me names. It's a nasty slap in the face in an effort to give you more points, and I'm not playing this game.

[The Lone Ranger]

Even I occasionally feel the need to call a liar a liar when she's lying, and an idiot an idiot when she's behaving like one.


As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you don't have to take my word that we can indeed perform experiments to test that visual transduction is occurring. You could go to any decent library and read up on them. Or you could enroll in a university-level program and even do some of them yourself. Heck, we have electrodes nowadays that you can insert into individual cells and so directly monitor their transduction of visual signals.



In short, you are a liar and a hypocrite. And you're either an idiot or an incredible simulation of one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have, twice in fact. The version I have does not have the parts about not-reincarnation though.

I don't believe you read the book in its entirety. You are stuck on the foundational premise, which prevents you from taking the time to see how it's possible that this world can easily become a reality. Do you understand the two-equation, forgetting for a moment that you aren't sure if conscience works the way he observed? Do you understand how the economic system works in the new world? How do the world powers begin the transition process? What happens when the transition is complete?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem I have is that the rest of the book - at least the part of it that is not to do with sight - is all predicated on conscience working the way it is described, and I cannot find any reason to assume that it does.

You're going to have to temporarily assume that he is right in order for you to move on. If you can't do that, you will be stuck right where you are like LadyShea, Spacemonkey, Angakuk, Dragar, and TLR.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And I disagree - he has been refuted many times, whenever he made a claim that could be checked. You are the only one who feels he has not.

You're talking about the eyes, and I dare say that you can't check something when there are no precedents. All you can do is regurgitate what is already in the books.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But the vast majority of the book deals with what he claims would happen if his ideas were put into practice, a claim that you yourself admitted cannot be checked without creating such a society.

I said that is one way to test this knowledge. I also said it's not necessary. If someone knows the distance to a certain destination and the rate that he will be traveling, he can determine how long it will take to get there. This knowledge is just as mathematical as the above, although it cannot be determined when this new world will become a reality because there is no way of knowing at this point when this knowledge will be confirmed valid.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It all hinges on the question if conscience works as described in the book. The book supplies no evidence that it does. It does not even make a case for it. It just claims that it does. If I am mistaken, then please show me the passage where it does, as I genuinely am unable to find it.

He explains under what conditions conscience will permit actions that could lead to a first blow. He then shows under what conditions conscience would never permit someone to strike a first blow. This has to do with our ability to justify or rationalize our behavior. It is true that there are killers that don't seem to have a justification for their actions because there is not always a direct connection that can be easily pinpointed, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You say we should believe he was right, because he was able to "spot patterns" and because he "was incredibly in tune with what was going on in the world". Currently I see no reason to attribute such abilities to him, which is why I have been asking you to make a case for it. So far you seem reluctant to answer what I think is a reasonable question in the circumstances: Why is it likely that he had those capabilities?

I have no idea why he had those capabilities. Why does anyone have gifts or talents? He always said that if it wasn't him, someone would have made this discovery because the knowledge is here. It's not something he invented or made up.

[But]

peacegirl, what exactly does "empirical" mean in your mind? Is this another idiosyncratic use of words here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Even I occasionally feel the need to call a liar a liar when she's lying, and an idiot an idiot when she's behaving like one.


As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you don't have to take my word that we can indeed perform experiments to test that visual transduction is occurring. You could go to any decent library and read up on them. Or you could enroll in a university-level program and even do some of them yourself. Heck, we have electrodes nowadays that you can insert into individual cells and so directly monitor their transduction of visual signals.



In short, you are a liar and a hypocrite. And you're either an idiot or an incredible simulation of one.

So what you're saying then is that Lessans had to be wrong because the proof is in the dissection of the eye. I disagree. The proof is in how the eyes work according to observation, and Lessans observed something very different from what has been taken for granted as true. Why can't you be a little bit more open-minded instead of defending your position at all costs? Why can't you wait until the verdict is in, and please don't tell me that it's already in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, what exactly does "empirical" mean in your mind? Is this another idiosyncratic use of words here?

The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone knows the distance to a certain destination and the rate that he will be traveling, he can determine how long it will take to get there.

You know, don't you, that this only works in word problems on math tests? In the real world there all sorts of contingencies that render those sorts of calculations mere estimates at best. I submit to you that any real world application of Lessans' principles is certain to encounter conditions and obstacles that would seriously undermine his so-called mathematical certainty.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, so what you get from dissecting something is empirical data. Right?

Actually, did you have any idea what the word means before googling it, or were you just repeating your father's words again?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you're saying then is that Lessans had to be wrong because the proof is in the dissection of the eye. I disagree. The proof is in how the eyes work according to observation, and Lessans observed something very different from what has been taken for granted as true. Why can't you be a little bit more open-minded instead of defending your position at all costs? Why can't you wait until the verdict is in, and please don't tell me that it's already in.

No, that is not what he is saying. You should note that he did not even mention dissection in the post to which you are responding.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

Ah, so what you get from dissecting something is empirical data. Right?

Actually, did you have any idea what the word means before googling it, or were you just repeating your father's words again?

You might also ask if she has any idea what the word means after googling it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That's not what he said though. What he said is quoted above. You are putting words in Lessans mouth.

Explain his exact words, and why he used them as he did, which makes his statements dead wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Weaseling via evasion.

Can you demonstrate that actual truth is the same thing as a necessary truth or not? Can you make a rational argument for your assertion even?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you're saying then is that Lessans had to be wrong because the proof is in the dissection of the eye. I disagree.

You're not even pretending to pay attention, are you?

As I've been pointing out, we don't have to rely on dissection. We can actually perform empirical tests of whether or not the photoreceptors are receiving and transducing light, and if so, how.

[LadyShea]

Oh also peacegirl. Please tell us approximately the date you added the words "other than light" to the passage below. In 2006 those words weren't in the passage.

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.

That changes everything doesn't it? Originally Lessans said NOTHING from the external world strikes the optic nerve. Nothing at all. You changed it when you finally accepted it was completely fucking wrong....just like you changed molecules of light.

You are such a liar, how do you sleep at night?

[LadyShea]

You seemed confused in 2003, so when did you decide the best way to address it was to add your own words? Nothing about the passage as originally written indicates he thought of light as an external stimulus hitting receptors in the eyes, yet you made the assumption that he didn't mean what he said? Why is that? And why were you so convinced his knowledge was undeniable when you were confused by what he said?

No, because I was talking about nighttime, not daytime. You would see a star explode instantly because light surrounds the star. It doens't have to be surrounding us. It is instantaneous not the past. But there is a contradiction and I do not want to warp his knowledge. He said nothing impinges on the optic nerve; I assumed that light impinges and he wasn't referring to light. But if the eyes see the star exploding at night with light surrounding it, and it does not necessitate the light to travel to us in 8 minutes in order to see the star explode, then that indicates that light as a condition of sight does not impinge on anything. I agreed that light impinges thinking that it is a stimulus obviously, but how it works I am not sure and I do not want to taint anything he meant. Boy do I wish he was here. I must work backwards from the knowledge that he gave me which is undeniable, to figure out the mistakes that scientists have made in how the eye actually works. But I am not a retina expert. That does not mean he was wrong.

[Vivisectus]

I don't believe you read the book in its entirety. You are stuck on the foundational premise, which prevents you from taking the time to see how it's possible that this world can easily become a reality. Do you understand the two-equation, forgetting for a moment that you aren't sure if conscience works the way he observed? Do you understand how the economic system works in the new world? How do the world powers begin the transition process? What happens when the transition is complete?

That is rather immaterial unless we first establish if it would work, don't you think?

The book explicitly states it is all undeniable, as undeniable as basic math in fact. However, this is not the case: we can check if 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, but we cannot check if conscience works the way it is described in the book. So is the author lying, or was it an oversight?

You're going to have to temporarily assume that he is right in order for you to move on. If you can't do that, you will be stuck right where you are like LadyShea, Spacemonkey, Angakuk, Dragar, and TLR.

You may be surprised at this, but accepting that conscience works as described on your father's say so in order to be able to accept a whole lot of other things on your father's say so is not something I am particularly interested in. I am not a very religious person.

You're talking about the eyes, and I dare say that you can't check something when there are no precedents. All you can do is regurgitate what is already in the books.

What on earth are you on about now? You are using words you do not really understand again aren't you? Why don't you try explaining what you meant in simpler terms?

I said that is one way to test this knowledge. I also said it's not necessary.

I think you didn't. You said it would have to be tested by applying it to a small community, although I am all agog to hear what other ways of testing it we could attempt. Somehow I doubt the rest of this paragraph is going to do that, however.

If someone knows the distance to a certain destination and the rate that he will be traveling, he can determine how long it will take to get there. This knowledge is just as mathematical as the above, although it cannot be determined when this new world will become a reality because there is no way of knowing at this point when this knowledge will be confirmed valid.

Well colour me surprised, I was right. It is just some more claims. You were saying we could test if the proposed changes in the book would work, but then you seem to have forgotten to include how, and just repeated that it could be done in stead. Much like your father, you think a claim is the same thing as an explanation or a case.

He explains under what conditions conscience will permit actions that could lead to a first blow.

Yes, that is what he claims happens.

He then shows under what conditions conscience would never permit someone to strike a first blow.

Indeed, that is also something he claims.

This has to do with our ability to justify or rationalize our behavior. It is true that there are killers that don't seem to have a justification for their actions because there is not always a direct connection that can be easily pinpointed, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

This also, is something that is claimed in the book. I know this. I read it. My point, however, is that there is no case made for believing these claims are correct.

You seem to be having difficulty coming to terms with this, and your standard reaction is to simply repeat the claims. I know what they are - we all do. What we are trying to explain to you is that there is no rational reason to believe those claims.

I have no idea why he had those capabilities. Why does anyone have gifts or talents? He always said that if it wasn't him, someone would have made this discovery because the knowledge is here. It's not something he invented or made up.

I would have to be pretty dumb to ask "why was he able to do it?"

So in stead, I asked "Why do you believe he was able to do it?"

Amazing how you answer with the answer to "What should be believe if we were to believe in the book" when I ask "Why should I believe the book?" and answer "Why was he able to do these things" when I ask "What is the reason you believe he was able to do these things". But then again I suppose it saves you from having to face the rather embarrassing answers to the real questions.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh also peacegirl. Please tell us approximately the date you added the words "other than light" to the passage below. In 2006 those words weren't in the passage.

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.

That changes everything doesn't it? Originally Lessans said NOTHING from the external world strikes the optic nerve. Nothing at all. You changed it when you finally accepted it was completely fucking wrong....just like you changed molecules of light.

You are such a liar, how do you sleep at night?

Oh deary deary me. That explains how the sentence reads all wrong: as it is he seems to say that light does strike the optic nerve as stimuli do upon (lol pompous) the organs of hearing etc.

Just goes to show: careful what you wish for. You are always complaining no-one reads the book, but Shea apparently read the different versions pretty carefully indeed!

Why do you not correct the other very obvious mistakes?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Prove it. Quote me an answer from the book to each of my questions. I bet you can't.

What are these 'strong grounds' you speak of?

Where?

I'm listening. Show me these answers and strong grounds you speak of.

Bump.

What happened here, Peacegirl? Were you just talking out your butt yet again? Where are these answers and strong grounds? You said you wanted me to listen for a change? So why is it that you have nothing to say?

[Spacemonkey]

[quote=peacegirl;1093202]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it's not about testing until the evidence supports him Spacemonkey. Why couldn't I say the same thing about you trying to get support for your beliefs. This is not about beliefs. There is evidence but you resent him because he did not write his results down. Are you going to give up on his observations because he didn't do it your way? How crazy is that?

I reject his claims because they are refuted by evidence that you agree appears in all respects to be 'absolute proof' that he was wrong. At what point do you think it would be reasonable to reject his claims as falsified? If you insist that we should not give up on him even when we have what appears to be absolute disproof, when can we do so? And why do you keep claiming that there is evidence when you know full well you can't provide any?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, he was so attuned to what is going on in this world that you are going to have to let go of your guard and hear him. I don't know if that's possible for you, but I hope you can, because you would be one of the people who could really make a dent in spreading this knowledge forward. I'm not counting on you, but you could be instrumental in this important mission. That's all I'm saying.

Unfortunately what you're saying is not answering what I asked. Why do you keep refusing to concede that you have no evidence, even when you know full well that you don't have any? And why should any of us believe that he was well attuned to what is going on in the world? I know you believe that, but why should we?

[LadyShea]

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.

Lessans made a completely false statement in this passage.

Do you admit he was wrong, or do you admit you are a lying weasel?

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

So, Lessans seems to agree with the dictionary definition of sense, and then goes on to state that this definition does not apply to the eyes....
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

He clearly thought that the eyes were different anatomically and functionally. He seemed to think the eyes did not contain receptors. They do. He seemed to think NOTHING from the external world entered the eye. When you added (except for light) you made it make even less sense, because you negated the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses.

Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Originally Lessans said NOTHING from the external world strikes the optic nerve.

Great find! That explains Lessans' dumbfuck hypothetical about God turning on the sun, in which we see the sun immediately but no light reached our eyes for 8+ minutes.

It's also further proof of peacegirl being a bit fat liar (not that we needed more proof of that).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You know, don't you, that this only works in word problems on math tests? In the real world there all sorts of contingencies that render those sorts of calculations mere estimates at best. I submit to you that any real world application of Lessans' principles is certain to encounter conditions and obstacles that would seriously undermine his so-called mathematical certainty.

Actually, it would be an anomaly because the contingencies you're talking about would never be powerful enough to prevent conscience from working at full throttle. A person would have to be severely mentally ill for their conscience not to control their behavior under the changed conditions. If for any reason that would happen, they would be put in a hospital just like they are today. But these isolated cases would be few and far between, if any, and would not be enough to stop this new world from coming into existence.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They would have to be severely mentally ill for their conscience not to control their behavior under these conditions.

Can you support this claim? With anything at all? Or is this just another thing you are asking us to take on faith because your daddy said so?