A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

ANother thing occurs. He says:

How did he prove the eye is not a sense organ? As far as I can tell he merely claimed it. If he proved it... where is this proof?

Or was he just talking out of his hat?

Vivisectus, he talked about this in detail; the ability to become conditioned. The way this occurs is due to the brain's ability to project onto a screen words, whether true or false, which allow a photograph to be taken. This conditioning does not occur with the other senses. We can develop tastes for music or food later on in life, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned.

[Spacemonkey]

Why are you still here, Peacegirl? Don't you have a book to begin promoting?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to give something. I have certain charities I already give to, one is Mother's Against Drunk Drivers, and the Special Olympics. There's so many needy people. That's why I want this knowledge to be brought to light so people won't have to suffer this way anymore.

You bet 100.00, you lost the bet.

How are you going to pay the bet?

[LadyShea]

One large study was done years ago (I wish I could get hold of it to prove to you I'm not making this up) where the experimenter slapped a doll with a raised voice while she was giving it a bath and the two year old that was watching got very upset. Their conclusion was that the child had a conscience and knew intuitively that what the experimenter was doing was wrong.

There have been numerous studies done regarding children's moral development and innate senses of fairness and empathy. Getting upset at violence doesn't indicate a fully developed conscience at all. I seriously doubt you are correctly remembering the conclusions

In a recent experiment, Kindergartners were shown a woman beating up a Bobo the Clown doll, and hitting it with a hammer. When they went out to the play yard, there was a Bobo doll. They beat it up and hit it with toy hammers. Where is this innate conscience now? Does this mean those kids are all violent?

No.

Small children are developing a conscience as they develop their values system. They are not born with a perfect conscience.

[LadyShea]

[LadyShea]

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That money would come in handy in helping me to get this book printed.

Several pages ago I linked to the two passages you quoted that did not contain the words "other than light". One was from 2003 and the other from 2006.

Here is the link to the post you made in 2006
Here is the passage as you pasted it then

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2006

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 impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Here it is from 2003. You'll see here it is stated that nothing impinges on the optic nerve and the words "other than light" do not appear at all. He also restates that the main difference between the eyes and other senses are that there is nothing external striking the nerve endings in the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2003

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 impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.”

So do I get the $100?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to give something. I have certain charities I already give to, one is Mother's Against Drunk Drivers, and the Special Olympics. There's so many needy people. That's why I want this knowledge to be brought to light so people won't have to suffer this way anymore.

So now you're going to weasel out of paying up on the bet you lost.

[LadyShea]

The other emotional ingredients of conscience are that quaint pair, guilt and shame. Although some child advocates insist that no child should ever be shamed, scientists who study moral development disagree. "Guilt and shame are part of conscience," says Berkowitz. In young children, the sense of right and wrong is born of the feeling that you have disappointed someone you love, usually your parents. If there is no one whose love you need, whose disapproval breaks your heart, you are missing a crucial source of the emotions that add up to knowing right from wrong and acting on it. Learning Right From Wrong

So, if a child is born into Lessans new world, and never feels guilt or shame, it's possible that the child will not develop a conscience due to having no understanding of the emotions involved in it.

The very thought of shooting a little girl inspires in most people a profound feeling of horror. But feelings can fail us when we face more ambiguous moral choices, such as whether it is right to help a struggling friend cheat on a test. Much as children pass through stages of cognitive reasoning, so they pass through six stages of moral reasoning. In the model developed by the late Lawrence Kohlberg and still accepted today, children's first glimmer of conscience comes in the form of thinking, "I won't do this; Mommy will punish me if I do." That gives way to a positive spin: "I won't do this bad thing, because I want a reward for being good." Both forms of reasoning at this early stage, which roughly coincides with toddlerhood, turn on self-interest. But most preschoolers also grasp and believe in abstract ideas like fairness and reciprocity. When asked, as part of an experiment, how to distribute a pile of toys or a box of cookies to a group of children, many respond with explanations such as "We should all get the same," reports Stanford's Damon.

As a parent, I have seen some of these stages in this development, as have most parents. Children are not born with fully developed conscience, as I pointed out. They do have some sense of fairness and empathy very young, but those are aspects only.

Unlike empathy, full-fledged conscience does not seem innate.

[thedoc]

In many young children fairness and sharing need to be learned, the most common response is "Mine is Mine, and yours is negotiable".

[koan]

I just fell asleep listening to a chapter from the audio book

At least I had a good nap.
You've been at this discussion since March 2011. I wasn't able to read all the replies. Has anyone asked what is meant by "the Great Transition" mentioned on the home page?

It is a must read for those who are seriously interested in this discovery and how it will benefit our world once the Great Transition is officially launched.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because recognition at that level requires words to distinguish one set features from another.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by But

That was Lessan's thesis from day 1, that words rather than sensory data determine what we 'see', and thus labels like 'ugly' and 'beautiful' are not accurate descriptions of reality. I love it because not only is it so stupendously wrong, but it's completely unnecessary for his desired conclusion. If only he'd been a little heavier on the New-Agey Utopia and a little lighter on the actual testable claims...

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Several pages ago I linked to the two passages you quoted that did not contain the words "other than light". One was from 2003 and the other from 2006.

Here is the link to the post you made in 2006
Here is the passage as you pasted it then

Here it is from 2003. You'll see here it is stated that nothing impinges on the optic nerve and the words "other than light" do not appear at all. He also restates that the main difference between the eyes and other senses are that there is nothing external striking the nerve endings in the eye.

So do I get the $100?

I think she must just have realized that you can't delete stuff on the internet.

[But]

Originally Posted by Kael

That was Lessan's thesis from day 1, that words rather than sensory data determine what we 'see', and thus labels like 'ugly' and 'beautiful' are not accurate descriptions of reality. I love it because not only is it so stupendously wrong, but it's completely unnecessary for his desired conclusion. If only he'd been a little heavier on the New-Agey Utopia and a little lighter on the actual testable claims...

Yes, I know, but peacegirl's stating it in that way, matter-of-factly, while trying to evade another obvious conclusion, just brought out my uncontrolled amusement.

Also, peacegirl trying to deny that she added the words is like a child who is being scolded for urinating in their pants and claims in all seriousness that grandma did it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, and maybe her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

Thank you for admitting that Lessans' book is biased and factually inaccurate.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More detecting of patterns, but now by pigeons!

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that Lessans had the brain of pigeon.

[Angakuk]

Double post.

[Angakuk]

Children are incapable of seeing stars until someone has sung "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" to them. Fact.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, he talked about this in detail; the ability to become conditioned. The way this occurs is due to the brain's ability to project onto a screen words, whether true or false, which allow a photograph to be taken. This conditioning does not occur with the other senses. We can develop tastes for music or food later on in life, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned.

That is not proof: that is a claim. He speaks of proving that it is so, but he does no such thing.

Is he lying, or does he just not understand what proof is?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by koan

I just fell asleep listening to a chapter from the audio book

At least I had a good nap.
You've been at this discussion since March 2011. I wasn't able to read all the replies. Has anyone asked what is meant by "the Great Transition" mentioned on the home page?

The Great Transition was supposed to have happened last century, but this has been postponed because scientists are meanies. This does not mean that the author was wrong when he predicted it was going to happen last century.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you still here, Peacegirl? Don't you have a book to begin promoting?

No I don't. I am making last minute changes and hopefully on Monday I'll be ready to resubmit it. I'm glad I had the opportunity because each time I've improved certain passages. Maybe you'll be interested in buying the book. I would love to get your feedback. The only thing I would ask of you is to stop coming to premature conclusions, and for a nanosecond pretend that the book may have actual value.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The Great Transition was supposed to have happened last century, but this has been postponed because scientists are meanies. This does not mean that the author was wrong when he predicted it was going to happen last century.

Obviously you did not listen to the audio. When he was still alive he explained why his prediction was not accurate. It was based on the conviction that this knowledge would have been investigated by a certain time, but it was not. He had no way of knowing when this would occur. He was hoping beyond hope that it would be in 25 years, but again it was based on the belief that people would have open arms and desire to study the work. Unfortunately, this did not come to pass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not proof: that is a claim. He speaks of proving that it is so, but he does no such thing.

Is he lying, or does he just not understand what proof is?

I told you that this was an astute observation. You can denounce his observations all you want and tell me he has no proof, but that will get us nowhere. I'm asking you to contain your skepticism so we can move forward, otherwise we will continue to go back and forth, you telling me has no proof and me telling you his observations were spot on, and we will never make one bit of progress. I'm being serious. When I start marketing I'm not going to have time for these shenanigans and you'll be left with no more knowledge than the day I joined this forum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The Great Transition was supposed to have happened last century, but this has been postponed because scientists are meanies. This does not mean that the author was wrong when he predicted it was going to happen last century.

I don't know who you are, but I'm curious to know what was so boring? That chapter wasn't even that long. Do you even understand what he was talking about? Could it be that it was you that didn't have even a rudimentary understanding of the free will/determinism debate to grasp what he was trying to get across? Tell me what it was that bored you to the point of falling asleep? Do you think it's fair to make a remark like this without giving any reasons as to why you were so bored?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't. I am making last minute changes and hopefully on Monday I'll be ready to resubmit it. I'm glad I had the opportunity because each time I've improved certain passages. Maybe you'll be interested in buying the book. I would love to get your feedback. The only thing I would ask of you is to stop coming to premature conclusions, and for a nanosecond pretend that the book may have actual value.

'Pretend' being the operative word. You do realize you've been making your final last minute changes for several years now, right?