A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

You must understand that there are 2 possible reactions to the book in Peacegirls world: gushing admiration and complete acceptance of every word, or lack of understanding due to bias, malice, or stupidity.

[specious_reasons]

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 book has a long description of how the world can transition from a free will environment to the blame-free environment he was envisioning.

Because Lessans thought he had Big Ideas, he Capitalized Things.

[LadyShea]

Lying weasel, why are you avoiding acknowledging the fact that sometime between 2006 and 2010 you added the words "other than light" to the passage about eyes, changing the entire meaning of Lessans words? Are you going to pay the 100.00 you bet to No Kid Hungry? Why did you make the bet if you have no intention of paying?

Do you still maintain that you never evade or lie?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So again, he was wrong to make his prediction without qualifications such as this.

In this case, he was kind enough to make the weaseling evasion for you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Peacegirl, you ask what she found so boreing that she fell asleep listining to the book? Have you read the book or listened to any of it? This book would cure anyone's insomnia.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

So again, he was wrong to make his prediction without qualifications such as this.

In this case, he was kind enough to make the weaseling evasion for you.

Or Peacegirl added it later when it was clear that he was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

If he wanted people to contain their skepticism he shouldn't have claimed to have proof. That is a strong claim and he should have provided the proof he claimed to have.

We have no reason to believe he made astute observations

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You must understand that there are 2 possible reactions to the book in Peacegirls world: gushing admiration and complete acceptance of every word, or lack of understanding due to bias, malice, or stupidity.

No Vivisectus. Why do you preface this post this way? Why? Why are you assuming there are false reasons behind these claims? Why are you doing this? Could it be you are afraid that the claims are too good to be true? I get that, but they are true, so I'm pleading with you to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he wanted people to contain their skepticism he shouldn't have claimed to have proof. That is a strong claim and he should have provided the proof he claimed to have.

We have no reason to believe he made astute observations

With your nose in the air, I am asking you kindly to please put your nose somewhere else. What else can I say? You are confronting me in a way that I can't possibly overcome. You literally are ruining it for others, even if you don't realize it. I am not asking you to agree with these claims. What I am asking you to do is to read the book. Maybe you will have a different opinion. Until then, you are stamping on a discovery that has the absolute power to change the world, as if it's nothing.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Not true!

As I said before, I learned a lot from this stupid thread. For example, I can now explain in some detail how people measured the speed of light in past centuries when there were no gigahertz computers or photodiodes. I now know that there is good evidence that dogs, birds and other animals can recognize faces and thereby distinguish individual people (well, from anecdotal experience, I did know that about some cats at least). I learned about supernovae, all kinds of cameras without lenses, cameras that can see light in the process of hitting an object, etc.

[LadyShea]

With your nose in the air, I am asking you kindly to please put your nose somewhere else. What else can I say? You are confronting me in a way that I can't possibly overcome. You literally are ruining it for others, even if you don't realize it. I am not asking you to agree with these claims. What I am asking you to do is to read the book. Maybe you will have a different opinion. Until then, you are stamping on a discovery that has the absolute power to change the world, as if it's nothing

I predicted a total memory reset and that's exactly what I got. Now I am once again the Ruiner for Others.

Why are you avoiding acknowledging the fact that sometime between 2006 and 2010 you added the words "other than light" to the passage about eyes, changing the entire meaning of Lessans words? Are you going to pay the 100.00 you bet to No Kid Hungry? Why did you make the bet if you have no intention of paying?

Are you going to acknowledge that Lessans was completely wrong to claim the eyes contain no afferent nerve endings when they, in fact, contain millions of them?

Do you still maintain that you never evade or lie?

[Vivisectus]

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 am pointing out that once again, Seymour was talking out of his hat and did not notice. He said he was going to prove the eye is not a sense organ, and then continued to say that this was so without providing a shred of proof at all.

This is not a you say - I say situation: it is factually true that there is no such proof in the book. I am asking you: how come? Did neither of you notice? Did he think his say-so counted as proof?

Don't you think that it is kind of important to have some proof, evidence, a compelling reason to believe, or even a case for something before you believe it?

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.

For you "moving forward" means "believing the book is true". I see no reason to believe the book is true. It would be OK if we were only talking about some minor side issues that remain unsupported - in a case like that it is reasonable to suspend debate on a minor point and move on. But in this case he forgot to even make a case for a central idea: conscience working the way he said.

The entire rest of his system is based on it. What you are asking is the equivalent of asking someone to just accept evolution without first proving that traits can be inherited - pointless!

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

.

The combination of arrogance and ignorance that made Seymour so very funny has rubbed off on you, I find. Just try not to waste too much money on it, will you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm pleading with you to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

You wouldn't have to do that if Lessans had bothered to support his own claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are confronting me in a way that I can't possibly overcome.

Yup. By asking you to rationally support your own (and Lessans') unsupported claims.

Will you ever stop lying and evading, or is that all you are now capable of?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. Why do you preface this post this way? Why? Why are you assuming there are false reasons behind these claims? Why are you doing this? Could it be you are afraid that the claims are too good to be true? I get that, but they are true, so I'm pleading with you to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

As you can see, this particular criticism is filed under number 2: Malice. It cannot be that my criticism has any validity, so I must be saying it because the awesome truthiness of the book upsets me somehow.

Rince, lather and repeat.

Please note that this way, you do not have to deal with the criticism itself at all: you just hand-wave it away as the knee-jerk reaction of a meanie.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

I am keen on words being used properly. Words are important... especially when you are also saying that words, not our organs of vision, shape what we observe (an absurd idea that requires much work to promote because those words come from somewhere too.) More on that later. Lets go back to why words need to be used with care.

Before the chapter even starts, Lessans says, in his introduction, "This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing unbelievable changes in human relations during the next 25 years."

The definition of "fantastic" shows it to be primarily flavoured by "fanciful, bizarre, and unreal" and not the simple meaning of "wonderful" that the author intended. It does mean "wonderful" but, like all words, it has flavour. He should use the word that means precisely what he intends. In this case he taints his own book by declaring it to be a "fantastic non-fiction" right off the start. He also says his book will be verified by itself. That's not good logic in a debate. He finishes by using the word "unbelievable" and now you question why people don't believe him.

That's just the first sentence in the introduction.

The use of language in the type of book Lessans was trying to write is extremely important. The first sentence rules out his ability to present convincing arguments before we even start.

As to "the Great Transition" being off schedule, the book is part of the transition? The transition is what will make people read this book? Again, the words are not being used properly. The statement suggests the Transition comes first and capitalizing it makes it sound like a conspiracy theory. I think you need to remove that bit or be much more clear about what this Transition encompasses before capitalizing its name. You can't create a global transformation by making the first letter of a word larger.

So, that's a primer for why I fell asleep. That's just the first sentence and the book hasn't even started yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You must understand that there are 2 possible reactions to the book in Peacegirls world: gushing admiration and complete acceptance of every word, or lack of understanding due to bias, malice, or stupidity.

Why do you keep saying that Vivisectus? You wouldn't say this if you knew in advance that this man has an actual discovery. Would you say this about Einstein if he had a hard time listening to all the naysayers? Would anyone who has an actual discovery have a difficult time dealing with people who were sure they were wrong? What do you expect from me? I think I've been pretty darn tolerant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

I am keen on words being used properly. Words are important... especially when you are also saying that words, not our organs of vision, shape what we observe (an absurd idea that requires much work to promote because those words come from somewhere too.) More on that later. Lets go back to why words need to be used with care.

Before the chapter even starts, Lessans says, in his introduction, "This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing unbelievable changes in human relations during the next 25 years."

The definition of "fantastic" shows it to be primarily flavoured by "fanciful, bizarre, and unreal" and not the simple meaning of "wonderful" that the author intended. It does mean "wonderful" but, like all words, it has flavour. He should use the word that means precisely what he intends. In this case he taints his own book by declaring it to be a "fantastic non-fiction" right off the start. He also says his book will be verified by itself. That's not good logic in a debate. He finishes by using the word "unbelievable" and now you question why people don't believe him.

That's just the first sentence in the introduction.

The use of language in the type of book Lessans was trying to write is extremely important. The first sentence rules out his ability to present convincing arguments before we even start.

As to "the Great Transition" being off schedule, the book is part of the transition? The transition is what will make people read this book? Again, the words are not being used properly. The statement suggests the Transition comes first and capitalizing it makes it sound like a conspiracy theory. I think you need to remove that bit or be much more clear about what this Transition encompasses before capitalizing its name. You can't create a global transformation by making the first letter of a word larger.

So, that's a primer for why I fell asleep. That's just the first sentence and the book hasn't even started yet.

Welcome to the club, if you read the thread you will find that there are many words that Lessans and Peacegirl are misuseing, Lessans even states in the book that he uses some words in a non standard. He even is so arrogant as to claim that in redefining determinism he is correcting it to make it more accurate. Many Many pages ago I had suggested that someone collecft and publish a dictionary of Lessans/Peacegirl, so that reading the book would be easier. Not necessarily more correct but at least you could more easily identify the errors. I would add that reading the thread might be a bit longer but it is less likely to put you to sleep and you can skim all the repeated posts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Originally Posted by koan

I am keen on words being used properly. Words are important... especially when you are also saying that words, not our organs of vision, shape what we observe (an absurd idea that requires much work to promote because those words come from somewhere too.) More on that later. Lets go back to why words need to be used with care.

I agree with you but I don't see where his writing was sloppy.

Originally Posted by koan

Before the chapter even starts, Lessans says, in his introduction, "This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing unbelievable changes in human relations during the next 25 years."

The definition of "fantastic" shows it to be primarily flavoured by "fanciful, bizarre, and unreal" and not the simple meaning of "wonderful" that the author intended. It does mean "wonderful" but, like all words, it has flavour. He should use the word that means precisely what he intends. In this case he taints his own book by declaring it to be a "fantastic non-fiction" right off the start. He also says his book will be verified by itself. That's not good logic in a debate. He finishes by using the word "unbelievable" and now you question why people don't believe him.

I don't think you're right. He needed for people to take this book seriously by letting them know what this knowledge can accomplish. If he didn't start off saying that this a fantastic discovery that has the power to prevent war and crime, people might not realize how important this work really is for the benefit of all mankind, and pass it over.

Originally Posted by koan

That's just the first sentence in the introduction.

The use of language in the type of book Lessans was trying to write is extremely important. The first sentence rules out his ability to present convincing arguments before we even start.

Do you even know what he is claiming, and why? You are already criticizing what you haven't even read. Okay, so you don't like the introduction. Vivisectus didn't like the introduction either. Probably a lot of people didn't, but that does not discredit the rest of the book. If you wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt because of the introduction, then this is not the right place for you. Find another thread.

Originally Posted by koan

As to "the Great Transition" being off schedule, the book is part of the transition? The transition is what will make people read this book? Again, the words are not being used properly. The statement suggests the Transition comes first and capitalizing it makes it sound like a conspiracy theory. I think you need to remove that bit or be much more clear about what this Transition encompasses before capitalizing its name. You can't create a global transformation by making the first letter of a word larger.

Conspiracy theory because I capitalized Great and Transition? I never heard of such a thing. This will be a great transition because it will be unprecedented, but there is no conspiracy. Your argument against this work doesn't begin to add up.

Originally Posted by koan

So, that's a primer for why I fell asleep. That's just the first sentence and the book hasn't even started yet.

Like I said, if you are that critical before you even get to the first chapter, please don't read it. You wouldn't even begin to understand it because you would be focusing on the most irrelevant things and making a huge mountain out of it. I also want to add that you will get nothing out of this thread if you don't read the book. There has been no progress in hundreds of pages. If you really want to understand this knowledge, buy the book or listen to the audio, which isn't much money. That is the only way you will come close to having a thorough understanding. A lot of people are here because they want to see who wins the debate, or for entertainment purposes. It's like an addiction. They may just be curious, but, let me repeat, until this book is carefully studied and analyzed, they are not going to have an understanding of how this new world can actually become a reality. The blueprint is already complete; it's just a matter of getting it into the right hands.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you even know what he is claiming, and why? You are already criticizing what you haven't even read. Okay, so you don't like the introduction. Vivisectus didn't like the introduction either. Probably a lot of people didn't, but that does not discredit the rest of the book. If you wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt because of the introduction, then this is not the right place for you. Find another thread.

The rest of the book is no better, and sometimes worse, however I would recomend reading as much as you can stand, as a cautionary tale, if nothing else.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Such a pretense would surely constitute a premature conclusion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Surely you jest! I had never heard of either you or Lessans before you started this thread. Now I not only know of you both, I know a lot more about both of you than I could have ever imagined possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The book has a long description of how the world can transition from a free will environment to the blame-free environment he was envisioning.

Because Lessans thought he had Big Ideas, he Capitalized Things.

What are you talking about? I capitalized things. Great Transition is capitalized because it is a great transition. Don't you think transitioning from a world of war to a world of peace deserves to be capitalized?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Such a pretense would surely constitute a premature conclusion.

Asking to pretend the book has value does not constitute a premature conclusion. It would help to prevent someone from coming to a premature conclusion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Surely you jest! I had never heard of either you or Lessans before you started this thread. Now I not only know of you both, I know a lot more about both of you than I could have ever imagined possible.

So what's your point?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You wouldn't have to do that if Lessans had bothered to support his own claims.

Yup. By asking you to rationally support your own (and Lessans') unsupported claims.

Will you ever stop lying and evading, or is that all you are now capable of?

Like I said, there will be no progress at all until you can give him the benefit of the doubt. The book is good; you would get a lot out of it, but you're already committed to calling it a non-discovery, therefore you have to keep up the pretense. I think you would have a difficult time if it turns out he is right because you've been so vocal about him being wrong.

[Angakuk]

In what way would anyone who has been critical of the book have a hard time if it turned out that Lessans was right? Surely, in an evironment of no blame, no one would be blamed for having criticized the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lying weasel, why are you avoiding acknowledging the fact that sometime between 2006 and 2010 you added the words "other than light" to the passage about eyes, changing the entire meaning of Lessans words? Are you going to pay the 100.00 you bet to No Kid Hungry? Why did you make the bet if you have no intention of paying?

Do you still maintain that you never evade or lie?

I was not lying LadyShea. What the hell are you talking about? I did not add those words. I already showed you where he wrote that passage.