A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

In the final analysis, that's true Angakuk. No one would be blamed for having criticized the book. Obviously, this is part of the process which is why I have no way of knowing exactly when this knowledge will be brought to light --- although eventually it will because it's a genuine discovery.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

So I should correct my statement to say. "When peacegirl thought Lessans had a Big Idea, she Capitalized Things?"

I don't believe it, though. Making Things Capitalized fits in the Arrogant Tone of the book. Nonstandard Grammar is also a Red Flag that someone is a Total Crackpot.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Why weren't the words there in the first version?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, there will be no progress at all until you can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said, that wouldn't be necessary if Lessans had bothered to support his own claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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've read the book, and it is not good. You are the one asking for pretense. The reality is that he based his entire non-discovery on claims about conscience which no-one finds plausible and which he never bothered to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't help you. You are having a difficult time already because you can't concede that he was wrong on the things he has already turned out to be wrong about. Such as his claimed lack of afferent nerve endings in the eye.

Will you ever stop lying and evading, or is that all you are now capable of? I've asked you several intelligent and directly relevant questions related to the book. Yet every single time you just ignore or evade the posts. Why is that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is your or Lessans' support for this claim? Do you not realize that his entire first non-discovery rests upon this so far completely unsupported claim which no-one but you seems to find even remotely plausible? Why did Lessans not bother to support this absolutely critical premise of his work? Don't you find this oversight at all problematic? Isn't it something that a man of Lessans' supposed genius and insight should have anticipated? Or did he really think that merely claiming conscience works exactly as he said would be enough to convince people?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happened here, Peacegirl? Why did you evade all my questions by claiming they are all answered somewhere in his book, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you claim to have strong grounds for your beliefs but then refuse to tell me what those grounds are? Why did you claim to be offering rational support, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you demand that I listen to you for a change, and then stop replying to me? Why is it that whenever I ask you a question, you just evade and refuse to answer?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Why weren't the words there in the first version?

Because I missed it when compiling the book, that's why. You have no idea how hard this has been. You should try compiling 7 books and see how good you do. How many times do I have to say that I didn't add anything to the book other than some examples to help clarify the concepts. I feel like I'm on trial.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1093681]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is your or Lessans' support for this claim? Do you not realize that his entire first non-discovery rests upon this so far completely unsupported claim which no-one but you seems to find even remotely plausible? Why did Lessans not bother to support this absolutely critical premise of his work? Don't you find this oversight at all problematic? Isn't it something that a man of Lessans' supposed genius and insight should have anticipated? Or did he really think that merely claiming conscience works exactly as he said would be enough to convince people?

I know by now that nothing I say is going to convince you to read the book. You have convinced yourself that these claims are unsupported. I believe they are very much supported because his observations were correct. If his observations are correct, then what follows will be successful. I'm sorry that you have no desire to learn more, but there's nothing more I can do. Your opinion has absolutely no impact on whether or not this book reaches the right audience. Obviously this is not the right one. I can live with that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happened here, Peacegirl? Why did you evade all my questions by claiming they are all answered somewhere in his book, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you claim to have strong grounds for your beliefs but then refuse to tell me what those grounds are? Why did you claim to be offering rational support, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you demand that I listen to you for a change, and then stop replying to me? Why is it that whenever I ask you a question, you just evade and refuse to answer?

I can't even get past chapter one, let alone chapter two. If you have such a strong aversion to determinism, how in the world can I even get to the core of his discovery; the two-sided equation? I can't. I cannot even make a smigeon of headway, and now I'm getting too tired to even try. All you do is tell me there is no support for his claims. You call them assertions. He explained why man's will is not free. If you don't get it, that's not my fault. If you think we can have both free will and no free will (the compatibilist view) without it being contradictory, that's for you to take up with the compatibilists. If you have a question, ask me, but leave out the arrogance, okay?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know by now that nothing I say is going to convince you to read the book.

I have read the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have convinced yourself that these claims are unsupported.

No, you have convinced me of this. You have done so by never ever providing any support for them. That makes them unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe they are very much supported because his observations were correct.

Being correct does not make something supported. And without support we have no reason to believe that they are correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If his observations are correct, then what follows will be successful. I'm sorry that you have no desire to learn more, but there's nothing more I can do. Your opinion has absolutely no impact on whether or not this book reaches the right audience. Obviously this is not the right one. I can live with that.

You're a lying weasel and you know it. And without professional help you will never change.

[Vivisectus]

So the same passage is in multiple books? How does that work? Did he write the same basic idea over and over?

By the way, do you see what I mean about the style of the book? Here we have someone new to the discussion, and the very first thing they notice is the awful style.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Like I said, that wouldn't be necessary if Lessans had bothered to support his own claims.

He did. If I observe something and the observation is correct, then you need to heed what he's saying. If you don't believe there is support, then don't read the book Spacemonkey. I'm not putting a gun to your head.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've read the book, and it is not good. You are the one asking for pretense. The reality is that he based his entire non-discovery on claims about conscience which no-one finds plausible and which he never bothered to support.

I'm sorry that no one finds it plausible, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. And it does not matter what this group finds plausible because this is not the only group that I'm depending on to help me spread this knowledge. I'm just biding my time here because I can't market the book until I get my new proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quite possibly, but that doesn't help you. You are having a difficult time already because you can't concede that he was wrong on the things he has already turned out to be wrong about. Such as his claimed lack of afferent nerve endings in the eye.

You know what, even there were afferent nerve endings, if the eyes work the way he described, something in the way the brain and eyes work together is not what is believed to be true. I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Will you ever stop lying and evading, or is that all you are now capable of? I've asked you several intelligent and directly relevant questions related to the book. Yet every single time you just ignore or evade the posts. Why is that?

I don't evade you and I don't lie, okay? Why are you even here?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even get past chapter one, let alone chapter two. If you have such a strong aversion to determinism, how in the world can I even get to the core of his discovery; the two-sided equation? I can't. I cannot even make a smigeon of headway, and now I'm getting too tired to even try. All you do is tell me there is no support for his claims. You call them assertions. He explained why man's will is not free. If you don't get it, that's not my fault. If you think we can have both free will and no free will (the compatibilist view) without it being contradictory, that's for you to take up with the compatibilists. If you have a question, ask me, but leave out the arrogance, okay?

STOP WEASELING.

You said every single question I asked is answered clearly in the book. So prove it by quoting me an answer from the book to each of my questions. Here are those questions again:

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct?

Do you have any grounds for believing that a justification will always be required?

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that his 'observations' concerning conscience were sound?

Can you give us any reason to believe that he made a major discovery?


You said you have strong grounds for knowing that without justification man cannot move in the direction of hurting others as a preferable choice. So stop evading and tell me what these 'strong grounds' are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think we can have both free will and no free will (the compatibilist view)...

That is not the compatibilist view. I've corrected you on this a million times already. Why can't you learn?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the same passage is in multiple books? How does that work? Did he write the same basic idea over and over?

By the way, do you see what I mean about the style of the book? Here we have someone new to the discussion, and the very first thing they notice is the awful style.

I could care less Vivisectus what you think, or what some newcomer thinks when the first thing out of his mouth is that he fell asleep. That's outright rude and uncalled for.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did. If I observe something and the observation is correct, then you need to heed what he's saying. If you don't believe there is support, then don't read the book Spacemonkey. I'm not putting a gun to your head.

He did not support his own claims. Stating that something is a correct observation even if true is not the same thing as supporting it. He did not support his claims about conscience, as you know perfectly well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry that no one finds it plausible, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. And it does not matter what this group finds plausible because this is not the only group that I'm depending on to help me spread this knowledge. I'm just biding my time here because I can't market the book until I get my new proof.

I didn't say his lack of support makes him wrong. It makes him an idiot for failing to anticipate that the fundamental premise of his non-discovery is something that needs to be supported, and will never be accepted without such support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what, even there were afferent nerve endings...

Are you finally admitting that what he wrote was wrong? Yes, or No?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't evade you and I don't lie, okay?

That's a lie right there. You constantly ignore and evade my questions, and you know it. You've been doing so literally for years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happened here, Peacegirl? Why did you evade all my questions by claiming they are all answered somewhere in his book, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you claim to have strong grounds for your beliefs but then refuse to tell me what those grounds are? Why did you claim to be offering rational support, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you demand that I listen to you for a change, and then stop replying to me? Why is it that whenever I ask you a question, you just evade and refuse to answer?

I can't even get past chapter one, let alone chapter two. If you have such a strong aversion to determinism, how in the world can I even get to the core of his discovery; the two-sided equation? I can't. I cannot even make a smigeon of headway, and now I'm getting too tired to even try. All you do is tell me there is no support for his claims. You call them assertions. He explained why man's will is not free. If you don't get it, that's not my fault. If you think we can have both free will and no free will (the compatibilist view) without it being contradictory, that's for you to take up with the compatibilists. If you have a question, ask me, but leave out the arrogance, okay?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

STOP WEASELING.

I'm not weaseling, I'm telling the truth stright up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said every single question I asked is answered clearly in the book. So prove it by quoting me an answer from the book to each of my questions. Here are those questions again:

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct?

First of all, I'm not even going to attempt cutting and pasting like I did before. It's useless. You won't give him the benefit of the doubt. You won't even hear the three types of justification that conscience will allow. You tell me he presupposed all these things. I can't make any headway with you, so I'm not going to try.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you have any grounds for believing that a justification will always be required?

Yes I do. Once again, he demonstrates this by showing what conscience needs in order to permit certain actions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you give us any reason at all to believe that his 'observations' concerning conscience were sound?

Yes, the first thing you can is to put yourself in the new world and when you read the chapters, you will see how impossible it would be for you to take advantage of anyone, even in the slightest way, under these conditions. You are projecting and thinking that other people don't have the strong conscience thats others have. This is not true, but you can't see it because we're living in the midst of a civilization that is slowly self-destructing because all we see are criminals, psychotics, sociopaths, accidents, wars, and hatred. The justice system that is in place is a band aid. It punishes but it doesn't solve. Yes, some people have an awakening and are changed when they are incarcerated but the recidivism rate is also very high. Wouldn't you want a world where we can prevent these things before the fact rather than after?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you give us any reason to believe that he made a major discovery?

I've gave you reasons. You just laugh in my face.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said you have strong grounds for knowing that without justification man cannot move in the direction of hurting others as a preferable choice. So stop evading and tell me what these 'strong grounds' are.

They are right in Chapter Two. You said you read it, so you should be able to at least give me the three justifications that a person must have. Again, the justification is not always overtly obvious. People carry grudges for years and then suddenly act out by shooting up a crowd of people. But the justification that allowed them to do this was anger at something that was done to them. Obviously, if someone shoots innocent people their anger is misplaced, but it is justified in their mind which conscience gives them a pass on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think we can have both free will and no free will (the compatibilist view)...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is not the compatibilist view. I've corrected you on this a million times already. Why can't you learn?

The minute you say that part of the compatibilist view is that we have free will, this becomes a contradiction. I'm not interested in researching their view because I know it's wrong. I will discuss it with you, and you can tell me where you think I'm wrong, but I'm not going out of my way.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Note the telling phrase:

You wouldn't say this if you knew in advance that this man has an actual discovery.

Obviously not. I would have no need of proof in that case: I would have already made up my mind that anything in the book was true.

But that is just something you feel, because you are biased. The rest of us actually examine the book and find there are enormous holes in the reasoning. Worse: these are not even acknowledged. It is as if the author either did not notice, or felt that any idea of his did not require proof.

Would you say this about Einstein if he had a hard time listening to all the naysayers?

If he completely failed to support his ideas? Certainly! However, this was not the case. This is because unlike your father, Einstein actually knew what he was talking about.

Would anyone who has an actual discovery have a difficult time dealing with people who were sure they were wrong?

Not if they build a proper case for their ideas. Only a very small segment of people liked Darwin's ideas at first. But "The Origin of Species" is everything this book is not: meticulous, clear, to the point, and well-argumented. You would not find Darwin misleading his readers by promising them proof when he had none. He would be mortified! And actually, I am a little bit mortified. I have just put poor old Darwin in the same paragraph as your bumbling buffoon of a father. If there is such a thing as Karma, I may just have tarnished mine a bit.

What do you expect from me?

Too much, apparently: Basic intellectual honesty. But like all people who do not value their faith highly enough to refrain from lying about it, you have none.

I think I've been pretty darn tolerant.

That is amazing, because you literally do not tolerate any opinion that does not correspond 100% with that of your father. People who disagree with your ideas are either ignorant, malicious, or biased.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He did not support his own claims. Stating that something is a correct observation even if true is not the same thing as supporting it. He did not support his claims about conscience, as you know perfectly well.

So then give up on this discovery. I am not invested in whether you stay or go.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry that no one finds it plausible, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. And it does not matter what this group finds plausible because this is not the only group that I'm depending on to help me spread this knowledge. I'm just biding my time here because I can't market the book until I get my new proof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say his lack of support makes him wrong. It makes him an idiot for failing to anticipate that the fundamental premise of his non-discovery is something that needs to be supported, and will never be accepted without such support.

These observations are not mere assertions. When you tell me they aren't supported it sounds like you're telling me that there is no basis for his reasoning. You are totally off base Spacemonkey; how much more clear can I be?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what, even there were afferent nerve endings...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you finally admitting that what he wrote was wrong? Yes, or No?

No, I don't have to. All I know is that the brain and eyes work differently than what science has stated. That's enough for me. If somehow they discover that Lessans was right but there are similar afferent nerve endings, so be it. At least we would know the truth; that we see in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't evade you and I don't lie, okay?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a lie right there. You constantly ignore and evade my questions, and you know it. You've been doing so literally for years.

You're making it very difficult for me. Maybe that's why I ignore your questions. Be a little nicer instead of interrogating me every chance you get, and I'll be more interested in talking to you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Where did you show me? The words "other than light" were NOT in the passage in 2003, nor in 2006. They don't appear until 2010. Where did they come from? Who added them if not you?

Liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

So I should correct my statement to say. "When peacegirl thought Lessans had a Big Idea, she Capitalized Things?"

No, I know hard this knowledge is to grasp the first time around. Capitalizing was done for emphasis so people would know what is important. You know what, please don't read the book. It's so easy to criticize, isn't it?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I don't believe it, though. Making Things Capitalized fits in the Arrogant Tone of the book. Nonstandard Grammar is also a Red Flag that someone is a Total Crackpot.

Not at all specious. He was no crackpot. There is no arrogance in this book quite contrary to what you seem to have taken from it, but that's no surprise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did you show me? The words "other than light" were NOT in the passage in 2003, nor in 2006. They don't appear until 2010. Where did they come from? Who added them if not you?

Liar.

I added this comment because I found it in his book, dam it. I'm sick of you calling me a liar LadyShea.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could care less Vivisectus what you think, or what some newcomer thinks when the first thing out of his mouth is that he fell asleep. That's outright rude and uncalled for.

Or, perhaps, it is just really bad writing? Especially if you are the only one who thinks it is any good?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Note the telling phrase:

Obviously not. I would have no need of proof in that case: I would have already made up my mind that anything in the book was true.

But that is just something you feel, because you are biased. The rest of us actually examine the book and find there are enormous holes in the reasoning. Worse: these are not even acknowledged. It is as if the author either did not notice, or felt that any idea of his did not require proof.

If he completely failed to support his ideas? Certainly! However, this was not the case. This is because unlike your father, Einstein actually knew what he was talking about.

Not if they build a proper case for their ideas. Only a very small segment of people liked Darwin's ideas at first. But "The Origin of Species" is everything this book is not: meticulous, clear, to the point, and well-argumented. You would not find Darwin misleading his readers by promising them proof when he had none. He would be mortified! And actually, I am a little bit mortified. I have just put poor old Darwin in the same paragraph as your bumbling buffoon of a father. If there is such a thing as Karma, I may just have tarnished mine a bit.

Too much, apparently: Basic intellectual honesty. But like all people who do not value their faith highly enough to refrain from lying about it, you have none.

That is amazing, because you literally do not tolerate any opinion that does not correspond 100% with that of your father. People who disagree with your ideas are either ignorant, malicious, or biased.

You blew it Vivisectus. I told you not to call him names. Now I'm talking to you. Sorry.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I missed it when compiling the book, that's why.

How could you miss it? You had every other word in the passage but somehow missed a nonsensical insertion in the middle of a sentence? And you expect us to believe you "found it" only after people convinced you that light struck the optic nerve?

How many times do I have to say that I didn't add anything to the book other than some examples to help clarify the concepts. I feel like I'm on trial.

Did you add the fake dialog ("Oh look, here comes a Rabbi!*")?
Did you add the line about homosexual relationships "naturally" declining in a no blame environment?
Did you add the "Trillions upon trillions" of babies being born line?

What are those examples of?

Did you add the plagiarized page of unverified quotes from doctors?

What was that an example of?

Did you change the word molecules to photons after you became convinced that it was the completely wrong word?

What is that an example of?

*One of my favorite things I've ever read

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling, I'm telling the truth stright up.

No you're not. You're lying, weaseling, and evading just as you always do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, I'm not even going to attempt cutting and pasting like I did before. It's useless. You won't give him the benefit of the doubt. You won't even hear the three types of justification that conscience will allow. You tell me he presupposed all these things. I can't make any headway with you, so I'm not going to try.

Another weasel. Did you answer the question? Did you give me any reason to believe that what he wrote about conscience was correct? No. You did not. (And I know exactly what his three justifications were. I've known this for years now.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I do. Once again, he demonstrates this by showing what conscience needs in order to permit certain actions.

So show me your grounds for thinking that a justification will always be required. Stop weaseling and evading, and answer the question!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the first thing you can is to put yourself in the new world and when you read the chapters, you will see how impossible it would be for you to take advantage of anyone, even in the slightest way, under these conditions. You are projecting and thinking that other people don't have the strong conscience thats others have. This is not true, but you can't see it because we're living in the midst of a civilization that is slowly self-destructing because all we see are criminals, psychotics, sociopaths, accidents, wars, and hatred. The justice system that is in place is a band aid. It punishes but it doesn't solve. Yes, some people have an awakening and are changed when they are incarcerated but the recidivism rate is also very high. Wouldn't you want a world where we can prevent these things before the fact rather than after?

You still haven't given me any reason to think that his 'observations' concerning conscience were correct. All you've done is repeat your claims. At no point have you done anything whatsoever to support them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are right in Chapter Two. You said you read it, so you should be able to at least give me the three justifications that a person must have. Again, the justification is not always overtly obvious. People carry grudges for years and then suddenly act out by shooting up a crowd of people. But the justification that allowed them to do this was anger at something that was done to them. Obviously, if someone shoots innocent people their anger is misplaced, but it is justified in their mind which conscience gives them a pass on.

Don't just tell me where your grounds are. Present them! Why will a justification always be required? I know what his three justifications were. They doesn't help at all in explaining why he thought a justification will always be required.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The minute you say that part of the compatibilist view is that we have free will, this becomes a contradiction. I'm not interested in researching their view because I know it's wrong. I will discuss it with you, and you can tell me where you think I'm wrong, but I'm not going out of my way.

It does not become a contradiction. It only contradicts your ridiculous ideas. It is not internally inconsistent in any way. And you can't possibly know that compatibilism is wrong before you even know what it is or actually says.