A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Did you move the "other than light" from one sentence to another thinking it meant the same thing?

Your recent pastes show this as the passage in the book

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.

Other than light is not there in the current version, it is in the other sentence. Other than light does not seem to appear in the other sentence in your earlier pastes. You seem to have placed it incorrectly after you "found" it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No addendum is needed. What part of "conscientious reader" did you not understand (or not read)?

Again, a conscientious reader reads what they are upset about. You did not do that yet you are complaining. It's wrong Spacemonkey, even if you have misgivings about his claims. In order to come back with a decent refutation you must READ THE DAM BOOK! PLEASE DON'T TELL ME YOU READ THIS BOOK. YOU DID NOT!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you move the "other than light" from one sentence to another thinking it meant the same thing?

Your recent pastes show this as the passage in the book

Other than light is not there in the current version, it is in the other sentence. Other than light does not seem to appear in the other sentence in your earlier pastes. You seem to have placed it incorrectly after you "found" it.

Hey, I am keeping this quote thanks to you all. I found it in his book, "View From The Mountain Top", but I had no idea it would become an issue. That means that I have to include both of his quotes so people will know that this was his wording, not mine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you move the "other than light" from one sentence to another thinking it meant the same thing?

Your recent pastes show this as the passage in the book

That's what I'm trying to tell you. He wrote both passages. I know you are trying to get me somehow, but you can't because I did not write either one of these quotes.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Other than light is not there in the current version, it is in the other sentence. Other than light does not seem to appear in the other sentence in your earlier pastes. You seem to have placed it incorrectly after you "found" it.

Guess what? I changed it. I am handing in my resubmission TODAY, and thanks to LadyShea, I'm putting both quotes in there. They are both his. I AM NOT LYING!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't know what he meant. He never said that light was getting a reaction by impinging on the optic nerve, and he never indicated that by saying "nothing" impinges on the optic nerve that he was making any exception for light. You are just trying to reinterpret his words to justify your botched editing.

Unless this is another of your famous forgotten editorial editions, this is true. He did indicate that he thought light travels at a high rate of speed, at least whenever it isn't hanging around in a cloud of molecules illuminating things. But he never said that light impinges on the optic nerve. You made him say that by adding words to his text and changing his meaning.

Now it is YOU that is trying to backpeddle. Leave it Spacemonkey or you are going to get into big trouble that you won't be able to so easily extricate from. You are getting into territory that is beyond your ability to grasp because you didn't read the book in its entirely, and it will hurt you in the long run. In short, you are going to look like the best philosopher that ever lived, but mark my words, you will have to apologize one day, maybe not now, but in the near future if you are still living. I still like you and your feistiness, but I want you know that you have to dig deeper to recognize that this man has something very valuable. I hope you reconsider. What more can I do, as I've already expressed.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, I am keeping this quote thanks to you all. I found it in his book, "View From The Mountain Top", but I had no idea it would become an issue. That means that I have to include both of his quotes so people will know that this was his wording, not mine.

So which book is correct? Lessans completely contradicts himself with these two passages. Did he believe "no object", or did he believe "no object other than light"?

Your position gets more stupid every time you play apologetics, you know?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So which book is correct? Lessans completely contradicts himself with these two passages. Did he believe "no object", or did he believe "no object other than light"?

Your position gets more stupid every time you play apologetics, you know?

No it does not get more stupid Dragar. It was never stupid to begin with. You are trying to make it look that way. That sentence is very clear unless you are looking for something that isn't there. Other than light refers back to "object". The eyes are not recognizing the "object" regardless of how much light is present. Did you consider the possibility that you were confused, not him? And could you consider the possibility that he was clear in his expression, but you wanted to find some inconsistency that's not even there? Please think about it before responding, because the knee-jerk responses are starting to get on my nerves.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That sentence is very clear unless you are looking for something that isn't there.

It's very clear. The problem is he now appears to have written two versions of it. So if it's so clear, tell us: did he mean no object, or no object other than light?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love that type of reasoning. "The earth is just right for terrestrial life!!! There for there is a Plan, a Design, a God!"

Which provides further proof that Lessans was a true genius, since he foreshadowed the spectacular science of Professors Violent J and Shaggy 2-Dope.

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you move the "other than light" from one sentence to another thinking it meant the same thing?

Your recent pastes show this as the passage in the book

Other than light is not there in the current version, it is in the other sentence. Other than light does not seem to appear in the other sentence in your earlier pastes. You seem to have placed it incorrectly after you "found" it.

The reason it wasn't there is because I took the sentence from another book. Each book was slightly different in some passages, but they meant the same thing. In this version, it said no object, OTHER THAN LIGHT, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's very clear. The problem is he now appears to have written two versions of it. So if it's so clear, tell us: did he mean no object, or no object other than light?

He said no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it. It is clear in this example that light is impinging on the optic nerve, but it is not bringing information from the object to the eye that would allow the infant to show any kind of recognition like it shows when it hears a loud sound.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've never involved yourself in the creationism/evolution debate, so you've not heard of this. There is a large and vocal percentage of Evangelical Christians who believe that the Bible is 100% literal and accepting it as literal is required for salvation.

Those more liberal Christians who think Genesis is allegorical or metaphorical and anyone who is of any other belief system is hellbound in their worldview.

Unfortunately for you, the way they argue for their beliefs is not so different from the way you argue yours (and not so very different from various Woos). Remember way back the first few days you were here, I deemed you a True Believer? That's why. Creationists are mainly True Believers.

I wasn't talking about evangelical Christians. I was talking about mainstream Christianity. They believe that you will go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior. If you do accept Jesus as your savior, you will end up in heaven no matter what you have done in this life.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it. It is clear in this example that light is impinging on the optic nerve, but it is not bringing information from the object to the eye that would allow the infant to show any kind of recognition like it shows when it hears a loud sound.

So when he said no object, he was wrong? He should have said no object, other than light - right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, a conscientious reader reads what they are upset about. You did not do that yet you are complaining. It's wrong Spacemonkey, even if you have misgivings about his claims. In order to come back with a decent refutation you must READ THE DAM BOOK! PLEASE DON'T TELL ME YOU READ THIS BOOK. YOU DID NOT!

Excuse me? What provoked this little outburst? I most certainly DID read the book. What makes you think otherwise?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now it is YOU that is trying to backpeddle. Leave it Spacemonkey or you are going to get into big trouble that you won't be able to so easily extricate from. You are getting into territory that is beyond your ability to grasp because you didn't read the book in its entirely, and it will hurt you in the long run. In short, you are going to look like the best philosopher that ever lived, but mark my words, you will have to apologize one day, maybe not now, but in the near future if you are still living. I still like you and your feistiness, but I want you know that you have to dig deeper to recognize that this man has something very valuable. I hope you reconsider. What more can I do, as I've already expressed.

Big fat weasel. Apparently you have got yourself into trouble you can't extricate yourself from. You moved his words "other than light" from one passage to another thereby changing his meaning. And now you've made such a big mess of it that you don't know what to do other than to resort to raving hysterics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't given me squat. It is possible that you really are so delusional that you think there is "a tremendous amount of evidence" supporting Lessans' claims about conscience. But this doesn't change the fact that neither you nor he have ever presented any whatsoever.

Retaliation, self-preservation, and responsibility-shifting due to blame.

You're right, it's not good enough and there isn't anything you can do about it. And that is why his non-discovery will continue to be rejected by everyone. No-one has any reason to believe that he was extremely perceptive, or able to see common themes, so no-one has any reason to believe that his 'observations' were spot on. Claiming that he just 'saw' that people need a justification does not in any way support his claims.

All one can ever observe is the actual occurrence of specific events. No-one can directly observe either modal claims (justifications are always necessary) or universal claims (that all justifications are of three types). These can only be inferred from observation, and Lessans never provides any direct observations, and does nothing at all to support his claims about conscience.

I told you I had already done that, but would do so again if you retracted your false charge that I had contradicted myself. You refused. Compatibilism is consistent because it doesn't say that we both have and do not have free will. It says only that having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is all that is needed for one to be morally responsible for one's actions. It says that contra-causal free will is not the only kind of free will, and that it is not the kind needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. If you see some kind of contradiction here, then the burden is upon you to identify it.

Bump.

Are you ever going to provide any support for your claim that under his changed conditions justification will always be needed to cause harm to another?

Are you going to apologize for telling me I haven't read his book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's very clear. The problem is he now appears to have written two versions of it. So if it's so clear, tell us: did he mean no object, or no object other than light?

These are not two versions. Light strikes the eyes and causes the pupils to dilate, but there is no recognition of objects in the room, even if they are colorful and bright and right in front of the infant, unlike what one sees when an infant hears a loud sound. There is an immediate reaction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are not two versions.

Yes, there are. You've shown them to us. LadyShea has quoted them. There are two versions of both passages concerned - one with the words "other than light" and one without those words. Is it possible you added the words in both cases, but have since forgotten you did so? Or that you accidentally cut it out from the the first passage instead of copying it when you inserted it into the other passage?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Are you ever going to provide any support for your claim that under his changed conditions justification will always be needed to cause harm to another?

Are you going to apologize for telling me I haven't read his book?

First, explain to me where you can have free will and yet have no free will at the same time? If this is not what compatibilism states, then show me where I'm wrong.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not two versions. Light strikes the eyes and causes the pupils to dilate, but there is no recognition of objects in the room, even if they are colorful and bright and right in front of the infant, unlike what one sees when an infant hears a loud sound. There is an immediate reaction.

Of course there are two versions! You even said so above!

"I have to include both of his quotes..."

So which of his quotes is correct? Because they are different, contradictory, statements.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First, explain to me where you can have free will and yet have no free will at the same time? If this is not what compatibilism states, then show me where I'm wrong.

For the millionth time, I am not saying that we can have free will and no free will at the same time. Nor is this what compatibilism says. If you try READING the post you just replied to you'll find I already explained what you just asked for. READ IT. Hypocrite.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, there are. You've shown them to us. LadyShea has quoted them. There are two versions of both passages concerned - one with the words "other than light" and one without those words. Is it possible you added the words in both cases, but have since forgotten you did so? Or that you accidentally cut it out from the the first passage instead of copying it when you inserted it into the other passage?

I don't see the difference in these two passages regarding context. I know that I didn't add anything extra that he himself did not include. Maybe I accidentally left it out early in the compilation. I'm really not sure but I know he wrote both of these, and I added nothing to it.

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

versus

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 the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, 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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For the millionth time, I am not saying that we can have free will and no free will at the same time. Nor is this what compatibilism says. If you try READING the post you just replied to you'll find I already explained what you just asked for. READ IT. Hypocrite.

Don't start calling me names Spacemonkey, or we're done talking. I'm not going to play this game with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For the millionth time, I am not saying that we can have free will and no free will at the same time. Nor is this what compatibilism says. If you try READING the post you just replied to you'll find I already explained what you just asked for. READ IT. Hypocrite.

If that is not correct Spacemonkey, then tell me what compatibilism states?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see the difference. I may have accidentally left it out, I'm not sure. I know that I didn't add anything extra that he himself did not include.

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

versus

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 the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, 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.

That's not even the comparison you're being asked about. There are TWO versions of BOTH of these passages. In each case there is a version WITH the words "other than light" and one without them. In each case the version with these words differs from that without them.

And I already explained to you the difference in meaning between the above two passages: He said in the second passage that only light can get a reaction from a baby's eyes, and that absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Your edited first passage instead says that only light impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Those are two completely different and incompatible meanings. One says that light impinges on the optic nerve, while the other does not.