A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you deaf? I just said don't call me names, and what you do, that very thing. If you don't care whether I converse with you, keep calling me names.

Are you guys useing web cams & mics to talk to each other? because I sure don't hear anything when I read a post.

Peacegirl, people have been calling you names like this for 10 years, why are you getting upset about it now? You should be used to it, to the point that you shouldn't even notice it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

"Absolutely nothing" means just that. It does not allow for light as an exception. And it doesn't make any sense to think these words referred back to the word 'object' such that he really meant only that absolutely no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. That would be a ridiculous strawman. Who has ever thought that the eyes being a sense organ would require a car to drive right into your eyes before you could see it?

This "absolutely nothing" business is typical Lessanese. It is just like where he says that nothing can cause us to do something that we do not want to do. Peacegirl wants us to believe that that "nothing" is not meant to include physical force. In other words, peacegirl wants us to believe that when Lessans writes "absolutely nothing" he doesn't really mean absolutely nothing. Rather, he means absolutely nothing except for something.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would he say something as insane as "no object impinges on the optic nerve"? Did he think someone believed that lamps and yo-yos entered the eyes to impinge on the optic nerve?

Are you serious with this shit?

As a reasonably accomplished practitioner of the art of yo-yoing I can assure you, from personal experience, that yo-yos do sometimes enter the eye. To what extent their entering the eye impinges on the optic nerve I can't say with any certainty. I can testify that when a yo-yo enters one's eye it does have a noticable effect on one's vision.

[koan]

I'm reading the pdf of Lessans' work (thanks, doc) simultaneously with reading this thread. So far all the notes and questions I've made have already been said and asked with no positive outcome. I don't think peacegirl or Lessans actually understand what science is. I also don't think the argument Lessans presents is as persuasive for free will vs determinism as it is for subjective reality vs objective reality. That really seems to be the point he is heading towards and it's not science, it's philosophy. I would like to offer one observation that may or may not have been made yet; this book has provided, at its conclusion one empirically proven fact. People don't like the book. It has been proven by an experiment that has been duplicated time and time again. Over 8 years of testing has proven that fact to be true.

If peacegirl has any respect for scientific thinking she will address that as fact and do the follow up investigation as to what will cause them to like it better. Another empirically proven fact is that her telling them they don't like it because they didn't understand it has not improved the effectiveness of the book.

I will keep reading the pdf and will note if I find a comment or question that hasn't been addressed yet.

That is all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by koan

I would like to offer one observation that may or may not have been made yet; this book has provided, at its conclusion one empirically proven fact. People don't like the book. It has been proven by an experiment that has been duplicated time and time again. Over 8 years of testing has proven that fact to be true.

Obviously more testing is required.

[Vivisectus]

Once again, he is making a distinction between light which causes the pupils to dilate and contract, and light which brings information (the the form of an image) to the infant's brain which would cause a reaction.

The author never seems to have made that distinction though.

Which is awesome, because it is an example of a tradition that is not in the holy book becoming an item of faith. And, I suspect, the holy book being slightly altered to incorporate it. Did the exact same passage feature in different books, so there is one book without and one book with the words "Except for light"?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by koan

I'm reading the pdf of Lessans' work (thanks, doc) simultaneously with reading this thread. So far all the notes and questions I've made have already been said and asked with no positive outcome. I don't think peacegirl or Lessans actually understand what science is. I also don't think the argument Lessans presents is as persuasive for free will vs determinism as it is for subjective reality vs objective reality. That really seems to be the point he is heading towards and it's not science, it's philosophy. I would like to offer one observation that may or may not have been made yet; this book has provided, at its conclusion one empirically proven fact. People don't like the book. It has been proven by an experiment that has been duplicated time and time again. Over 8 years of testing has proven that fact to be true.

If peacegirl has any respect for scientific thinking she will address that as fact and do the follow up investigation as to what will cause them to like it better. Another empirically proven fact is that her telling them they don't like it because they didn't understand it has not improved the effectiveness of the book.

I will keep reading the pdf and will note if I find a comment or question that hasn't been addressed yet.

That is all.

There is that, of course. The problem with science is that you need evidence, and there is none in the book. The problem with real philosophy is that you need to have a logical, cogent argument, and that is not there either: the book does not actually build such an argument. If anything it explains a vision, a certain idea about the nature of humanity.

So I think that what we have here could be called life-philosophy, the more spiritual-oriented kind of philosophy.

The problem is that such a book requires appeal, and the book has none. It's tone is pedantic, pompous and condescending, the prose lacks clarity and wearisomely verbose. It is like the author is trying to copy the sonorous cadences of Gibbons, or the popular works of Durant. However, these two had real literary qualities, while the author obviously struggles with his own sentences and loses. The clumsy attempts at Socratic dialogue puts the reader in mind of a punch-and-judy show, while the often idiosyncratic use of words (the author makes the word "relation" do a LOT of work) is irritating. And above all, it is so long-winded! Page after page is spent waiting for the author to come to the often not very convincing point. You could convey every idea the author talks about in a slim 75 page volume, if you simply removed the repetitions, needlessly wordy expansions, self-congratulatory hyperboles and feeble attempts at literary flourishes. It makes the author sound like a man who is primarily writing because he likes the sound of his own voice, so to speak.

What these ideas need, if you are to market them at all, is repackaging. I would split the book, removing the bits about sight: it, and his ideas about not-reincarnation are probably best saved for advanced students, should you ever acquire any. Focus on his ideas about conditioning, the relationship between words and what we perceive as true, his ideas about the role of blame and the idea of free will. There should be plenty of people that this could appeal to.

Re-work it as a framework-story: explain the concepts yourself, and talk about how they applied to your own life and development, and then refer to your fathers writings, quoting strategic bits that avoid the more horrendous style-errors or just plain factual mistakes. When you do so, try to add a bit of anecdote, a bit of colour: we need to make the author seem more human, more rounded. If you read the book as it is, it makes you feel he is a buffoon who was too ill-informed to realize how silly he made himself look. We want canny wisdom of a perceptive but unconventional autodidact, not the embarrassing blunders of a man who seems not to have known how to look things up in a library.

It would take a bit of work, and I realize you were none too happy about similar proposals earlier in the thread, but since so far no-one likes the way the book is written and presented it may be worth considering, if you are committed to going on with this book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This "absolutely nothing" business is typical Lessanese. It is just like where he says that nothing can cause us to do something that we do not want to do. Peacegirl wants us to believe that that "nothing" is not meant to include physical force. In other words, peacegirl wants us to believe that when Lessans writes "absolutely nothing" he doesn't really mean absolutely nothing. Rather, he means absolutely nothing except for something.

I have been over this with you umpteen times Angakuk. Why are you bringing this up again? He said verbatim that nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do --- not including what others do to you. This is a true statement. How can you include physical force when this is is not your will anymore; it's someone else imposing their will on you. If someone holds me down and shoves poison down my throat, that's not my will Angakuk, so it doesn't apply.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Obviously more testing is required.

How can you use my online experiences as proof that people don't like the book? Not only is this a small segment of the overall population, but no one has read the book in its entirety, not even you Spacemonkey. This is more of a reflection of ignorance than enlightenment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is that, of course. The problem with science is that you need evidence, and there is none in the book. The problem with real philosophy is that you need to have a logical, cogent argument, and that is not there either: the book does not actually build such an argument. If anything it explains a vision, a certain idea about the nature of humanity.

So I think that what we have here could be called life-philosophy, the more spiritual-oriented kind of philosophy.

The problem is that such a book requires appeal, and the book has none. It's tone is pedantic, pompous and condescending, the prose lacks clarity and wearisomely verbose. It is like the author is trying to copy the sonorous cadences of Gibbons, or the popular works of Durant. However, these two had real literary qualities, while the author obviously struggles with his own sentences and loses. The clumsy attempts at Socratic dialogue puts the reader in mind of a punch-and-judy show, while the often idiosyncratic use of words (the author makes the word "relation" do a LOT of work) is irritating. And above all, it is so long-winded! Page after page is spent waiting for the author to come to the often not very convincing point. You could convey every idea the author talks about in a slim 75 page volume, if you simply removed the repetitions, needlessly wordy expansions, self-congratulatory hyperboles and feeble attempts at literary flourishes. It makes the author sound like a man who is primarily writing because he likes the sound of his own voice, so to speak.

What these ideas need, if you are to market them at all, is repackaging. I would split the book, removing the bits about sight: it, and his ideas about not-reincarnation are probably best saved for advanced students, should you ever acquire any. Focus on his ideas about conditioning, the relationship between words and what we perceive as true, his ideas about the role of blame and the idea of free will. There should be plenty of people that this could appeal to.

Re-work it as a framework-story: explain the concepts yourself, and talk about how they applied to your own life and development, and then refer to your fathers writings, quoting strategic bits that avoid the more horrendous style-errors or just plain factual mistakes. When you do so, try to add a bit of anecdote, a bit of colour: we need to make the author seem more human, more rounded. If you read the book as it is, it makes you feel he is a buffoon who was too ill-informed to realize how silly he made himself look. We want canny wisdom of a perceptive but unconventional autodidact, not the embarrassing blunders of a man who seems not to have known how to look things up in a library.

It would take a bit of work, and I realize you were none too happy about similar proposals earlier in the thread, but since so far no-one likes the way the book is written and presented it may be worth considering, if you are committed to going on with this book.

And all this criticism comes from a guy who doesn't even understand the first thing about his discovery, not the first thing. The fact that he stated: Firemen are not the cause of fires, and equated that with punishment is not the cause of crime, is a real joke. He has always been resentful of Lessans by saying he was pompous. He was so the opposite of pompous that it just shows how someone can be portrayed so falsely by people with a vendetta. We saw that in the elections. He made no embarrassing blunders. For this guy to suggest that he didn't do the necessary work is another big blunder on his part. Lessans did a tremendous amount of reading for many many years, which allowed him to glean certain patterns of behavior which formed the basis of his premises. He also described accurately how conscience works. Anyone who reads Chapter Two can easily see that these principles are spot on when they picture themselves in the new world and how they would feel if they injured someone in an accident knowing there would be no blame or punishment forthcoming due to their negligence. But he did not read the second chapter, and if he did, it was a quick once over, not a thorough study. So no matter how much Vivisecuts puts his writing style down (which has nothing to do with the validity of the content), this discovery will survive because the content is sound.

[LadyShea]

He was criticizing the style and tone. Understanding the content isn't even relevant to that particular bit of criticism. Style and tone are important to broad appeal. Who wants to read terrible writing...and if they won't read it because it is so off putting, right from the start, they will never get to the content.

You want lots of readers? Take that criticism heart.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And all this criticism comes from a guy who doesn't even understand the first thing about his discovery, not the first thing. The fact that he stated: Firemen are not the cause of fires, and equated that with punishment is not the cause of crime, is a real joke. He has always been resentful of Lessans by saying he was pompous. He was so the opposite of pompous that it just shows how someone can be portrayed so falsely by people with a vendetta. We saw that in the elections. He made no embarrassing blunders. For this guy to suggest that he didn't do the necessary work is another big blunder on his part. Lessans did a tremendous amount of reading for many many years, which allowed him to glean certain patterns of behavior which formed the basis of his premises. He also described accurately how conscience works. Anyone who reads Chapter Two can easily see that these principles are spot on when they picture themselves in the new world and how they would feel if they injured someone in an accident knowing there would be no blame or punishment forthcoming due to their negligence. But he did not read the second chapter, and if he did, it was a quick once over, not a thorough study. So no matter how much Vivisecuts puts his writing style down (which has nothing to do with the validity of the content), this discovery will survive because the content is sound.

Well, I suppose it would be more honest to leave it as it is. It reads like the incoherent ramble of a rather dim eccentric who wanted to pretend to be some kind of scholar / prophet. And since that is exactly what it is, it might as well stay like this. Do not be surprised when people laugh when they read it though.

Apparently not anyone can "easily see that these principles are spot on when the picture themselves in the new world". The only one I know of is you. In nearly a decade no-one else has.

I know you are very attached to this idea, but I do not think you will find anyone else willing to pretend this book is any good, or that the ideas in it make sense. It lacks evidence, logic, and appeal. You can not have 2 of these and still be somewhat effective, but not all 3.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you use my online experiences as proof that people don't like the book? Not only is this a small segment of the overall population, but no one has read the book in its entirety, not even you Spacemonkey. This is more of a reflection of ignorance than enlightenment.

...which is another way of saying "I do not like the results so far, so more testing is required"

You never dissapoint Peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Lessans was prone to exaggeration, so peacegirl has to come along and say what he really meant.

We have learned, for examples, that "mathematically impossible" really means "difficult" and "absolutely" really means "mostly"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

I'm reading the pdf of Lessans' work (thanks, doc) simultaneously with reading this thread. So far all the notes and questions I've made have already been said and asked with no positive outcome. I don't think peacegirl or Lessans actually understand what science is. I also don't think the argument Lessans presents is as persuasive for free will vs determinism as it is for subjective reality vs objective reality. That really seems to be the point he is heading towards and it's not science, it's philosophy. I would like to offer one observation that may or may not have been made yet; this book has provided, at its conclusion one empirically proven fact. People don't like the book. It has been proven by an experiment that has been duplicated time and time again. Over 8 years of testing has proven that fact to be true.

If peacegirl has any respect for scientific thinking she will address that as fact and do the follow up investigation as to what will cause them to like it better. Another empirically proven fact is that her telling them they don't like it because they didn't understand it has not improved the effectiveness of the book.

I will keep reading the pdf and will note if I find a comment or question that hasn't been addressed yet.

That is all.

A lot of that original .pdf has been improved in grammatical form and in examples given. You should listen to the author on the audio. I realize it's only the first chapter but if you're truly interested in this knowledge, that's where I suggest you start. And this time koan, drink an energy drink so you don't fall asleep.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was prone to exaggeration, so peacegirl has to come along and say what he really meant.

We have learned, for examples, that "mathematically impossible" really means "difficult" and "absolutely" really means "mostly"

He did not exaggerate LadyShea. "Mathematically impossible" means exactly what it says, and "absolutely" means exactly what it says. Now what LadyShea? Where are you going to try, as a last ditch effort, to poke holes in a proof that has none. Keep trying all you want but you will fail.

[Vivisectus]

to poke holes in a proof that has none.

Indeed! Poking holes into Lessans proofs is like trying to puncture a sieve: easy, but ultimately pointless.

[LadyShea]

Below, you turned Lessans' "impossible" into "for the most part" and allowed for exceptions.

If it is impossible, there can be no exceptions, and no mostly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, have you not listened when I told everyone not to open the book at random? In the foreword and introduction it was mentioned that it would look like a fairy tale. You did the exact thing the author urged over and over not to do. Are you trying to make me look foolish? Why are you doing this?

Since you already posted this, I guess I have to defend it. Anyone can tell you that for the most part female/male sexual attraction is what brings two people together. If one person knew that the other had no sex organs, most people would not be happy with this set up. There may be exceptions. I know a girl who was paralyzed from the neck down and her boyfriend married her anyway. But for the most part, men and women marry to have a family and sex is part of that.

Absolutely nothing means 0, there can be no exceptions, so adding "other than light" -and making it 1 rather than 0 - immediately shows that the word absolutely was an exaggeration

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A lot of that original .pdf has been improved in grammatical form and in examples given. You should listen to the author on the audio. I realize it's only the first chapter but if you're truly interested in this knowledge, that's where I suggest you start. And this time koan, drink an energy drink so you don't fall asleep.

Actually some 7 & 7 (a lot of) would help it make more sense.

Wow, energy drink and 7 & 7, you'd be a really hyped up drunk, but you might understand (agree with) the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now what LadyShea? Where are you going to try, as a last ditch effort, to poke holes in a proof that has none.

Well I must agree with Peacegirl here, you can't poke holes in a proof when there is no proof to poke holes in.

That would be like trying to nail air to a wall.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does this have to do with my post? Have you actually read it yet? Do you intend to provide any kind of proper response?

You were explaining compatibilism and why people are morally responsible for their actions and are therefore blameworthy, according to this thought system. I responded that responsibility goes up with the knowledge that man's will is not free even though all blame is removed. Then I said you haven't the slightest understanding of the two-sided equation, which is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Below, you turned Lessans' "impossible" into "for the most part" and allowed for exceptions.

If it is impossible, there can be no exceptions, and no mostly.

Absolutely nothing means 0, there can be no exceptions, so adding "other than light" -and making it 1 rather than 0 - immediately shows that the word absolutely was an exaggeration

That's true. There are no exceptions. If the eyes are not a sense organ, that means 0 images are being decoded in the brain.

As far as that other post, I maintain that sex and procreation are the underlying motivations for marriage. Ask any "normal" person who is looking for a mate whether they would be satisfied choosing a partner whom they knew beforehand would never be able to provide them with a sexual experience or the possibility of having children, and see what they say. It turns out that the happier a person is sexually, the more in love they feel. Ask anyone. This is no surprise.

[LadyShea]

He didn't say anything about images being decoded in the brain in that passage. You should be ashamed putting words in Lessans mouth.

According to you, he said "absolutely nothing (0), other than light (1), impinges on the optic nerve"

In that sentence absolutely nothing is an exaggeration. He should have said "Only light impinges on the optic nerve" to not sound so inconsistent for one thing, and to not be exaggerating for another.

As far as that other post, I maintain that sex and procreation are the blah blah blah weasel avoid move golaposts

Lessans said it was IMPOSSIBLE, and that was an exaggeration according to your own explanations.


So you were once again lying when you said he never exaggerated and meant exactly what he said

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you use my online experiences as proof that people don't like the book?

Because that is exactly what it is. When people tell you they don't like the book, that proves that people don't like the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not only is this a small segment of the overall population...

However small or large the sample, 100% of them think the book is crap.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but no one has read the book in its entirety, not even you Spacemonkey.

As usual, you are full of crap. The only part I have not read is the small part that you refuse to share.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is more of a reflection of ignorance than enlightenment.

I couldn't have described the book better myself.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you use my online experiences as proof that people don't like the book? Not only is this a small segment of the overall population, but no one has read the book in its entirety, not even you Spacemonkey. This is more of a reflection of ignorance than enlightenment.

They haven't finished reading it because they a) don't like it and b) don't agree with it. I seriously doubt you're going to get people to agree with it, so you could at least focus on trying to fix the writing style so they like it.

Aside from scientific claims which the scientific community will never support, you are left with something that is not new at all: Zen Buddhism Buddhism has millions of supporters and you do not. The reason is that they are appealing. What you are proposing, to end war and crime, is that the entire world convert to Buddhism. While I don't disagree that may be a solution, I do disagree that it will ever happen.

I won't listen to the audio again because there is no way I'll stay awake. The pdf, on the other hand allows me to add sticky notes so I can keep moving forward while protesting. The primary problem, outside of dreary writing style, is that it offers logical fallacies as scientific proof. If you want a non-critical readership, you are looking for a people who want to belong to a cult, not rational thinking people.