A revolution in thought - Page 856

Spacemonkey · #**21376** 11-07-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being morally responsible for one's actions is exactly what takes place when we learn the truth of our nature --- that man's will is not free. I've said this countless times. This knowledge brings moral responsibility up to the highest level, but not through blame. You do not understand the two-sided equation even a little bit 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.

Were you ignoring my post so long you forgot the point of the discussion? Or were you here deliberately weaseling again? You accused me of contradicting myself by supporting compatibilism, and then made false claims about what compatibilism actually says. You then asked me to set you straight, and I did. So a proper response from you would entail either identifying some new contradiction in compatibilism, or agreeing that I have not contradicted myself and retracting the charge. I didn't ask you to repeat your faith-claims about responsibility going up. You asked me to explain to you how compatibilism is not contradictory. I did. So do you agree now that it isn't contradictory?

Note also that this was only one part of the post you were meant to be addressing. You first replied to the post without reading it. Now you've apparently read the post without properly replying to it. Is it really too much to expect you to manage both?

Spacemonkey · #**21377** 11-07-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm giving you what I know to be true. I believe there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he is right when it comes to how conscience functions.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are the three justifications Spacemonkey?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These were his observations whether you see it or not. These observations are spot on because he was extremely perceptive and was able to see the common theme running through many historical accounts. He saw that people need a justification and he showed what happens when there is none. This knowledge is falsifiable, but you'll have to wait until it can be confirmed empirically. If that's not good enough, there's nothing I can do about it.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where it's consistent. I asked you this before and you never answered.

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?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**21378** 11-07-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad that you admit it's not right to be calling me names at this late date. I could accept it early on, but I cannot accept it now. You should know by now that I'm not a liar or a fake. If you don't, we can end the conversation.

I don't think you are a fake, but you most certainly are a liar. You lie constantly. I don't think you can help it. If you think you are capable of ending this conversation then go right ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is implicit in the phrase if you understood anything at all he wrote. I have no problem putting this phrase in the book (which I did) along with the more direct quote --- other than light impinging on the optic nerve.

It is not 'implicit in the phrase' at all. He wrote what he wrote, but you wish he wrote something else - something a little less obviously wrong. He never said or implied that light impinges on the optic nerve. Not once. You made him say that by editing his words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you speak English? This absolutely refers back to the first part of the sentence. No, he did not imply that a car would have to drive right into your eyes. All that is required is for the car to be within your visual range, which is very different from your scenario which is based on afferent vision, the very thing that is being disputed.

The interpretation you are insisting upon, in your attempt to justify your botched editing, has Lessans denying that the eyes are sense organs by arguing against the idea that the objects of vision themselves to travel into the eye to strike the receptors. Lessans said "absolutely nothing" impinges on the optic nerve. You say that this is referring back to the word 'object' such that he really meant that no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. But that is a stupid thing for him to say. No-one has ever believed that objects themselves travel into the eye to be seen, and it is no more required than having objects travel into your ears to be heard. Why would he be saying that objects themselves don't impinge on the optic nerve? Did he think anyone has ever thought they do? Or that this is what the eyes being a sense organ would require? Your interpretation makes him look even more ridiculous than he already does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? There are two versions because he changed his wording from time to time, but that did not change the concept at all. You are grasping at anything you can to try to prove him wrong, just like others in here. But it can't be done if he isn't wrong. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? You cannot bring him down because HE IS NOT WRONG SPACEMONKEY! DEAL WITH IT!!

I don't have to deal with your made up facts. Lessans was dead wrong - about a wide range of things - and you can't deal with it, even on the points you know he was wrong about (e.g. no afferent nerve endings in the eyes). On the present point, we want to know why the words "other than light" disappeared from the one passage and reappeared in the other passage. It looks like you realized he was wrong about there being nothing from the external world impinging upon the receptors in the eye, found him saying "other than light" in another passage (which you wrongly thought to be making an exception for light striking the receptors), and then tried to copy the phrase from the one passage into the other, not realizing that you were changing his meaning, and then accidentally managing to delete the phrase from its original location as you copied it over. Do you have any better explanation for why the phrase appears in the one passage while disappearing from the other?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**21379** 11-07-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I read the posts I am replying to, and I will say again that you do not understand these principles one iota. I do not like being called a hypocrite and a liar, so please stop it or we don't have to continue the conversation.

You just lied again. You replied to my post yesterday without having read it. I know this because you replied by demanding that I explain exactly what the post you were replying to clearly explained. You replied to the post without reading it. That was hypocritical. And now you are lying about it. If you don't like being called a hypocrite and a liar, then you need to stop lying and being hypocritical. And if you were capable of ending this conversation you would have done so long ago. Also, every time you reply by telling someone they don't understand Lessans at all - without actually correcting them on anything - then you are weaseling. By all means, correct us if we appear to have misunderstood him or you on some specific point, but replying only to say that we just don't understand is a pointless weaseling self-defense mechanism you use to avoid addressing objections and to rationalize to yourself why no-one agrees with his claims.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**21380** 11-07-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

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.

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.

I put the book together, and I'm my own worst critic. I am pleased with how it's written. I believe this knowledge is going to spread quickly. I'm not a bit worried.

peacegirl · #**21381** 11-07-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being morally responsible for one's actions is exactly what takes place when we learn the truth of our nature --- that man's will is not free. I've said this countless times. This knowledge brings moral responsibility up to the highest level, but not through blame. You do not understand the two-sided equation even a little bit 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.

Were you ignoring my post so long you forgot the point of the discussion? Or were you here deliberately weaseling again? You accused me of contradicting myself by supporting compatibilism, and then made false claims about what compatibilism actually says. You then asked me to set you straight, and I did. So a proper response from you would entail either identifying some new contradiction in compatibilism, or agreeing that I have not contradicted myself and retracting the charge. I didn't ask you to repeat your faith-claims about responsibility going up. You asked me to explain to you how compatibilism is not contradictory. I did. So do you agree now that it isn't contradictory?

This is what you wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coersion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is exactly the definition of freedom of the will ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY QUALIFY IT BY SAYING IT'S NOT CONTRA-CAUSAL FREE WILL. If our actions are caused by previous events or determinants, how can our choices be blameworthy? And how can compatibilism reconcile these two opposing ideologies when they are mutually exclusive? By saying someone is morally responsible because he is not being coerced and is able to act in accordance with his choices implies that this person could have made another choice than the one for which he is now being blamed. How can someone be blamed for something he had no choice in doing? If compatibilists believe a person is blameworthy, then that means they believe that his will was free to choose otherwise, the very opposite of determinism. They can't be both determinists and freewillers. That is a serious contradiction. :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Note also that this was only one part of the post you were meant to be addressing. You first replied to the post without reading it. Now you've apparently read the post without properly replying to it. Is it really too much to expect you to manage both?

If it was that important, you'll have to repeat the other part.

Spacemonkey · #**21382** 11-07-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I put the book together, and I'm my own worst critic.

Indeed. When it comes to critically analyzing this book, you're the worst there is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am pleased with how it's written.

Of all the many people to have read it, you're the one and only person who thinks so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe this knowledge is going to spread quickly. I'm not a bit worried.

Proof of delusion right here. More than eight years of constant failure with every single person who reads it telling you this 'knowledge' is hopelessly flawed, and you're still not even slightly concerned.

Spacemonkey · #**21383** 11-07-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coersion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is exactly the definition of freedom of the will.

Then we have free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IT IS A CONTRADICTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY QUALIFY IT BY SAYING IT'S NOT CONTRA-CAUSAL FREE WILL.

What is the contradiction? You haven't identified one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If our actions are caused by previous determinants, how can our choices be blameworthy?

Very easily. Why shouldn't they be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how can compatibilism reconcile these two opposing ideologies when they are mutually exclusive?

They aren't. That's what I just explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By saying someone is morally responsible because he is not being coerced and is able to act in accordance with one's choices is the definition of free will. :doh:

Then under compatibilism we have free will. Your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was that important, you'll have to repeat the other part.

I already did. I bumped the entire post again.

peacegirl · #**21384** 11-07-2012, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm giving you what I know to be true. I believe there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he is right when it comes to how conscience functions.

Quote:

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.

As I said, and I will continue to say that his observations were spot on. His voracious reading of history and his unusual perceptive ability to see what other people could not, is quite obvious. Whether he wrote his findings down in an empirical fashion or not, doesn't negate the validity of his observations. If you are so sure he is wrong because you don't believe he had evidence, then stick to your ideas and move on. I'm not forcing you to be here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are the three justifications Spacemonkey?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

At least you remember something. Retaliation could encompass false beliefs or scapegoating. Retaliation also doesn't have to be directed at the actual person or people who have caused the hurt. Some people retaliate because they feel they've been unfairly treated by society. They feel disenfranchised and want to hurt someone in the worst way for their pain. They want someone to pay as a means of getting back. When a crime takes place where you can't trace it to anything in a person's recent history, it looks like they are doing it without any justification. But if you track it back far enough there always is, even if it's an unconscious justification. Now you can accept this or not Spacemonkey. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is that these three justifications give conscience permission to hurt others without any guilt or remorse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These were his observations whether you see it or not. These observations are spot on because he was extremely perceptive and was able to see the common theme running through many historical accounts. He saw that people need a justification and he showed what happens when there is none. This knowledge is falsifiable, but you'll have to wait until it can be confirmed empirically. If that's not good enough, there's nothing I can do about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Who is "everyone" you keep referring to? The people in here? Is that it? And you think because of the reaction in here that this knowledge is wrong, or is not worthy of investigation? I have no doubt that this knowledge will be brought to light at the exact time it is supposed to, and not a moment sooner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

That's why for those who don't believe that these three justifications are what allow conscience to either permit or forbid an action, you'll have to wait for more empirical evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where it's consistent. I asked you this before and you never answered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Quote:

I don't know what you read, but I can tell you one thing for sure, you don't understand the two-sided equation.

Spacemonkey · #**21385** 11-07-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you read, but I can tell you one thing for sure, you don't understand the two-sided equation.

That's another weasel. You know what I've read because I've told you. Telling me I don't understand something without actually bothering to correct me is a WEASEL. And you STILL aren't addressing the content of the bumped post. Why is that?

Spacemonkey · #**21386** 11-07-2012, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, and I will continue to say that his observations were spot on. His voracious reading of history and his unusual perceptive ability to see what other people could not, is quite obvious. Whether he wrote his findings down in an empirical fashion or not, doesn't negate the validity of his observations. If you are so sure he is wrong because you don't believe he had evidence, then stick to your ideas and move on. I'm not forcing you to be here.

None of this is evidence supporting his claims about conscience. It's just your unsupported opinion of his alleged abilities. So why do you keep posting lies about there being a "tremendous amount of evidence" supporting what he said about conscience?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At least you remember something.

So are you going to stop posting bullshit lies about me not understanding him at all, and not having read the book?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Retaliation could encompass false beliefs or scapegoating. Retaliation also doesn't have to be directed at the actual person or people who have caused the hurt. Some people retaliate because they feel they've been unfairly treated by society. They feel disenfranchised and want to hurt someone in the worst way for their pain. They want someone to pay as a means of getting back. When a crime takes place where you can't trace it to anything in a person's recent history, it looks like they are doing it without any justification. But if you track it back far enough there always is, even if it's an unconscious justification. Now you can accept this or not Spacemonkey. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is that these three justifications give conscience permission to hurt others without any guilt or remorse.

You are again just flatly asserting that there is always a justification. That is the claim I have been asking you to support. Are you going to admit that you cannot support it at all, and that it is therefore an unsupported claim on Lessans' part?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is "everyone" you keep referring to? The people in here? Is that it? And you think because of the reaction in here that this knowledge is wrong, or is not worthy of investigation? I have no doubt that this knowledge will be brought to light at the exact time it is supposed to, and not a moment sooner.

Unlike you and Lessans, I don't redefine my terms. "Everyone" means everyone. His non-discovery will continue to be rejected by everyone because he did not support his claims himself, and as no-one has any reason to believe that he was extremely perceptive or able to see common themes, no-one has any reason to believe that his 'observations' were spot on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why for those who don't believe that these three justifications are what allow conscience to either permit or forbid an action, you'll have to wait for more empirical evidence.

No, we don't. Lessans never provided any direct observations, and did nothing at all to support his claims about conscience. Therefore his claims can and will be rejected. Again, I must ask: If Lessans was such an insightful person, why on Earth did he not anticipate that rational people would require him to provide some kind of evidential support for his claims and assumptions about conscience? Doesn't this strike you as a rather massive oversight on his part?

thedoc · #**21387** 11-07-2012, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

If you want a non-critical readership, you are looking for a people who want to belong to a cult, not rational thinking people.

De-ja vu, by about 800+

koan · #**21388** 11-08-2012, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think the passage below is a false statement, because I believe it possible for people to "fall in love" for a lot of non-sexual reasons, and people who cannot experience sexual satisfaction due to, say, paralysis, fall in love.

Quote:

it is impossible for a boy or girl to fall in love with or be
physically attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing
this individual might be considered if they know in advance that this
person was born without sexual organs which knowledge makes them
aware that he or she is incapable of giving or receiving sexual
satisfaction.

Can you defend this statement with any kind of evidence?

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

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.

"normal" person? Are you making a judgement? That's contrary to the assertion that people who read your book will not judge/blame others. Your magic ingredient for no more blame or judgement is solely the reading of your book. If I tell you I fucked a chick with a strap on and she fell madly in love with me do you still think I should read your book? Was I not predetermined to fuck her and was she not predetermined to fall in love with me though my sexual organ was not real? She dislikes children. Your book will apparently tell me that my personal experience is incorrect and you can replace it with your own version of correct personal experience. Now you're not just stupid, you're offensive.

You say these things and then you claim it is our fault you are wrong. Here's problem #1: books and the internet are different than the spoken word. They can be quoted, they can be compared, you can be held accountable for them. They must make sense or you must admit your mistake. I see you doing none of these things; particularly the accountability.

Anyone interested in comparing this book to Subjective Reality theory?

Vivisectus · #**21389** 11-08-2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think the passage below is a false statement, because I believe it possible for people to "fall in love" for a lot of non-sexual reasons, and people who cannot experience sexual satisfaction due to, say, paralysis, fall in love.

Quote:

it is impossible for a boy or girl to fall in love with or be
physically attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing
this individual might be considered if they know in advance that this
person was born without sexual organs which knowledge makes them
aware that he or she is incapable of giving or receiving sexual
satisfaction.

Can you defend this statement with any kind of evidence?

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

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.

"normal" person? Are you making a judgement? That's contrary to the assertion that people who read your book will not judge/blame others. Your magic ingredient for no more blame or judgement is solely the reading of your book. If I tell you I fucked a chick with a strap on and she fell madly in love with me do you still think I should read your book? Was I not predetermined to fuck her and was she not predetermined to fall in love with me though my sexual organ was not real? She dislikes children. Your book will apparently tell me that my personal experience is incorrect and you can replace it with your own version of correct personal experience. Now you're not just stupid, you're offensive.

You say these things and then you claim it is our fault you are wrong. Here's problem #1: books and the internet are different than the spoken word. They can be quoted, they can be compared, you can be held accountable for them. They must make sense or you must admit your mistake. I see you doing none of these things; particularly the accountability.

Anyone interested in comparing this book to Subjective Reality theory?

Ah. Yes. Homosexuality, in the Wonderful New World, will be much reduced, apparently. Tellingly, so will mental illness. I surmise that it is considered an abnormality.

"Normal" love, in the Brave New World, is more or less an extension of sex and procreation: personality has nothing to do with it, "because there would not be any more bad personalities", according to Peacegirl. Without words like "Ugly" to condition us into projecting ugliness unto people, we would no longer consider some people attractive and others unattractive, so people would simply fall in love with the genitals of the first person they sleep with, and then happily remain monogamous and content for ever after. This will happen pretty early, roughly in the middle of puberty.

And so, Seymourland will churn out "normal" couples who only have sex with each other because it will be impossible for them to desire anything else. There will be no more divorce, which he seems to have classed as one of the evils that we are plagued with today.

But hey! On the bright side, there are translucent robes and sexy jackets!

Vivisectus · #**21390** 11-08-2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I put the book together, and I'm my own worst critic. I am pleased with how it's written. I believe this knowledge is going to spread quickly. I'm not a bit worried.

I think that is what is called cognitive dissonance.

And then when it doesn't spread and the book remains a complete failure I suppose you will say... what? That the marketing wasn't done right? Who will you blame then? Because you will have to blame something, since you are incapable of admitting that it is the book that is at fault.

It is so amazing to me - it is like you are standing there holding what to me clearly looks like a turd, and yet you cannot stop saying how lovely it smells, how clever the man who gave it to you was for being able to produce it, and how any time soon it is going to bring joy to everyone's life.

And nothing I can do or say can change your mind about it.

I think that when we read the book, we see something completely different from what you see. The problem is, I do not think there can be more than a handful of people in the entire world who would react to it the way you do. I think the vast majority will see what we see: the crackpot scheme of a rather dim eccentric who fancied himself a genius.

Do you really believe people are going to say "By golly! Seymour said so, and he read a LOT of books you say? Well, at first I wanted to see some evidence, but I cannot argue with a lot of books. It must be totally true" ?

Or "Wow, I can totally imagine how I would react in the New Environment when everything will be completely different and people won't want to do bad things any more, sign me up for global social engineering" ?

Or "Astute observations huh? Well, colour me convinced! You should have said so right away, I would not have bothered to question it!"

Actually, some of those sentences read a little bit like the dialogues in the book, so maybe the answer to that is yes.

Amazing. So when is the kick-off? When does the promoting proper actually begin? When do you expect to see the first results, the first converts, the first sales? You know what I think will happen: nothing. But since you are not worried, what results do you expect, and when do you expect them?

Vivisectus · #**21391** 11-08-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Objective Reality (OR) is the perspective that you’re the character in the dream world, and the dream world is solid, real, and objective. An OR person wouldn’t normally think of the physical world as a dream at all — they accept the (socially conditioned) notion that the dream world is reality itself. The objective world itself is seen as the basis for knowledge. Note that there can be no proof whatsoever that this is how reality actually works; it’s one giant unprovable assumption. It’s also not falsifiable.

Solipsism is the perspective that you’re the character in the dream, and the dream world is either a projection of you, some other kind of illusion, or simply unknowable. Other people are not real in the same way you are. Your own mind is the basis for knowledge. Even though it’s impossible to prove it wrong because solipsism is not objectively falsifiable, many philosophers dislike solipsism because they see it as a philosophical dead end. I tend to agree. If you want to learn more about solipsism, the Wikipedia entry on it is quite thorough.

Subjective Reality (SR), as I describe it, is the perspective that your true identity is the dreamer having the dream, so you are the conscious container in which the entire dream world takes place. Your body-mind is your avatar in the dream world, the character that gives you a first-person perspective as you interact with the contents of your own consciousness. But that avatar is no more you than any other character in the dream world. This perspective is also not objectively falsifiable, so it cannot be proven wrong. However, I find it a very rich and empowering way to interact with the dream world of reality on multiple levels.

2 obvious strawmen followed by the authors own rather vague notion. Note the use of words in example 3: it even has levels and a true identity! Obviously superior. None of the others had empowerment and multiple levels to interact with the dream world of reality on! :giggle:

Why do people who start to think interesting thoughts about the nature of identity and reality always debunk what they think is the common way of thinking always feel the need to come up with some sort of System for Increased Happiness! There seem to be a little corporal in all of us who dreams of being a Guru.

peacegirl · #**21392** 11-08-2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad that you admit it's not right to be calling me names at this late date. I could accept it early on, but I cannot accept it now. You should know by now that I'm not a liar or a fake. If you don't, we can end the conversation.

I don't think you are a fake, but you most certainly are a liar. You lie constantly. I don't think you can help it. If you think you are capable of ending this conversation then go right ahead.

And if you think you're capable of leaving me, go right ahead. You'll search the entire internet to find me. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is implicit in the phrase if you understood anything at all he wrote. I have no problem putting this phrase in the book (which I did) along with the more direct quote --- other than light impinging on the optic nerve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is not 'implicit in the phrase' at all. He wrote what he wrote, but you wish he wrote something else - something a little less obviously wrong. He never said or implied that light impinges on the optic nerve. Not once. You made him say that by editing his words.

I did not edit the words Spacemonkey. He wrote both of those phrases. It was implied that light impinges on the optic nerve, and because of that, the infant should respond to the object if his eyes are a sense organ, just like he responds at birth to a loud sound, but, alas, he does not. His pupils respond to the light but that's about it. You are trying to make it appear as if he didn't even think that light has to strike the eye at all, which is not the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you speak English? This absolutely refers back to the first part of the sentence. No, he did not imply that a car would have to drive right into your eyes. All that is required is for the car to be within your visual range, which is very different from your scenario which is based on afferent vision, the very thing that is being disputed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The interpretation you are insisting upon, in your attempt to justify your botched editing, has Lessans denying that the eyes are sense organs by arguing against the idea that the objects of vision themselves to travel into the eye to strike the receptors. Lessans said "absolutely nothing" impinges on the optic nerve. You say that this is referring back to the word 'object' such that he really meant that no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. But that is a stupid thing for him to say. No-one has ever believed that objects themselves travel into the eye to be seen, and it is no more required than having objects travel into your ears to be heard. Why would he be saying that objects themselves don't impinge on the optic nerve? Did he think anyone has ever thought they do? Or that this is what the eyes being a sense organ would require? Your interpretation makes him look even more ridiculous than he already does.

All he said was the there is no reaction whatsoever in a newborn baby to the object. He did not say that objects themselves impinge on the optic nerve. You're making more out of this than needs be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? There are two versions because he changed his wording from time to time, but that did not change the concept at all. You are grasping at anything you can to try to prove him wrong, just like others in here. But it can't be done if he isn't wrong. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? You cannot bring him down because HE IS NOT WRONG SPACEMONKEY! DEAL WITH IT!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't have to deal with your made up facts. Lessans was dead wrong - about a wide range of things - and you can't deal with it, even on the points you know he was wrong about (e.g. no afferent nerve endings in the eyes).

He said no direct contact and I stand by that. As far as who can't deal with it, that's open to debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On the present point, we want to know why the words "other than light" disappeared from the one passage and reappeared in the other passage. It looks like you realized he was wrong about there being nothing from the external world impinging upon the receptors in the eye, found him saying "other than light" in another passage (which you wrongly thought to be making an exception for light striking the receptors), and then tried to copy the phrase from the one passage into the other, not realizing that you were changing his meaning, and then accidentally managing to delete the phrase from its original location as you copied it over. Do you have any better explanation for why the phrase appears in the one passage while disappearing from the other?

I did not do that Spacemonkey. You're trying to interrogate me as if I am guilty of doing something underhanded. I said before that he may have not had written it in one sentence. I have been very careful not to change what he wrote because the last thing I want to do is to change the meaning that he intended. I want to be a good steward of his work, and I've been extremely fastidious about this. I could look through 7 books to find out why one of his books didn't have "other than light' while another one did, but I'm not doing that right now. You'll have to trust that I am being honest here. I would never have manipulated the writing to make it appear consistent. That's what people do with empirical results that they don't like. They skew the results to make it appear that the evidence is incontestable.

Spacemonkey · #**21393** 11-08-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not edit the words Spacemonkey. He wrote both of those phrases.

He didn't write them where you put them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was implied that light impinges on the optic nerve...

No, it wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All he said was the there is no reaction whatsoever in a newborn baby to the object. He did not say that objects themselves impinge on the optic nerve. You're making more out of this than needs be.

I wasn't accusing him of saying that objects themselves impinge upon the optic nerve. I'm saying that this is what your idiotic reinterpretation of his words has him arguing against. He said "absolutely nothing" strikes the optic nerve. You tried to say he really meant that no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. But that is a stupid thing for him to say. No-one has ever believed that objects themselves travel into the eye to be seen, and it is no more required than having objects travel into your ears to be heard. Why would he be saying that objects themselves don't impinge on the optic nerve? Did he think anyone has ever thought they do? Or that this is what the eyes being a sense organ would require?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said no direct contact and I stand by that. As far as who can't deal with it, that's open to debate.

What does "no direct contact" have to do with anything? He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye. That is simply wrong, and you know it. And yet you can't deal with that fact at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not do that Spacemonkey. You're trying to interrogate me as if I am guilty of doing something underhanded.

No, I'm accusing you of gross incompetence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been very careful not to change what he wrote because the last thing I want to do is to change the meaning that he intended.

Too late for that, for this is exactly what you have done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to trust that I am being honest here.

I don't trust you to be honest at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would never have manipulated the writing to make it appear consistent. That's what people do with empirical results that they don't like. They skew the results to make it appear that the evidence is incontestable.

And sometimes people with no evidence at all lie about having a "tremendous amount of evidence" supporting the claims they've been asked to defend.

peacegirl · #**21394** 11-08-2012, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I put the book together, and I'm my own worst critic. I am pleased with how it's written. I believe this knowledge is going to spread quickly. I'm not a bit worried.

I think that is what is called cognitive dissonance.

There's no cognitive dissonance. I know what sounds good and what doesn't, and I have tried to make it sound as pleasing as possible but still get the salient points across.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And then when it doesn't spread and the book remains a complete failure I suppose you will say... what? That the marketing wasn't done right? Who will you blame then? Because you will have to blame something, since you are incapable of admitting that it is the book that is at fault.

I am not at all worried that it won't be received well because I believe it will be received well. Why are you making such early projections when it hasn't even been put on the market?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is so amazing to me - it is like you are standing there holding what to me clearly looks like a turd, and yet you cannot stop saying how lovely it smells, how clever the man who gave it to you was for being able to produce it, and how any time soon it is going to bring joy to everyone's life.

And nothing I can do or say can change your mind about it.

The reason nothing you can do or say will change my mind is because Lessans was right, and one day you will regret that you made such degrading comments about him and his work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think that when we read the book, we see something completely different from what you see. The problem is, I do not think there can be more than a handful of people in the entire world who would react to it the way you do. I think the vast majority will see what we see: the crackpot scheme of a rather dim eccentric who fancied himself a genius.

He never thought of himself as a genius. He definitely was not a crackpot or a dim eccentric. One day you will be sorry you called him those things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you really believe people are going to say "By golly! Seymour said so, and he read a LOT of books you say? Well, at first I wanted to see some evidence, but I cannot argue with a lot of books. It must be totally true" ?

No, that is not what I expect. I expect people to carefully study the book to see if there is actual substance, and to wait for the verdict. You are not doing that because you don't like his claims. That's why you see him as someone who was the opposite of who he really was. The things you are imagining are all in your head. None of the things you are saying about him are real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or "Wow, I can totally imagine how I would react in the New Environment when everything will be completely different and people won't want to do bad things any more, sign me up for global social engineering" ?

This is no more global engineering than a punitive system of blame and punishment would be considered global engineering. These changes are due to man's growth and development, not some engineered system (which sounds like Big Brother) being imposed on people against their will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or "Astute observations huh? Well, colour me convinced! You should have said so right away, I would not have bothered to question it!"

Actually, some of those sentences read a little bit like the dialogues in the book, so maybe the answer to that is yes.

You are so resentful because he observed certain phenomena and didn't write his findings down on paper (which he could not have done because he did not start off with a hypothesis). You can't believe that he could be right because he didn't use the scientific method of empirical testing, even though his observations are undeniable. I'm sorry but it doesn't change the fact that this knowledge is accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazing. So when is the kick-off? When does the promoting proper actually begin? When do you expect to see the first results, the first converts, the first sales? You know what I think will happen: nothing. But since you are not worried, what results do you expect, and when do you expect them?

I just resubmitted the book. It will take a couple weeks to a month to get my proof and hopefully my first set of books. Then I have to figure out a way to market on a small budget. I may put out some press releases, and at the same time try to get the book reviewed. I hope to contact some celebrities (which I already mentioned) who could be very instrumental if they invest in the promotion of the book.

Spacemonkey · #**21395** 11-08-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may put out some press releases, and at the same time try to get the book reviewed.

I'll see if Kevin Greene is still available.

LadyShea · #**21396** 11-08-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

He said no direct contact and I stand by that.

Direct contact between what and what? For this to make any sense you need to say "There is no direct contact between X and Y and I stand by that"

peacegirl · #**21397** 11-08-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not edit the words Spacemonkey. He wrote both of those phrases.

He didn't write them where you put them.

What are you talking about Spacemonkey? I did not change his sentences or put them in places they didn't belong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was implied that light impinges on the optic nerve...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it wasn't.

I'm not changing the sentence. This was his writing and I'm not touching it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All he said was the there is no reaction whatsoever in a newborn baby to the object. He did not say that objects themselves impinge on the optic nerve. You're making more out of this than needs be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wasn't accusing him of saying that objects themselves impinge upon the optic nerve. I'm saying that this is what your idiotic reinterpretation of his words has him arguing against.

What was he arguing against? That nothing strikes the optic nerve? He was explicit when he said light strikes the optic nerve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He said "absolutely nothing" strikes the optic nerve. You tried to say he really meant that no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve.

You hope that he meant that nothing strikes the optic nerve so you can blame my interpretation as faulty, and then you can continue to argue that he didn't believe light has to strike the optic nerve. But he never implied that. He said numerous times that light does strike the optic nerve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But that is a stupid thing for him to say. No-one has ever believed that objects themselves travel into the eye to be seen, and it is no more required than having objects travel into your ears to be heard. Why would he be saying that objects themselves don't impinge on the optic nerve? Did he think anyone has ever thought they do? Or that this is what the eyes being a sense organ would require?

That is a strawman because that is not what he thought, or what he thought other people think. You are misinterpreting his words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said no direct contact and I stand by that. As far as who can't deal with it, that's open to debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does "no direct contact" have to do with anything? He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye. That is simply wrong, and you know it. And yet you can't deal with that fact at all.

That is not what he said. He said there were no afferent nerve endings that make direct contact. There's a big difference in those two words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not do that Spacemonkey. You're trying to interrogate me as if I am guilty of doing something underhanded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm accusing you of gross incompetence.

Well all you are is a tricky prosecutor trying to sway the jury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been very careful not to change what he wrote because the last thing I want to do is to change the meaning that he intended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Too late for that, for this is exactly what you have done.

How could I be too late for that when I didn't change his wording. :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to trust that I am being honest here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't trust you to be honest at all.

One day I will scan a picture of the page where I took this, and then what will you have to say? Could you ever say I'm sorry? Do you even have it in you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would never have manipulated the writing to make it appear consistent. That's what people do with empirical results that they don't like. They skew the results to make it appear that the evidence is incontestable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And sometimes people with no evidence at all lie about having a "tremendous amount of evidence" supporting the claims they've been asked to defend.

How many times do I have to say that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. This knowledge is falsifiable and it will be shown that under the changed environmental conditions, it will be impossible for man to find greater satisfaction in hurting others with a first blow when he has no possible justification or reason for doing so.

Spacemonkey · #**21398** 11-08-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Spacemonkey? I did not change his sentences or put them in places they didn't belong.

I'm saying he never wrote the words "other than light" where you put them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not changing the sentence. This was his writing and I'm not touching it.

Lessans never said or implied that light impinges on the optic nerve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What was he arguing against? That nothing strikes the optic nerve? He was explicit when he said light strikes the optic nerve.

He never once said that light strikes the optic nerve. And your idiotic reinterpretation has him arguing against the view that the objects of vision have to travel into the eye to be seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You hope that he meant that nothing strikes the optic nerve so you can blame my interpretation as faulty, and then you can continue to argue that he didn't believe light has to strike the optic nerve. But he never implied that. He said numerous times that light does strike the optic nerve.

On the contrary, he never once said that. Obviously you have never read the book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a strawman because that is not what he thought, or what he thought other people think. You are misinterpreting his words.

Yes! It is a strawman! It is the strawman YOU have him arguing against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he said. He said there were no afferent nerve endings that make direct contact. There's a big difference in those two words.

"Direct contact" with what? He wrote quite clearly that he thought there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye whereby anything makes direct contact with them resulting in a signal being sent to the brain. We know that he was wrong about this. YOU know he was wrong about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well all you are is a tricky prosecutor trying to sway the jury.

The jury returned its verdict on you and your father several hundred pages ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could I be too late for that when I didn't change his wording. :doh:

But you did. You took his words "other than light" and moved them somewhere where they do not belong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

You should say it at least once more. Then everyone will be convinced that you are perfectly sane and that your father was right about everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge is falsifiable and it will be shown that under the changed environmental conditions, it will be impossible for man to find greater satisfaction in hurting others with a first blow when he has no possible justification or reason for doing so.

That's the exact same claim I keep asking you to support, but all you can do is repeat it like a parrot.

Vivisectus · #**21399** 11-08-2012, 02:42 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I put the book together, and I'm my own worst critic. I am pleased with how it's written. I believe this knowledge is going to spread quickly. I'm not a bit worried.

I think that is what is called cognitive dissonance.

There's no cognitive dissonance. I know what sounds good and what doesn't, and I have tried to make it sound as pleasing as possible but still get the salient points across.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And then when it doesn't spread and the book remains a complete failure I suppose you will say... what? That the marketing wasn't done right? Who will you blame then? Because you will have to blame something, since you are incapable of admitting that it is the book that is at fault.

I am not at all worried that it won't be received well because I believe it will be received well. Why are you making such early projections when it hasn't even been put on the market?

Call it an astute observation of patterns in human behaviour. And this one is actually going to be proven right!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is so amazing to me - it is like you are standing there holding what to me clearly looks like a turd, and yet you cannot stop saying how lovely it smells, how clever the man who gave it to you was for being able to produce it, and how any time soon it is going to bring joy to everyone's life.

And nothing I can do or say can change your mind about it.

The reason nothing you can do or say will change my mind is because Lessans was right, and one day you will regret that you made such degrading comments about him and his work.

Ah yes - I forgot. You also periodically assure me that if I do not love and cherish the turd the way you do, one day I will be sorry. I think I will take my chances, thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think that when we read the book, we see something completely different from what you see. The problem is, I do not think there can be more than a handful of people in the entire world who would react to it the way you do. I think the vast majority will see what we see: the crackpot scheme of a rather dim eccentric who fancied himself a genius.

He never thought of himself as a genius. He definitely was not a crackpot or a dim eccentric. One day you will be sorry you called him those things.

And yet I assure you: that is exactly how it will be received.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you really believe people are going to say "By golly! Seymour said so, and he read a LOT of books you say? Well, at first I wanted to see some evidence, but I cannot argue with a lot of books. It must be totally true" ?

No, that is not what I expect. I expect people to carefully study the book to see if there is actual substance, and to wait for the verdict. You are not doing that because you don't like his claims. That's why you see him as someone who was the opposite of who he really was. The things you are imagining are all in your head. None of the things you are saying about him are real.

Wait for the verdict? But you want them to believe it and start a pretty invasive social experiment on an entire community, based on your father's say so. And those people would already have to believe things worked that way too. How else can it be tested?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or "Wow, I can totally imagine how I would react in the New Environment when everything will be completely different and people won't want to do bad things any more, sign me up for global social engineering" ?

This is no more global engineering than a punitive system of blame and punishment would be considered global engineering. These changes are due to man's growth and development, not some engineered system (which sounds like Big Brother) being imposed on people against their will.

Ah so the transition period described is no longer needed? Scientists do not need to validate the book? World leaders are not required to implement it?

Odd. Your father disagreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or "Astute observations huh? Well, colour me convinced! You should have said so right away, I would not have bothered to question it!"

Actually, some of those sentences read a little bit like the dialogues in the book, so maybe the answer to that is yes.

You are so resentful because he observed certain phenomena and didn't write his findings down on paper (which he could not have done because he did not start off with a hypothesis). You can't believe that he could be right because he didn't use the scientific method of empirical testing, even though his observations are undeniable. I'm sorry but it doesn't change the fact that this knowledge is accurate.

Not just astute, but undeniable now? Wow. So these "patterns in human history" that your father managed to "glean" are now to be considered oracular statements not even subject to any doubt or scrutiny as they are to be considered "undeniable"?

Good thing this is all so logical and scientific and not like a religion at all!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazing. So when is the kick-off? When does the promoting proper actually begin? When do you expect to see the first results, the first converts, the first sales? You know what I think will happen: nothing. But since you are not worried, what results do you expect, and when do you expect them?

I just resubmitted the book. It will take a couple weeks to a month to get my proof and hopefully my first set of books. Then I have to figure out a way to market on a small budget. I may put out some press releases, and at the same time try to get the book reviewed. I hope to contact some celebrities (which I already mentioned) who could be very instrumental if they invest in the promotion of the book.

Which celebs did you have in mind? It sounds like your plan is still very vague - I got the impression you were just wrapping up here, and were going to dive fully into promoting the hell out of this book?

peacegirl · #**21400** 11-08-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may put out some press releases, and at the same time try to get the book reviewed.

I'll see if Kevin Greene is still available.

Oh my goodness, you will get a repeat of Davidm. He was so offended by the claim that Jupiter was not seen in delayed time that he snuck behind my back to give this review. David didn't have the desire to do this, and should people believe a completely biased review and not want to understand the person who originated it? And you call this good science? :glare: