A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sam Harris is a controversial celebrity, not a rather obscure academic, so his gatekeeping will be much more stringent and you will probably not get to him directly. But he has a contact form on his website.

http://www.samharris.org/contact

I really appreciate your help in this regard, but I already did that. They sent me an automated message that he can't respond to everyone, or something to that effect, I can't remember the exact words.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was a simple math question, and he knew the answer whether he made a typo or not. He never bragged at all. Why can't you get off of this faulty merry-go-round LadyShea?

He brags throughout the book....how his relations are undeniable and mathematically certain.

Did he get the correct answer to a simple math problem or didn't he? Do you even know what the correct answer is or how to find the correct answer? Maybe Ceptimus' answer is wrong. Do you know either way?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you refuse to share his work with the very authorities you say you need to convince. That's a good way to ensure that you never get to make any progress and instead get to replay the same sick cycle over and over again.

Added to post: What sick cycle are you talking about? And why do you keep coming back if you think I'm mentally sick? Or could it be this... I'm sorry I couldn't help myself. I hope you're laughing, cuz I am. Got to have some mind of humor or I'll really go insane.

i think i love you- david cassidy - YouTube

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great, so Lessans - your mathematical genius - couldn't even perform basic arithmetic. Well done.

Well he did discover the "two sided equation". A great improvement over the one sided equation, not that anyone could tell based on how peacegirl argues.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He brags throughout the book....how his relations are undeniable and mathematically certain.

Did he get the correct answer to a simple math problem or didn't he? Do you even know what the correct answer is or how to find the correct answer? Maybe Ceptimus' answer is wrong. Do you know either way?

Just because he is making the claim that his discovery is undeniable and mathematically certain does not make him a braggart LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And your weaseling evasions bore me.

The sentence you wrote makes no sense. How can human development be subject to "rate" (rate of speed? )? What is the "mathematical rate" of progression? How does human satisfaction affect this rate of whatever? If this rate is "not in our hands" then whose hands is it in and why is human satisfaction even a factor...what about elephant satisfaction or dolphin satisfaction?

Two things affect this rate. We only have 24 hours in a day, and we cannot be more advanced in our thinking than we actually are. That's why we often hear people say about someone who thinks outside of the conventional box that he was ahead of his time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Laws of nature apply to everything, not just humans. So why is human societal development subject to this law but the social development of other species are not? Nature doesn't care about timelines, nor allow/disallow things at various times in history or subject things to "rates". Only a mind can do these things.

Only someone who thinks humanity is the special precious of a deity thinks in these terms. So once again, I invite you to admit that you believe in a supernatural being that gives a shit about human "evil".

I never said only humans develop at a certain rate, but the very fact that we have a greater intellectual capacity, and we are conscious of this, gives us this ability to develop beyond what other species are capable of.

[Spacemonkey]

Have you found Lessans' answer yet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

p. 38 The belief in
free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time
because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true,

Pity that Lessans started with this nonsense, as if he were stating some truth that led to his later claims. Free will and determinism either are, or are not true, what man believes or can prove has no bearing on the issue. That Lessans felt that he needed to prove either, for them to be in effect, only illustrates his complete lack of understanding of the concepts.

If mankind is moving in a particular direction according to some undeniable natural law, knowing about it, or agreeing to it will have no effect. If what Lessans wrote was true, writing the book and announcing it to the world was a waste of time and irrevelant. That mankind needs to understand and accept some principle, proves that it is not natural and undeniable, but a principle that needs to be adopted to be in effect. Lessans was so far out of touch that he believed that by his announcing his ideas he could usher in a new age and be the hero of mankind, instead he is the fool and the laughing stock, thanks to his fool of a daughter.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he is making the claim that his discovery is undeniable and mathematically certain does not make him a braggart LadyShea.

Possibly, but it does make him a fool.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Have you found Lessans' answer yet?

No, and I'm not searching for it. It has no bearing on his intellectual capabilities. You're just grasping at anything you can to discredit him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Pity that Lessans started with this nonsense, as if he were stating some truth that led to his later claims. Free will and determinism either are, or are not true, what man believes or can prove has no bearing on the issue. That Lessans felt that he needed to prove either, for them to be in effect, only illustrates his complete lack of understanding of the concepts.

If mankind is moving in a particular direction according to some undeniable natural law, knowing about it, or agreeing to it will have no effect. If what Lessans wrote was true, writing the book and announcing it to the world was a waste of time and irrevelant. That mankind needs to understand and accept some principle, proves that it is not natural and undeniable, but a principle that needs to be adopted to be in effect. Lessans was so far out of touch that he believed that by his announcing his ideas he could usher in a new age and be the hero of mankind, instead he is the fool and the laughing stock, thanks to his fool of a daughter.

This is why I'm going to have to put you back on ignore. You are so ignorant it makes my stomach churn.

[thedoc]

Now that is a shame, as I've been nicer, and more polite, to you than others on this thread. But perhaps I've been closer to the truth, which makes you more uncomfortable than with others who just disagree with you.

I also noticed you did not try to dispute my statements, you just have a hysterical fit and make meaningless threats. Do you think it really means anything that you are ignoring me, my statments are ment for lurkers who may be reading your drivel. You would be better off answering my statments, and others questions, or the lurkers will accept those undisputed statments.

If you really want to get anywhere you need to answer questions clearly and directly, hostility and denial are very clear to anyone reading this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, and I'm not searching for it. It has no bearing on his intellectual capabilities. You're just grasping at anything you can to discredit him.

What the hell? You're not even going to bother to see if he got it right? You're not even going to check that the answer you've actually included in your own about-to-be-published book is (a) what Lessans actually wrote; and (b) actually correct?

[LadyShea]

Lessans answer 3060
1. 3060/2-2=1528
2. 1528/2-2 =762
3. 762/2-2=379
4. 379/2-2=187.50
5. 187.50/2-2=91.75
6. 91.75/2-2=43.875
7. 43.875/2-2=19.9375
8. 19.9375/2-2= 7.96875
9. 7.96875/2-2= 1.984375
10. 1.984375/2-2= -1.0078125

Fail

[LadyShea]

NM

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now that is a shame, as I've been nicer, and more polite, to you than others on this thread. But perhaps I've been closer to the truth, which makes you more uncomfortable than with others who just disagree with you.

I also noticed you did not try to dispute my statements, you just have a hysterical fit and make meaningless threats. Do you think it really means anything that you are ignoring me, my statments are ment for lurkers who may be reading your drivel. You would be better off answering my statments, and others questions, or the lurkers will accept those undisputed statments.

If you really want to get anywhere you need to answer questions clearly and directly, hostility and denial are very clear to anyone reading this thread.

You know nothing whatsoever about this discovery, and I'm getting fed up with your constant belittling. To say that it doesn't matter whether man's will is free or not free, is so ignorant I don't know what to say. And you have the audacity to call him a fool? It is you who is the fool. I have to put you back on ignore. I will not allow you to call this drivel and think that I'm going to converse with you.

p. 22 “I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked “The Earth Is Round” was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the hell? You're not even going to bother to see if he got it right? You're not even going to check that the answer you've actually included in your own about-to-be-published book is (a) what Lessans actually wrote; and (b) actually correct?

You don't have my best interest at heart, so stop acting like you do Spacemonkey.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have my best interest at heart, so stop acting like you do Spacemonkey.

Stop weaselling. Why are you not even concerned to check that the answer you are about to publish is either correct or even what Lessans actually gave? If there is a typo, wouldn't you want to correct it, rather than make it look like he couldn't even do basic arithmetic?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To say that it doesn't matter whether man's will is free or not free, is so ignorant I don't know what to say.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I said it doesn't matter if man knows that his will is free or not, I did not say that free will, or not, doesn't matter. That man has free will or not is very important, but that man knows it or not is irrelavent.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was sweet even though I know you're being sarcastic. I moved around some of the wording in the intro to make it more integrated, and I took out that motor vehicle operators will be our first citizens. Koan made a good point. It's not necessary to confuse people as to who will be first. Other than the leaders, everyone will be becoming our first citizens, so now I have to resubmit it. I can't stand having to do this again. I have no problem giving them the first three chapters, so I will do that as soon as I get the new version from my formatter.

How dare I?
According to you, I'm a mean hearted, vindictive and jealous hater. According to you I haven't asked a single good question and obviously haven't read the book. It is utterly impossible that I could have made a good point unless... wow... you just admitted that I've read it, understood it, and am trying to help you bring logic and reason into your life.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have his manuscript. He may have made a typo, who knows, but to criticize him like that is horrible Spacemonkey. In your effort to discredit him, you are being very unfair and callous. So what is your answer? The one ceptimus gave?

ceptimus gave the correct answer. It is important because Lessans uses this math as justification for us to trust his calculations on whether or not Man's will is free and allowing "The Golden Age" to be launched. Lessans uses his mathematical prowress in this example to prove he deserves our trust. The mathematical problem has absolutely nothing to do with free will or blame or any other topic in his book. The sole function is to prove that Lessans can do math. As it stands, it proves he can't do math... even when he chooses the equation he is going to solve. What it currently proves is that he should not be trusted with any complex problem solving because even when he makes up a simple equation of his own that is easily solvable he still gets it wrong.

A typo? If proof reading didn't catch such an important mistake, how can anyone trust the rest of the book? Maybe it is 600 pages of typos and errors that didn't get proof read. Like a wide awake baby with its eyes open.

[koan]

It has been mentioned that this book has a total of zero footnotes. I am not convinced peacegirl understands why footnotes are important.

About a quarter of Lessans' book is a rebuttal of Will Durant's books yet he gives no page numbers where we can find where Durant said such things. Without the page numbers there is absolutely no reason to believe Durant ever said any of the things Lessans claims. He is using a general summary of what he thinks Durant said and not allowing the reader to double check that Durant was summarized accurately. As a result, you better dog ear a copy of Mansions of Philosophy and add all those page numbers or take out every reference to anything Durant wrote or said.

Have fun with that.

[LadyShea]

I come up with a different answer than Ceptimus. I am going to work it backwards as Lessans said was so simple to do.

She left the last store with 0, paid 2 to get in and out, and spent half so 0=x/2-2. x=4

Backwards it would be (0+2)2=4. Isn't that the correct formula?

10.(0+2)2=4
9.(4+2)2=12
8.(12+2)2=28
7.(28+2)2=60
6.(60+2)2=124
5.(124+2)2=252
4.(252+2)2=508
3.(508+2)2=1020
2.(1020+2)2=2044
1.(2044+2)2=4092

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I come up with a different answer than Ceptimus. I am going to work it backwards as Lessans said was so simple to do.

She left the last store with 0, paid 2 to get in and out, and spent half so 0=x/2-2. x=4

Backwards it would be (0+2)2=4. Isn't that the correct formula?

10.(0+2)2=4
9.(4+2)2=12
8.(12+2)2=28
7.(28+2)2=60
6.(60+2)2=124
5.(124+2)2=252
4.(252+2)2=508
3.(508+2)2=1020
2.(1020+2)2=2044
1.(2044+2)2=4092

It's minus $1 to get in, then spend half what you have left, then minus $1 to get out.

[LadyShea]

Like a wide awake baby with its eyes open.

You mean a sleeping baby with its eyes wide open

There was also molecules of light (simply chose the wrong word, nothing wrong there)
There was also trillions upon trillions of babies being born (simple miscalculation, nothing wrong there)
There was also no afferent structures in the eye (he didn't really mean that)
There was also nothing at all from the external world impinging on the optic nerve (he forgot to add the words "other than light" so peacegirl added them for him)
There was also going to be fewer homosexuals in the New World due to there being no blame. Since she couldn't explain or defend that assertion, peacegirl took it out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's minus $1 to get in, then spend half what you have left, then minus $1 to get out.

ETA: can someone help me write a correct formula please?

0=1+x????