A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But that doesn't follow. According to Lessans, his mathematical reasoning was just like the math example he gave. If you can't follow the simple math then you can't expect to follow his more complex reasoning. You can't see the flaws in his reasoning for the same reason that you can't do the simple math example. You just don't have the requisite analytical ability.

And why did you just completely ignore the vast majority of my post? Why did you claim to have already told me Lessans' answer when you hadn't? What are you going to do with the passage? If you don't know how to get the answer, and Lessans didn't give it to you, then are you going to remove the whole passage? Or are you going to leave it there but get the answer from someone else and insert it so as to pretend that Lessans came up with it himself? Would that be honest?

You are making much too big of a deal about this Spacemonkey. If it was a mistake, it was a typo. I have no doubt about that whatsoever, so I would correct it. I did have faith in this man, and I was never steered wrong.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you I found $3,060 in his book. He could have made a typo because he wouldn't make a mistake like that. He solved math problems that were a lot more difficult than this one.If Ceptimus is right, and Lessans was wrong, I can see how he could have made that kind of error. The 9 is right next to the 0, and when you're typing numbers it is an easy mistake to make. The book that had the math problem, he was using a manual typewriter. He was a fast typist and it is very possible that a slip of the finger could have caused this. Unfortunately, that example was only in one book so I can't compare. Is Ceptimus positive that he is right? Maybe I should change it to $3,069. It never entered my mind to check his answers on a math problem. I trusted his ability.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making much too big of a deal about this Spacemonkey. If it was a mistake, it was a typo. I have no doubt about that whatsoever, so I would correct it. I did have faith in this man, and I was never steered wrong.

Why aren't you addressing a single word that I've said? How are you going to correct it when you don't know the answer? What are you actually going to do?

Your faith in him is precisely what prevents you from seeing how he has steered you wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may contact these people as well. If anyone comes upon other people who are determinists, please let me know.

"Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want." Exclude people who hold different views than you do, and you might find people who will agree with you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm pretty sure most of the internet is already involved in just that (though maybe this was your point).

No, at present the internet simply provides people with raw material for constructing their own version of ecstasy. I am talking about being able to transmit the pure, unadulterated stuff itself. There is a fortune to be made by whomever get the patent for that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, at present the internet simply provides people with raw material for constructing their own version of ecstasy. I am talking about being able to transmit the pure, unadulterated stuff itself. There is a fortune to be made by whomever get the patent for that.

Maybe you're just not visiting the right websites.

[Angakuk]

Link please.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He gave some page numbers. People can easily pick up the book and read it word for word knowing that Durant was Lessans' antagonist.

p. 41 There is a great
deal of irony here because the philosophers who did not know it was
impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in this theory because
they were under the impression their reasoning had demonstrated the
falseness of determinism. The reason proof of determinism is
absolutely necessary is to preclude someone quoting Durant and
interjecting a remark about man not being a machine. Is there
anything about my demonstration thus far that would make the reader
believe man is now a machine?

On page 87 in Mansions of
Philosophy he writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to blame;
if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had slipped a
cog in generating him.” In other words, he assumes that this kind of
knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free, allows a
person to shift his responsibility for what he does. One individual
blames society for his crimes as he rots in prison while another blames
the mechanical structure of the machine which slipped a cog and made
him into a fool. You will soon see that not only Durant but all
mankind are very much confused by the misleading logic of words that
do not describe reality for what it is.
<snip>

p. 405 He states on page 240 in Mansions of Philosophy, “But for
weeks before putting the question we spoke of the glory of music, and
of the high privilege of performing or composing it. Then we looked
about for a teacher who would begin not with sleepy scales and
terrifying finger-exercises, but with simple, ear catching melodies that
would set the whole household humming them. We found the teacher,
and soon our home rang with tunes played by a chubby finger
laboriously. We older ones went about our work singing the melodies
that Ethel evoked; she was pleased to note our delight, and felt herself
already an artist; at the very outset the piano meant music to her, not
noise and pain.”

My mistake. He gave four page numbers? Hmmm.
Just between page 36 and page 40 I found four unreferenced claims. That's one per page. If you are offering me four page numbers given over a 500 page book and I quickly found four examples not noted in just four pages, what are the odds that no one else will remember Lessans having properly referenced any of his work? In non-fiction, you do it right or you go home.

Originally Posted by Mr. No Footnote Lessans

Durant begins with the assumption that direct perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the truth which made a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception.

Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible is his next statement he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception.

But Durant states that ‘philosophies of freedom eternally recur’ not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher himself providing it is understood, but because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so fallacious since the word ‘because’ which denotes the perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning while reasoning.

Will Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy, although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He also went in and looked around very thoroughly and, he too, saw the fiery dragon but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its non-existence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny.

Also, as an editor, you should be well aware that saying "on page ..." within the text is as far from proper footnote etiquette as sitting at Miss Manner's dinner table, picking your nose with a toothpick, and flicking it at a guest across the table.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did have faith in this man, and I was never steered wrong.

You've now admitted that you didn't take the helpful approach of a skeptic. What good do you do someone if you review their work with blind faith that there will be no mistakes? You are his bloody editor. Authors rely on peers and editors to catch their mistakes primarily for the reason that they don't want to make a public fool of themselves. If you are the only peer editor of your father's work and you failed to check his facts out of blind trust you have utterly and completely failed him.

If fact checking means all of his book is false you owe it to him to save his name from disgrace by not publishing his work as it stands. Authors pay editors for a reason. If you are unable to perform this function, you have failed.

Almost everything in this book is subjective. Almost everything requires faith in the author, the only thing that doesn't is where Lessans gives us examples of his mathematical skill to convince us that faith in him is well placed. And he failed. It's a big deal because you can argue until the next Mayan calendar expires that we are wrong about everything else but you can't argue that we are wrong about his math. The math was there because, as Lessans says himself, math can't be argued with. He is right on that account. Neither he, were he alive, nor you, as his representative, can argue that his math is correct. Since that's the only solid piece of evidence he offers, the rest of the book crumbles to a pillar of salt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why aren't you addressing a single word that I've said? How are you going to correct it when you don't know the answer? What are you actually going to do?

Your faith in him is precisely what prevents you from seeing how he has steered you wrong.

I want to know if Ceptimus is positive he's right. If he is positive, I will know it was a typo. He has not steered me wrong Spacemonkey, nor the world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

You've now admitted that you didn't take the helpful approach of a skeptic. What good do you do someone if you review their work with blind faith that there will be no mistakes? You are his bloody editor. Authors rely on peers and editors to catch their mistakes primarily for the reason that they don't want to make a public fool of themselves. If you are the only peer editor of your father's work and you failed to check his facts out of blind trust you have utterly and completely failed him.

I did not check his math problem. I had no reason to koan. I did trust that he got his math problem right because he was excellent at math. If he made an error in his typing (which I believe it was if that number was incorrect), it does not make him or me look foolish, nor does it change the validity of his discovery. Only those people who want him to be wrong, or have a vendetta, would use this as a reason to throw out his 30 year work.

Originally Posted by koan

If fact checking means all of his book is false you owe it to him to save his name from disgrace by not publishing his work as it stands. Authors pay editors for a reason. If you are unable to perform this function, you have failed.

Hey, give me the money and I'll have it edited. I have not failed. My father would be applauding me for keeping his knowledge alive.

Originally Posted by koan

Almost everything in this book is subjective. Almost everything requires faith in the author, the only thing that doesn't is where Lessans gives us examples of his mathematical skill to convince us that faith in him is well placed. And he failed. It's a big deal because you can argue until the next Mayan calendar expires that we are wrong about everything else but you can't argue that we are wrong about his math. The math was there because, as Lessans says himself, math can't be argued with. He is right on that account. Neither he, were he alive, nor you, as his representative, can argue that his math is correct. Since that's the only solid piece of evidence he offers, the rest of the book crumbles to a pillar of salt.

Bullshit. It's amazing to me the arrogance you display. The book is not subjective whatsoever. It is based on mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Just because it wasn't math per se, does not mean he was not observing an invariable law of our nature, which you don't seem to grasp at all, not even a little bit. In that math example, he was not trying to prove his math ability. He was showing that if you have clues, you can work backwards to figure out an answer. He was right in that regard.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to know if Ceptimus is positive he's right. If he is positive, I will know it was a typo. He has not steered me wrong Spacemonkey, nor the world.

Work the problem backwards as Lessans said to do and see what the answer is.

If it's too complicated for you, who compiled and edited his work, then it is too complicated to be included at all and you should remove it. Was Lessans illustrating a point or was he showing off his math prowess?

If it was meant to illuminate, it shouldn't be too difficult for an average person to work through.

[Vivisectus]

I want to know if Ceptimus is positive he's right. If he is positive, I will know it was a typo. He has not steered me wrong Spacemonkey, nor the world.

It is once again clear that in order to make sense of the book, you need to believe in your fathers infallibility first and then work backwards. Any discrepancies that pop up must be caused by some unknown factor - not by him having been wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

My mistake. He gave four page numbers? Hmmm.
Just between page 36 and page 40 I found four unreferenced claims. That's one per page. If you are offering me four page numbers given over a 500 page book and I quickly found four examples not noted in just four pages, what are the odds that no one else will remember Lessans having properly referenced any of his work? In non-fiction, you do it right or you go home.

Also, as an editor, you should be well aware that saying "on page ..." within the text is as far from proper footnote etiquette as sitting at Miss Manner's dinner table, picking your nose with a toothpick, and flicking it at a guest across the table.

I don't care about proper, and neither did Lessans. It's the content that matters. I could have written this book without any punctuation whatsoever, and it would still become recognized as a major discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Work the problem backwards as Lessans said to do and see what the answer is.

If it's too complicated for you, who compiled and edited his work, then it is too complicated to be included at all and you should remove it. Was Lessans illustrating a point or was he showing off his math prowess?

If it was meant to illuminate, it shouldn't be too difficult for an average person to work through.

I don't trust myself to get it right, even though I could try working it out. I told you why he put this example in, and I'm not taking it out. It is there for a reason; to show that he began his investigation starting with the corollary and then working backwards to find the solution. I will try to find someone who is good at math before I resubmit the book. I trust Ceptimus. Ceptimus, can you confirm that your answer is correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is once again clear that in order to make sense of the book, you need to believe in your fathers infallibility first and then work backwards. Any discrepancies that pop up must be caused by some unknown factor - not by him having been wrong.

That's not true Vivisectus. You just can't let go of the idea that this knowledge may actually be genuine, and that Lessans may actually have been correct.

[LadyShea]

Is your doctor son good at math? Why would you trust some random dude* on the Internet with Lessans life work and not yourself or Lessans own family?


*I have Internet-known Ceptimus for years and feel he is trustworthy in this regard, but that's not my point.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true Vivisectus. You just can't let go of the idea that this knowledge may actually be genuine, and that Lessans may actually have been correct.

It's very true. Name a single seeming mistake in the book that has been pointed out to you that you didn't immediately respond was definitely NOT a case of Lessans being wrong? You won't even entertain the idea that he could have been wrong about anything.

Case in point:

Lessans said there are no afferent nerve endings in the eyes

Do you deny the eyes contain rods and cones?
Do you deny that the rods and cones are nerve endings?
Do you deny that rods and cones are afferent?

Exactly what is it that Lessans was denying that you agree with? Do you even know?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Maybe you're just not visiting the right websites.

Years ago theatres tried to introduce an added feature to showing a film, it was Smell-O- somethingorother. If there was a scene in a flower garden you would smell flowers, the shore would smell like the sea side, etc. I think that when they showed a western with a lot of horses and cows in the scene, it put people off for some reson? Someone should make Lessans book into a movie, and If they revive this technology, they would only need one scent. It should be about 8 hours long, and it could be used to cure insomnia.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about proper, and neither did Lessans. It's the content that matters. I could have written this book without any punctuation whatsoever, and it would still become recognized as a major discovery.

You present a book which you claim to be scientific, and intellectually precise yet you state outright that you will not take the time or bother with the basic expectations of the scientific and intellectual community. How can you be surprised when they ridicule you?

You wouldn't take a blueprint for a new kind of automobile made out of drinking straws and duct tape to a car manufacturer and expect the company to throw out all their previous cars in faith that your new design is superior. Even if the drinking straws were metaphorical for steel, the manufacturers would want to see a design drawing that represents reality. They are responsible to the public to ensure that their automobiles conform to safety standards.

Politics is no different in their requirements for due diligence. Governments are responsible to the people for keeping them safe and ensuring prosperity. They can not adopt a social system built with drinking straws and duct tape. You insult the community and your fellow humans by refusing to acknowledge basic standards of proof are required to initiate a paradigm shift.

We are not playing with Barbie dolls and plastic houses here. You, if you wish to make demands of society, are playing with our lives and well being. This is a serious thing. Yet you refuse to take it seriously to the point of not even admitting you should edit the book for obvious errors.

Who is arrogant? Me? I'm not the one claiming to be the new messiah. That would be you, and your father, with a book made of flimsy plastic and duct tape. I think people on the forums you've attended have been overly tolerant and kind to you. You ask us to put the entire world at great risk and you won't even do some simple math to make sure the blueprint is sound. That is arrogance.

[ceptimus]

I'm pretty certain that $3069 is right. I've worked it out three different ways now and arrived at the same figure.

In any case, $3060 is definitely wrong - as I said before if the shopper starts out with an even number of dollars she will very soon be trying to split cents.

Just work it through for yourself: start with $3060, pay 1$ to enter the first store. That leaves $3059 so she spends half the amount and is left holding the other half ($1529.50). After paying $1 to leave the store and $1 to enter the next one, she now has $1527.50 so she has to spend/retain $763.75. In the next store she then holds $761.75 and she can't spend half of that unless you're going to allow half-cent coins. In the next shops she's going to need quarter-cent coins, eighth-cent coins, and so on. Even if you allow such fractional amounts, once she starts splitting cents into smaller and smaller fractions, there is no way she can ever get to exactly zero dollars at the end.

It seems unlikely to me that Lessans calculated the amount and got a wrong answer that is only $9 away from the correct one. As you say, it's much more likely that he worked out the correct answer, or was told it by someone else, but then mistyped or misremembered it when typing out the manuscript.

He should have checked his work more carefully! The only point in including such puzzles in a philosophical work is to show that maths results in exact answers - and that he was competent at math. By publishing a wrong answer he would just make himself look foolish.

[koan]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I'm pretty certain that $3069 is right. I've worked it out three different ways now and arrived at the same figure.

In any case, $3060 is definitely wrong - as I said before if the shopper starts out with an even number of dollars she will very soon be trying to split cents.

Just work it through for yourself: start with $3060, pay 1$ to enter the first store. That leaves $3059 so she spends half the amount and is left holding the other half ($1529.50). After paying $1 to leave the store and $1 to enter the next one, she now has $1527.50 so she has to spend/retain $763.75. In the next store she then holds $761.75 and she can't spend half of that unless you're going to allow half-cent coins. In the next shops she's going to need quarter-cent coins, eighth-cent coins, and so on. Even if you allow such fractional amounts, once she starts splitting cents into smaller and smaller fractions, there is no way she can ever get to exactly zero dollars at the end.

It seems unlikely to me that Lessans calculated the amount and got a wrong answer that is only $9 away from the correct one. As you say, it's much more likely that he worked out the correct answer, or was told it by someone else, but then mistyped or misremembered it when typing out the manuscript.

He should have checked his work more carefully! The only point in including such puzzles in a philosophical work is to show that maths results in exact answers - and that he was competent at math. By publishing a wrong answer he would just make himself look foolish.

When I first tried to work out the problem I did it 'long form' (which I assume Lessans also did) So I drew the numbers 1-10 with circles around them and marked the dollar number on entering and exiting the store on either side of the circle with the doubled number underneath. If Lessans was going long form and forgot to add the dollar exiting and entering between store 2 and store 3 he would get 3060. He worked it backwards but didn't double check by reworking it forwards. He could have made his error in store 3 with $764 while inside store 3, then doubling that to $1528 while in store 2, adding the dollar to get into 2 and the dollar to get out of store 1 to make it $1530 then doubling that to $3060 and forgetting the dollar to get into store 1.

That's two errors in his calculations that arrive at the wrong conclusion. Forgetting the $2 transition from store 2 to store 3 and forgetting the original dollar to get into the whole shopping spree.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to know if Ceptimus is positive he's right. If he is positive, I will know it was a typo. He has not steered me wrong Spacemonkey, nor the world.

You still haven't answered me or addressed any of my points. What are you going to do if Ceptimus is sure he is right? Are you going to replace Lessans' answer with that of Ceptimus and pretend that it was Lessans' answer all along? Is that honest? And why did you tell me you had already told me Lessans' answer when you hadn't?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't trust myself to get it right, even though I could try working it out.

If you don't trust yourself to work backwards through the basic addition/multiplication and subtraction/division required by the example that Lessans said was just like what is needed to see the validity of his reasoning, then you can't be sure of the rest of the 'mathematical' reasoning in his book. You are relying on faith for all of it, just as you did with this example.

[ceptimus]

I was hoping that peacegirl would do this for herself, but I guess not.

Lessans' Store Puzzle
Store #	Before entering ($)	After entering ($)	Spends ($)	Retains ($)	After leaving ($)
1	3069	3068	1534	1534	1533
2	1533	1532	766	766	765
3	765	764	382	382	381
4	381	380	190	190	189
5	189	188	94	94	93
6	93	92	46	46	45
7	45	44	22	22	21
8	21	20	10	10	9
9	9	8	4	4	3
10	3	2	1	1	0

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

You present a book which you claim to be scientific, and intellectually precise yet you state outright that you will not take the time or bother with the basic expectations of the scientific and intellectual community. How can you be surprised when they ridicule you?

You wouldn't take a blueprint for a new kind of automobile made out of drinking straws and duct tape to a car manufacturer and expect the company to throw out all their previous cars in faith that your new design is superior. Even if the drinking straws were metaphorical for steel, the manufacturers would want to see a design drawing that represents reality. They are responsible to the public to ensure that their automobiles conform to safety standards.

Politics is no different in their requirements for due diligence. Governments are responsible to the people for keeping them safe and ensuring prosperity. They can not adopt a social system built with drinking straws and duct tape. You insult the community and your fellow humans by refusing to acknowledge basic standards of proof are required to initiate a paradigm shift.

We are not playing with Barbie dolls and plastic houses here. You, if you wish to make demands of society, are playing with our lives and well being.

How bout that? I'm trying to save lives, don't you see?

p. 220 “How is it possible for the taxpayers to be satisfied when this
entails a gigantic increase in taxation?”

“Aren’t you jumping to a conclusion when you assume that taxes
will be increased?”

“Well, won’t they?”

“Are you asking or telling me?”

“I’m asking.”

“Well if you’re asking then why do you say my solution isn’t
sensible when you haven’t even heard the answer, and why do you say
this will entail a gigantic increase in taxation when you don’t know
until you’ve heard my solution? You’re getting to sound just like the
many rabbis I spoke to who refuse to let me explain what I know to be
a fact because they have already jumped to the conclusion that what
I have to say is of no value since it is based upon the knowledge that
man’s will is not free. Every expert does the same thing when using
a fallacious standard; he jumps to the conclusion that he knows when,
in reality, he doesn’t know, only thinks he does. Please don’t make it
more difficult than it already is to break through this sound barrier of
learned ignorance.”

“If I’m ignorant, it isn’t because I’m learned since I only went to
high school, but just because I really don’t know.”

“Then if you don’t know, admit it; don’t pretend to knowledge
you do not possess, especially now when every minute counts.”

“What do you mean, ‘every minute counts?’”

“I mean just what I said. How would you feel if you were behind
a barrier which prevented you from getting out, and you saw a baby
getting ready to crawl in front of an oncoming car? Can it satisfy you
to watch the baby get killed knowing you could save him?”
“What a horrible thing to see, especially when you know you could
stop it if you only could get out from behind that barrier.”

“That’s exactly how I feel knowing there doesn’t have to be any
more wars and crimes, any more hurt between people, providing I can
get out from behind this sound barrier of learned ignorance. We are
sacrificing our sons and daughters needlessly by sending them to war
when there is a better alternative. It actually hurts me to see what I
see. Consequently, I am under a great deal of pressure to get this
knowledge into the proper hands before an atomic explosion takes
millions of lives — or just as soon as humanly possible.”

Originally Posted by koan

This is a serious thing. Yet you refuse to take it seriously to the point of not even admitting you should edit the book for obvious errors.

There are no errors when it comes to the validity of this knowledge. That math problem is not a necessary part of the equation he is presenting, so it's not that important in the scheme of things, although of course I would want to put the right number if his was wrong. If he was wrong I am positive it was a typo.

Originally Posted by koan

Who is arrogant? Me?

Yes you.

Originally Posted by koan

I'm not the one claiming to be the new messiah.

There you go again making fun of a serious discovery. How many times does he have to say that these laws are the messiah, not him, for you to get it?

Originally Posted by koan

That would be you, and your father, with a book made of flimsy plastic and duct tape. I think people on the forums you've attended have been overly tolerant and kind to you.

Hmmm, you think so? If this is kindness, I can't imagine what unkindness would feel like.

Originally Posted by koan

You ask us to put the entire world at great risk and you won't even do some simple math to make sure the blueprint is sound. That is arrogance.

What great risk koan? To have the world leaders sign an agreement to not build anymore weapons of mass destruction, and to convert the rest? The math problem has nothing whatever to do with the blueprint?