A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that why Chapter One is devoted to explaining his idea of determinism? How can you say that with a straight face?

How can you quote the wrong thing? You are serving up the quotes and I am reading them. If you want to make something clear then quote the applicable text.

Otherwise you only make me wonder if you have a clue about what your dad wrote.

[naturalist.atheist]

Peacegirl, if Lessans understood humility then he would know that it is not up to him to judge how great his "discovery" is. It is up to others. He would not make such a big deal out of it and just cut to the chase. But instead he writes a blow by blow, turd by turd account as if the whole world is gonna want to know how he came up with his great idea.

Frankly its boring. If he were funny while doing it then people might buy the book for yuks but it just a self aggrandizing muddled mess.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

What discovery? That there is no free will? How does that that reconcile determinism with free will? And how does it reconcile science and religion.

All I see is Lessans saying he's done something and then *poof*, he's somehow done it?

And how can you say that he has reconciled anything with science when it doesn't appear that you or Lessans know the first thing about science. It's one thing to say that something does't work the way it is thought to work. Any idiot can do that. It is an entirely different matter to then explain in concrete, verifiable terms how it does work.

Lessan's doesn't even stoop to the level of hand waving. He just makes proclamations. And for some reason you just buy it and you don't see how arrogant that is coming from a man of so few accomplishments. But I can excuse you for it, because you are a loving daughter. He must have done something right to have earned that love but it doesn't show at all in his book.

I am laughing because you don't even have the book. So how do you know what's in it? The book is 616 pages long. I have given you a few excerpts from the introduction and first chapter, that's it, so where do you come off telling me what he has or hasn't explained?

He reconciles religion with science because this law (which is scientific) has the power to deliver us from all evil (hurt) in human relations. When this takes place, there will be no more need for religion which came about out of necessity at a time in history when people were suffering and looking to the heavens for answers. Their faith has kept them alive. But now that man's prayers are being answered, there is no more need for faith. He writes:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 39-42

Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of
good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around
quite a bit but did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great
impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there: He stated,
“We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total
perspective,” and he rejected the principle of ‘an eye for an eye.’

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. The
implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is
in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever
discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never
unlocked the second door which leads to the discovery.

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, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an
impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into
this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond
the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so
difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the
modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a
boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave
seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote
his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that
God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written
in his book, “Man Stands Alone.”

Both tried to answer the question,
“Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is
right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t,’ but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.
It went something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of
calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is
subject to rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn
up heads ten times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not
expected but is still one in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads
coming up consecutively is very small. Supposing you have a bag
containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white.
Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out
of the bag is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put
the marbles back and start again. The chance of the white coming out
is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first
twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred times one
hundred).

Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out
three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one
in a million. Try another time or two and the figures become
astronomical. The results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the
fact that two plus two equals four.

In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was
dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third
and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so
on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one
would believe the cards had not been arranged.

The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably
never did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was
invented. But there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose
the possibility does exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert
chess player to beat him at chess in thirty-four moves and the child
makes every move by pure chance exactly right to meet every twist and
turn the expert attempts and does beat him in thirty-four moves. The
expert would certainly think it was a dream or that he was out of his
mind. But there are those who think the possibility of this happening
by chance does exist. And I agree, it could happen, however small the
possibility.

My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out
clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on
earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements
of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the
thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of
carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his
survival all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to
the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these
could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a
billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur.

When the
facts are so overwhelming and when we recognize as we must the
attributes of our minds which are not material, is it possible to flaunt
the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we and all else
are the result of chance? We have found that there are 999,999,999
chances to one against a belief that all things happen by chance.
Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will
agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two
thousand years to convince men that this fact is true.

New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth
survives and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted
to you, the jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance? Do you believe that
your faith in God has been in vain? You are in for the surprise of
your life.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He reconciles religion with science because this law (which is scientific) has the power to deliver us from all evil (hurt) in human relations. When this takes place, there will be no more need for religion which came about out of necessity at a time in history when people were suffering and looking to the heavens for answers. Their faith has kept them alive. But now that man's prayers are being answered, there is no more need for faith. If I know for a fact that two plus two equals four, do I have faith that it’s true? Of course not, because I know that it's true.

What law? Why have you not quoted the meat? You just quote the crap and then complain that people think it is crap?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, if Lessans understood humility then he would know that it is not up to him to judge how great his "discovery" is. It is up to others. He would not make such a big deal out of it and just cut to the chase. But instead he writes a blow by blow, turd by turd account as if the whole world is gonna want to know how he came up with his great idea.

Frankly its boring. If he were funny while doing it then people might buy the book for yuks but it just a self aggrandizing muddled mess.

Who are you to talk like this when you have no idea what the book is about? I'm surprised at you natural.atheist. You are breaking all the rules of fair discourse. You're worse than thedoc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

How can you quote the wrong thing? You are serving up the quotes and I am reading them. If you want to make something clear then quote the applicable text.

Otherwise you only make me wonder if you have a clue about what your dad wrote.

I have only been posting relevant excerpts related to the questions that were asked. We have not been discussing the discovery itself because we can't until Chapter One is read and understood. I refuse to jump ahead just to get to the chase because the discovery will make no sense. In the foreword he urged people not to open the book in the middle, which is what everyone did. And many went ahead and took portions out of context to make the book look ridiculous. I'm just as surprised as everyone that I'm still here after how the book was butchered.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you to talk like this when you have no idea what the book is about? I'm surprised at you natural.atheist. You are breaking all the rules of fair discourse. You're worse than thedoc.

Damn, you mean that I'm not at the bottom of your ignore list?

[thedoc]

N.A. If you would like I could try to get some help to e-mail you my copy of the PDF of the book, less parts of the chapter about rebirth, or that we will live again, a sort of modified reincarnation. PM me and I will try.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have only been posting relevant excerpts related to the questions that were asked. We have not been discussing the discovery itself because we can't until Chapter One is read and understood. I refuse to jump ahead just to get to the chase because the discovery will make no sense. In the foreword he urged people not to open the book in the middle, which is what everyone did. And many went ahead and took portions out of context to make the book look ridiculous. I'm just as surprised as everyone that I'm still here after how the book was butchered.

I'm sorry peacegirl but I've seen nothing you've posted so far by Lessans to recommend it. If anything its a turn off. I can understand why people would turn to the middle or end if they were trying to slog through the beginning. It is just about unbearable.

You see when you write a book you have to keep your audience in mind. You have to bring them along with you in the book. But if you come off as a rambling, self-important wind bag that thinks revealing the philosophy of the 17th and 18th century is a big deal, then I'm gonna have a hard time following that.

But maybe that's just me.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

N.A. If you would like I could try to get some help to e-mail you my copy of the PDF of the book, less parts of the chapter about rebirth, or that we will live again, a sort of modified reincarnation. PM me and I will try.

Thanks but I'll pass. But perhaps you could quote the meat of the the thing without all the digression and self aggrandizement.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you to talk like this when you have no idea what the book is about? I'm surprised at you natural.atheist. You are breaking all the rules of fair discourse. You're worse than thedoc.

I was commenting on what you've posted so far. It is pretty bad. I would expect the rest to be about the same. Perhaps others who've read the book can corroborate.

peacegirl, if you are the publisher of this book this is the kind of feedback that you need.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sorry peacegirl but I've seen nothing you've posted so far by Lessans to recommend it. If anything its a turn off. I can understand why people would turn to the middle or end if they were trying to slog through the beginning. It is just about unbearable.

You see when you write a book you have to keep your audience in mind. You have to bring them along with you in the book. But if you come off as a rambling, self-important wind bag that thinks revealing the philosophy of the 17th and 18th century is a big deal, then I'm gonna have a hard time following that.

But maybe that's just me.

Maybe the introduction was too longwinded and people thought he was boasting (he really wasn't though), but that should not stop someone from reading the book. I know that no matter how I write it, there are going to be people who won't like it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I was commenting on what you've posted so far. It is pretty bad. I would expect the rest to be about the same. Perhaps others who've read the book can corroborate.

peacegirl, if you are the publisher of this book this is the kind of feedback that you need.

What do I need? For you tell me that what I've posted so far is pretty bad? I don't know how that will help me. It seems like the feedback is going to be anything but positive. That's not encouraging.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Thanks but I'll pass. But perhaps you could quote the meat of the the thing without all the digression and self aggrandizement.

I have tried, but there is something about the PDF copy that I have that I can't copy and paste. I'm not even sure I can attatch it to an e-mail, but I figured my Son-in-law could if anyone could. He works in I.T. and his previous job was to maintain the computers on the Wall Street Traiding floor, pretty intense stuff.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I was commenting on what you've posted so far. It is pretty bad. I would expect the rest to be about the same. Perhaps others who've read the book can corroborate.

Yes the book is pretty consistantly bad throughout. I don't have as many posts as some of the others and I have tried to address some of the more general aspects of the work, such as motivation for writing by Lessans, and promoting by Peacegirl. I did try to clear up a few details but not nearly as well as some others. Also there were supposed to be some partys to celebrate a couple of the page number milestones, I tried to liven things up but most ignored the effort in favor of continuing the argument. I also got a bit annoying with "Are we there yet", you can ignore those. Lessans seemed to spend a lot of words thru the book bashing those he preceived as educated, and not giving him a fair hearing, but then at one point bragged that he was now considered a highly educated man, but he didn't indicate by whom. Might have been his pool hall buddies, but some of them may have been easily impressed. The criticism of academia was the one thing that was really consistant thru-out the book, I got the impression that he really regretted not having a good formal education, and his claim of having a better education informally was a bit of "sour grapes". As you or someone stated he could have very easily gone back and gotten the educaton he coveted with just a little effort, he appeared to have the means, but he rather took the course of dismissing formal education as not as good as his, probably because he didn't have one. His attitude probably contributed to his arrogance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the introduction was too longwinded and people thought he was boasting (he really wasn't though), but that should not stop someone from reading the book. I know that no matter how I write it, there are going to be people who won't like it.

Yes the intro. was longwinded, but then so was the rest of the book, and the boasting continued throughout, and that is the sort of thing that will stop most people from continuing. FYI. believe it or not (I really don't care now if you believe it, after being accused of lying about it), I read most of the book, I skipped the most boring part about economics, and some of the parts I read over again several times, mostly out of courtesy to you, but it seems that it wasn't apperciated much. But then you don't seem to appreciate any help, except those who just fawn over the book and are ready to accept it uncritically. You are, in fact, the most narrow minded person on this thread, you are completely monomaniacal.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What conditions that would have to exist for efferent sight to be true would allow for nuclear technology, GPS, radar, photography not to exist? The properties of light remain the same so I don't know what conditions you're talking about. I don't believe the stated premises are sound, therefore I don't believe these proven technologies would automatically fail to work due to efferent vision.

As has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, the very notion of real-time seeing violates the theory of special relativity. SR describes the actual conditions of the universe. If SR is wrong, then those technologies that rely on SR would not work. They do work, so SR is not wrong. Remember, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Efferent sight would not cause those proven technologies to fail. If the laws of the universe were such that efferent sight and real-time seeing were possible, then it would not be the same universe in which SR obtains and those technologies that rely on SR would not work. That they do work is sufficient evidence that SR obtains and this universe is not one in which efferent sight and real-time seeing are possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He reconciles religion with science because this law (which is scientific) has the power to deliver us from all evil (hurt) in human relations.

It is not scientific by any meaningful definition of the term 'scientific'. I realize that Lessans redefined scientific to be synonymous with 'undeniable'. but none of his claims are undeniable either. They are, in fact, eminently deniable.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

What law? Why have you not quoted the meat?

You can't quote what's not there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Efferent as in "from the brain" rather than "to the brain". We're mostly using it as shorthand. The main points were

The eyes are not a sense organ, they are only windows for the brain to look through
We see in real time, as our brain does not require the photons to see, so speed of light is irrelevant
Because of this we are conditioned to project unreal things, like beautiful, onto the screen of actual substance

I have to clarify one thing, and I'm asking people not to respond because I don't want to start this conversation again. I'm just trying to skim through the pages I missed and comment only on those posts that I feel are misleading. The brain requires photons to see; light is a condition of sight. It's just that we are using the photons, through the eyes, to see the image or object instead of using the photons to interpret the image or object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, but she, and Lessans, have contradicted themselves. I pointed this out to her recently, but originally made the point several hundred pages ago.

The brain DOES require the photons to see, Lessans says; it's just that they are a CONDITION of seeing, but not the CAUSE. (The actual cause is never specified, of course, by either Lessans or peacegirl; at least six different times she said "I don't know" when pressed on the actual cause of seeing. Right now it is just magic!)

Even Lessans could not have failed to notice that if you turn off the lights, you can't see anything! But apparently his position was that light is a necessary condition of seeing, but not a sufficient one. The light, he writes, has to be "present" for one to see.

And peacegirl has admitted that the light must be present, and that it takes TIME to get from one location to another.

Now Lessans claims that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it IMMEDIATELY, but would not see their neighbor standing next to them for eight and a half minutes.

This is bloody nonsensical, of course, but the point is that since peacegirl maintains along with her father that the light must be present in order for one to see, and since she has admitted that it takes time for the light to get from point A to point B, she has necessarily contradicted her father's account of what happens when the sun is turned on at noon by God! When pressed on this point she concedes that it "seems like a contradiction." No, it does not "seem" like a contradiction, it IS a contradiction. When pressed further, she offers no explanation of her position contradicting Lessans. Yet another demonstration, if one more demonstration were needed, of her fundamental dishonesty.

It is not a contradiction to say that light travels at a finite speed and we can see that light's projection on a wall EFFERENTLY. When looking at an image or object EFFERENTLY, that same light becomes a condition because we are not interpreting the image from the light; we are looking directly at the light source or object. You are fundamentally dishonest for saying that I am.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When looking at an image or object EFFERENTLY, that same light becomes a condition because we are not interpreting the image from the light; we are looking directly at the light source or object. You are fundamentally dishonest for saying that I am.

How does the "same light becomes a condition" and what does that mean? If light is not the carrier of information about the object then what is? And how does the information about the object get to the brain from lets say a star that is 10 light years away?

In other words, how can you see something you've never seen before? How can you see a star that is too far away to be detected by any other way than light? You can't hear a star, or smell it, or taste it or feel it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't quote what's not there.

I thought so much.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes the book is pretty consistantly bad throughout. I don't have as many posts as some of the others and I have tried to address some of the more general aspects of the work, such as motivation for writing by Lessans, and promoting by Peacegirl. I did try to clear up a few details but not nearly as well as some others. Also there were supposed to be some partys to celebrate a couple of the page number milestones, I tried to liven things up but most ignored the effort in favor of continuing the argument. I also got a bit annoying with "Are we there yet", you can ignore those. Lessans seemed to spend a lot of words thru the book bashing those he preceived as educated, and not giving him a fair hearing, but then at one point bragged that he was now considered a highly educated man, but he didn't indicate by whom. Might have been his pool hall buddies, but some of them may have been easily impressed. The criticism of academia was the one thing that was really consistant thru-out the book, I got the impression that he really regretted not having a good formal education, and his claim of having a better education informally was a bit of "sour grapes". As you or someone stated he could have very easily gone back and gotten the educaton he coveted with just a little effort, he appeared to have the means, but he rather took the course of dismissing formal education as not as good as his, probably because he didn't have one. His attitude probably contributed to his arrogance.

That's pretty funny. How did Lessans expect to sell any books? Who does he think reads books? Uneducated garbage collectors? It is the very people he keeps bashing. He expects them to keep reading on. But I wasn't bother as much by the bashing, it was his constant self aggrandizement. I just couldn't take it. I suppose it might have worked if Lessans was actually famous, but a nobody like Lessans needs to show a lot more humility. And it doesn't help one bit that the ratio of solid information to bullshit is so low. If he has something important to say he shouldn't bury the lead. People don't know Lessans, so his detailed accounts of how he came across this or that are just not interesting.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do I need? For you tell me that what I've posted so far is pretty bad? I don't know how that will help me. It seems like the feedback is going to be anything but positive. That's not encouraging.

Maybe that is because it is a bad book. Most first books are bad. Very few books of whats been written become popular. What would make you or Lessans think that the first effort would be any good. Especially if he had no formal education. It doesn't appear that Lessans was a natural communicator, because if he was he wouldn't need a book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, I've told you this before. The eye has a lens. It happens to be a flexible lens. We flex muscles in our eye to change the focal length. But if the muscle is not working the lens still has a focal length. Bring an object to the right distance for that focal length and an image will form.

It so happens that infants can't focus but if you place your face close to their face you will be in focus. However they will not be able to focus on things across the room. That is why in the videos of mimicking infants the faces are close to each other.

But even if you discount everything I've told you here, you can't say that infants can't see something. All you can say is that you and Lessans can't explain it.

And at a minimum you need to stop using infants as some kind of proof for your "efferent vision" idea because it doesn't fit.

So lets see how sincere you are about your open mindedness.

You certainly can't demand from us what you are not willing to do yourself.

You cannot just dismiss that the eyes are crossed. And following this established knowledge, if you try to see something close with your eyes crossed, can you make out an image? I don't know the reason that the infant in this video was able to mimic his parent, but don't jump ahead of yourself because that would not necessarily be accurate. Show me more than a couple of videos showing this same reaction and maybe you'll have a connection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe that is because it is a bad book. Most first books are bad. Very few books become popular. What would make you or Lessans think that the first effort would be any good. Especially if he had no formal education. It doesn't appear that Lessans was a natural communicator, because if he was he wouldn't need a book.

Natural.atheist, you are beginning to take too much of my time. You're beginning to bore me. If you want to learn more let me know. If you don't, keep your mouth closed because you haven't read the book, and what you are saying shows your ignorance, not your knowledge.