A revolution in thought

[koan]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

The sleeping part had apparently been a mistake, so the corrected version is wide awake baby, even though neither version works. Unlike most typos, the editor will argue for months or years before conceding there was a typo. Too bad Lessans wrote his notes in English or she could have claimed it was a translation error. That would have sounded a little more feasible.

The shopping problem set up is funny because charging customers to leave a store is a pretty silly scenario. Nevertheless,
I calculated the problem as
2(a+1)+1=b
2(b+1)+1=c
2(c+1)+1=d etc until you've got the answer to k
and a=0

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

The sleeping part had apparently been a mistake, so the corrected version is wide awake baby, even though neither version works. Unlike most typos, the editor will argue for months or years before conceding there was a typo. Too bad Lessans wrote his notes in English or she could have claimed it was a translation error. That would have sounded a little more feasible.

The shopping problem set up is funny because charging customers to leave a store is a pretty silly scenario. Nevertheless,
I calculated the problem as
2(a+1)+1=b
2(b+1)+1=c
2(c+1)+1=d etc until you've got the answer to k
and a=0

Here comes the female version of big shot. The scenario was meant to show one thing, and one thing only. We can figure something out given enough clues. You are oblivious because you have myopia.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

0=1+x????

LUV algebra!

X = - 1 , - 1 + 1= 0

[ceptimus]

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

Before she enters each shop, she has to be holding an odd amount of dollars: that way, after paying the one dollar to get in, she'll be left with an even amount of dollars and can so spend half of them without splitting a dollar. It's clear that she can't split a dollar as after two such splits she'd be left with either 25 or 75 cents plus a whole number of dollars and then she'd be unable to spend exactly half of that.

After visiting ten shops, she'll have paid $20 in entrance and exit fees. In the last shop she spends one dollar, in the next-to-last she spends four dollars, and in the one before that she spends ten dollars - you can see that to work out the amount spent in each preceding shop you double the amount spent in the following shop and then add two. The amounts spent are:

1, 4, 10, 22, 46, 94, 190, 382, 766, 1534

Add those together and add on the twenty dollars of entrance and exit fees and you get $3069 which is the same answer I got with the (I think) simpler method I described previously.

Or you can pretend there was an eleventh shop, double and add two the last number in the chain to find that she would have then spent $3070 in the first shop so after paying the dollar to get out, she'd also hold $3069 to deal with the remaining ten shops.

[ceptimus]

Here is a link to the entry in The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences that is relevant to this puzzle: A068156. Ignore the first entry (1). The remaining integers give the number of dollars needed to visit 1, 2, 3, ... shops: 3, 9, 21, ...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here comes the female version of big shot. The scenario was meant to show one thing, and one thing only. We can figure something out given enough clues. You are oblivious due to your own myopathy.

Except he came up with the wrong answer to his own problem. So it didn't show that at all did it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

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.

Even though your bedside manner sucks, I listen to what people have to say. Just because you saw that "first" citizen was mentioned more than once does not mean you carefully read the book. I don't need you to bring logic and reasoning into my life. What arrogance!

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?

Originally Posted by koan

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.

He only gave that example to explain what he meant by working a problem backwards. This was not meant to prove his math ability.

Originally Posted by koan

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.

Maybe if you would stop nitpicking you would see that your criticisms have nothing to do with the validity of this discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mean a sleeping baby with its eyes wide open

A baby can sleep with its eyes open. Maybe he could have given a better example, but again, this does not negate his discovery regarding efferent vision. It's so easy to criticize, isn't it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There was also molecules of light (simply chose the wrong word, nothing wrong there)

No, he was not in the field so he used the wrong word, but you got the point. What's your point? That he was wrong about his discovery because of this triviality? And it is a triviality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There was also trillions upon trillions of babies being born (simple miscalculation, nothing wrong there)

That was probably off the top of his head. He was not anal that way. It was a small ad written on an 8 x 11 notepad, is all. It was not in the book. Stop picking on him. This has nothing to do with his discovery, so stop trying to make it appear like it does.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There was also no afferent structures in the eye (he didn't really mean that

Yes he did, and if efferent vision is true, he would be correct that we do not see in the brain.

The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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)

I told you I did not add that. Why don't you believe me?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

]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.

I added that part actually, but it was not necessary, that's why I took it out. I have to be careful about being politically correct or people will attack me like you did.

[LadyShea]

I told you I did not add that. Why don't you believe me?

I don't believe you because you exaggerate, lie and weasel all the time. You are not credible. I don't believe you because you can't produce the original text, and you used the passage without the phrase for over 7 years...you say you suddenly "found it" but couldn't tell me where or when.

Originally Posted by Lessans

there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ (this organ refers to the eyes).

The rods and cones are afferent photoreceptors...they are afferent nerve endings, and there are millions of them in the eye. Do you deny the eyes contain afferent nerve endings?

You think it was about political correctness? What does that even mean in your opinion?

How about just correctness? How about it making sense? How about it not being some bullshit unsupported assertion?

People that charge reasonable attacks as being about "political correctness" tend to be bigots in my experience. Racists and homophobes, mostly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here comes the female version of big shot. The scenario was meant to show one thing, and one thing only. We can figure something out given enough clues. You are oblivious due to your own myopathy.

This is someone who supposedly had mathematical ability and who goes on and on about mathematical relations. Yet you are about to publish a book where he gives the WRONG ANSWER to a simple arithmetical problem that anyone can easily calculate for themselves. And you don't even care enough to check to see whether or not you accurately copied his own actual answer when you wrote up your copy of his book, even though it will make him look like a complete moron to the entire world if you made a mistake.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except he came up with the wrong answer to his own problem. So it didn't show that at all did it?

You are so excited that he made a mistake, I can feel your ecstasy through the computer screen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is someone who supposedly had mathematical ability and who goes on and on about mathematical relations. Yet you are about to publish a book where he gives the WRONG ANSWER to a simple arithmetical problem that anyone can easily calculate for themselves. And you don't even care enough to check to see whether or not you accurately copied his own actual answer when you wrote up your copy of his book, even though it will make him look like a complete moron to the entire world if you made a mistake.

Don't act like you care because you don't. You're hoping that he was wrong so you can be right. I just found it in one of his books and it said, $3,060, but if it's wrong, it was a typo because this type of math problem wasn't difficult for him.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so excited that he made a mistake, I can feel your ecstasy through the computer screen.

You don't know yet that he made a mistake. You're actually just assuming he did without bothering to check what he wrote in his own work. It could easily be the case that YOU made the mistake when transcribing his work, in which case it is an easy typo for you to fix. You can't even be bothered to check if Lessans got the right answer or not, and are apparently quite happy to make him look like an idiot to all his readers by publishing the incorrect answer as his own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't act like you care because you don't. You're hoping that he was wrong so you can be right.

What the hell is wrong with you? If Lessans had the right answer, don't you think it is worth checking to make sure you haven't made the mistake yourself while copying his work? Do you want to make him look like an idiot by publishing the wrong answer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't believe you because you exaggerate, lie and weasel all the time. You are not credible. I don't believe you because you can't produce the original text, and you used the passage without the phrase for over 7 years...you say you suddenly "found it" but couldn't tell me where or when.

That's because one of his books had "other than light" in it, and the other didn't. I was compiling 7 of his books LadyShea. I don't care if you believe me; I know I didn't lie and my conscience is clear.

Originally Posted by Lessans

there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ (this organ refers to the eyes).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The rods and cones are afferent photoreceptors...they are afferent nerve endings, and there are millions of them in the eye. Do you deny the eyes contain afferent nerve endings?

I'm not getting back into this. The optic nerve has impulses, but what is happening in the brain in relation to those impulses is being challenged. Time will tell if he is right or not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I added that part actually, but it was not necessary, that's why I took it out. I have to be careful about being politically correct or people will attack me like you did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think it was about political correctness? What does that even mean in your opinion?

How about just correctness? How about it making sense? How about it not being some bullshit unsupported assertion?

Okay, I can admit it was an unsupported assertion. Maybe there is no environmental influence as to why some [not all] people become gay. I think you are overreacting because that remark had nothing to do with my personal feelings toward gays.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People that charge reasonable attacks as being about "political correctness" tend to be bigots in my experience. Racists and homophobes, mostly.

Political correctness in my view means being careful how you say something because it might be seen as insensitive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't know yet that he made a mistake. You're actually just assuming he did without bothering to check what he wrote in his own work. It could easily be the case that YOU made the mistake when transcribing his work, in which case it is an easy typo for you to fix. You can't even be bothered to check if Lessans got the right answer or not, and are apparently quite happy to make him look like an idiot to all his readers by publishing the incorrect answer as his own.

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

I just told you I found $3,060 in his book.

What? Where did you tell me this? The last thing you told me was that you were refusing to even look!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You don't know that. You are again just assuming on faith that it was a typo rather than a mistake. You don't know that he knew the correct answer. You still don't even know what the correct answer is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Yes, a typo is possible. But you don't know whether it was a typo or a mistake, because all you have is the final result that he typed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, he only had that example 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.

Exactly. Yet another of Lessans' claims you have taken on faith without bothering to check to see if it is true. If you don't know the correct answer then you might have to remove the whole passage from his book. Or you could work out the answer for yourself. It isn't exactly difficult.

His whole point was that the accuracy of his arguments could be established mathematically in the same way as one can calculate backwards through his shopping example. If you can't actually do that yourself, then how can you be sure that you've accurately determined the correctness of the mathematical relations involved in his arguments?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so excited that he made a mistake, I can feel your ecstasy through the computer screen.

lol, you are projecting your histrionics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because one of his books had "other than light" in it, and the other didn't. I was compiling 7 of his books LadyShea. I don't care if you believe me; I know I didn't lie and my conscience is clear.

It was written in a completely different sentence and context according to you.

Who said anything about the optic nerve? Who said anything about the brain an impulses? 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?

Of course it has to do with your feelings towards gays. You thought homosexuality was somehow a consequence of living in a world with blame in it, though you never explained what blame had to do with anything.

That's feelings about homosexuals...you thought they would be cured or eradicated or whatever in the wonderful new world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Political correctness in my view means being careful how you say something because it might be seen as insensitive.

Then that would be sensitivity, not political correctness

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol, you are projecting your histrionics.

Wouldn't that be awsome though? Think of the money to be made from projecting ecstasy through the computer screen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? Where did you tell me this? The last thing you told me was that you were refusing to even look!

You don't know that. You are again just assuming on faith that it was a typo rather than a mistake. You don't know that he knew the correct answer. You still don't even know what the correct answer is.

Yes, a typo is possible. But you don't know whether it was a typo or a mistake, because all you have is the final result that he typed.

Exactly. Yet another of Lessans' claims you have taken on faith without bothering to check to see if it is true. If you don't know the correct answer then you might have to remove the whole passage from his book. Or you could work out the answer for yourself. It isn't exactly difficult.

His whole point was that the accuracy of his arguments could be established mathematically in the same way as one can calculate backwards through his shopping example. If you can't actually do that yourself, then how can you be sure that you've accurately determined the correctness of the mathematical relations involved in his arguments?

Because I can see the correctness of his argument, that's why. It is very clear to me that he is correct. I never was into math so I left that up to him. I had no reason to doubt his ability Spacemonkey.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Wouldn't that be awsome though? Think of the money to be made from projecting ecstasy through the computer screen.

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

[peacegirl]

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

Cambridge Psychotherapy Institute Glossary by Dr. Peter Gill and Deborah Bohnert. Excerpted from the Cambridge Psychotherapy Institute Glossary by Dr. Peter Gill and Deborah Bohnert.

DETERMINISM - this is a concept that deals with one of the most fundamental
questions of human nature; namely, whether or not man's behavior, thinking, and feeling are driven by something called free will. This issue, basic to all religions and psychologies, is settled by many thoughtful people by the assumption that all of man's behavior, thoughts and feelings, are forced by various stimuli impinging upon him. This is the assumption of determinism. Those of us who believe in 100% determinism note that the concept of free will is difficult or impossible to define meaningfully.

For the most part the world agrees that all objects and events are determined except that, for some reason, the human mind is exempted. It seems to us that free will, to the extent that it means that objects and events occur without cause (determinants) is a statement or concept of chaos. If things happen for no reason, no cause, no determinants, then events and people become totally unpredictable and chaos reigns. This is clearly not the case. We see no rational, scientific basis for that exception. Free will, if it has any significant meaning other than chaos, rests on the assumption that all objects and events are either good or bad. This premise leads us into a whole thicket of reward and punishment, heavens and hells, condemnation or adulation, guilt, shame, contempt, pride - a host of mean destructive attitudes and behaviors among humans. In short, belief in free will promotes man's viciousness to man.

The belief that man's feelings, thoughts and behaviors are all forced on him by one or more determinants leads to a very different and much more positive constructive view of human nature. If it is indeed true that total determinism is in fact the basis for all human events, physical and psychological both, then everyone is totally respect worthy, without having to earn it, everyone is basically innocent, there is no basis for shame, pride, contempt, guilt etc., and no man can be condemned as bad. If determinism is truly a fundamental fact of human existence, negative consequences must be separated out from punishment because there is never a rational basis for punishment.

People cannot be good or bad they can only be more or less healthy or more or less ill. Behaviors, thoughts and feelings may be termed good or bad depending upon whether or not they promote human welfare and happiness. But since they are determined or forced on people the people themselves can not be considered good or bad. In other words, bad behavior, for example, is to be seen as a symptom of illness, negative determinants, and is therefore to be treated not punished. Prisons and jails must be abolished and locked hospital wards substituted for them as needed.

One of the charming attributes of free will is that it deliciously suits the needs of the abusers to blame the victim. When things go wrong at home the parents can blame the children and similarly blame is thus displaced in industry, commerce, churches, government etc. When viewed in this fashion, the concept of free willcan be understood to be at the center of a circular self-reinforcing process, to wit: the parent believing in free will and making a significant mistake in the parenting of his children is then exposed to the potential to feel shame and guilt. Transferring the blame on to the child protects the parents from feeling the shame and guilt, the child then feels the shame and guilt and learns the lesson of free will. The enormous value of the concept of free will in relieving parental shame and guilt is the only and overriding reason, in our opinion, that the lie of free will is well nigh universally taught to all children. If and when we can convince parents of total determinism so they are freed from their own shame and guilt they will no longer need to teach the vicious lie of free will to the world's children. A new world will be born.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I can see the correctness of his argument, that's why. It is very clear to me that he is correct. I never was into math so I left that up to him. I had no reason to doubt his ability 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?