#13751  
Old 10-31-2011, 02:18 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Here's food for thought:

Question and examine everything. Conclusions
that sound logically persuasive may not be true, even if
you can't immediately prove those conclusions are not true,
even if you can't immediately prove what IS true instead,
even if you may never be able to prove to others' satisfaction
what IS true instead.

Don't discount commonsense, intuition that something is not
quite right, personal experience, and other practical experience.

Any of these routes to knowledge can be in error, but
if we rely only on authority, statistics, and
persuasive sounding logic, we will have given away much
of our power to detect error where that may occur.

Yes, and this is why most here discount Lessans ideas and disagree with them, they just don't smell right. And Peacegirl, no-one else here is relying on 'authority', just you.
Reply With Quote
  #13752  
Old 10-31-2011, 02:43 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light is coming from long ago and is giving us clues to a past event, but we're not seeing the actual galaxies as they existed [in my humble opinion]. I don't believe any of this rules out real time seeing.
Then quit ignoring the photo below (that I have posted 5 times) and tell me what this image is. Is it a clue? A relic? A remnant?

Sure looks like an "actual galaxy" to me. And since the light had to travel for 25+ million years to get here to create this image, it stands to reason this is the "actual galaxy as it existed".

The final image is 16,000 x 12,000 pixels.

This is an interesting website because it explains dark matter, and it could be the matter that is interacting with the light to give it it's composition and appearance. Just a thought so don't go ballistic.

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php
I know what dark matter is (in a very layperson general way), but what do you think it could do to the light to give light "its composition and appearance"? What does that even mean?

The reason it is "dark" is because it doesn't emit or scatter light...though it does have a role in gravitational lensing, I believe

Quote:
Dark Matter is simply matter that does not interact with light. We can detect it using gravitational methods (NewtonUs Laws), but not as light. Dark Matter neither absorbs nor radiates light. Dark Matter
Also, you dodged the question. Is that image an actual galaxy, or a relic, or a remnant, or a clue?

Last edited by LadyShea; 10-31-2011 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13753  
Old 10-31-2011, 02:59 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quoting Lessans to support the veracity of Lessans. Yeah, nothing at all fundie or faith based about that.
Reply With Quote
  #13754  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:40 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: A revolution in thought

How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book...

Etc.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (11-01-2011), davidm (10-31-2011), Dragar (10-31-2011), LadyShea (10-31-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-31-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-31-2011)
  #13755  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:44 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXX
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I think that if the discussion could move on to 'free will', 'determinism' and some of the other philosophical subjects it could revive some of the interest and attract a few more contributers.
Nope, because her and Lessans' claims are a dead loss there as well, and have already been shown to be so, by me, around, oh, page 20 or so. The argument commits a straighforward modal fallacy. Way back when I also linked to some papers on this; will re-link if the conversation returns to this subject. But she and Lessans are as hopelessly wrong here as they are on light and sight.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-31-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-31-2011)
  #13756  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:47 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXX
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
I never thought I'd actually have this conversation with anyone in real life.
Welcome to Peacegirlworld. :yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-31-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-31-2011)
  #13757  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:50 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXX
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Here's food for thought:

Question and examine everything. Conclusions
that sound logically persuasive may not be true, even if
you can't immediately prove those conclusions are not true,
even if you can't immediately prove what IS true instead,
even if you may never be able to prove to others' satisfaction
what IS true instead
.

Don't discount commonsense, intuition that something is not
quite right, personal experience, and other practical experience.

Any of these routes to knowledge can be in error, but
if we rely only on authority, statistics, and
persuasive sounding logic,
we will have given away much
of our power to detect error where that may occur.
The only one relying an authority here is you, and it's the "authority" of a dumb ass.

Amazing that you can be so ignorant and arrogant that after 550 pages, you still think scientific practices are appeals to authority. My zod, are you arrogant and dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #13758  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:52 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXX
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book...

Etc.

:catlady:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (11-01-2011)
  #13759  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:58 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

The discussion of the other "discoveries" will consist of

Lessans reasoning is fallacious and here's exactly how
No it isn't! It's spot on!
There is a modal fallacy and tautology and argument from assertion...etc.
No, you're a meanie

During the course of this, peacegirl will argue from adverse consequences, offer ad-hoc explanations to try to make Lessans ideas fit reality, appeal to non-existent future "proof" she thinks will vindicate Lessans, and dismiss any and all counterexamples and refutations on spurious grounds while simultaneously calling for "one single proof"
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (11-01-2011), davidm (10-31-2011), Dragar (10-31-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-31-2011)
  #13760  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:00 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I think that if the discussion could move on to 'free will', 'determinism' and some of the other philosophical subjects it could revive some of the interest and attract a few more contributers.
Nope, because her and Lessans' claims are a dead loss there as well, and have already been shown to be so, by me, around, oh, page 20 or so. The argument commits a straighforward modal fallacy. Way back when I also linked to some papers on this; will re-link if the conversation returns to this subject. But she and Lessans are as hopelessly wrong here as they are on light and sight.

I was not really thinking of Peacegirl and Lessans contribution, but of everyone elses, much like the debate on sight, Peacegirl/Lessans offer nothing but nonsense, but other posters have provided a great deal of useful and interesting dialogue.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ceptimus (10-31-2011), LadyShea (10-31-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-31-2011)
  #13761  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:25 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXX
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I think that if the discussion could move on to 'free will', 'determinism' and some of the other philosophical subjects it could revive some of the interest and attract a few more contributers.
Nope, because her and Lessans' claims are a dead loss there as well, and have already been shown to be so, by me, around, oh, page 20 or so. The argument commits a straighforward modal fallacy. Way back when I also linked to some papers on this; will re-link if the conversation returns to this subject. But she and Lessans are as hopelessly wrong here as they are on light and sight.

I was not really thinking of Peacegirl and Lessans contribution, but of everyone elses, much like the debate on sight, Peacegirl/Lessans offer nothing but nonsense, but other posters have provided a great deal of useful and interesting dialogue.
The Modal Fallacy

Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinsim

Foreknowledge and Free Will

All by Prof. Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Fraser University. If you Google him you will also find that he is the author of three splendid books on philosophy and each book can be downloaded for free. Nice stuff here; of course peacegirl won’t read any of it because (1.) I doubt she has the intellectual capacity and (2.) I know she doesn’t have the intellectual integrity, because the above-linked papers thoroughly refute Lessans’ “arguments” on free will and determinism.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-31-2011), Spacemonkey (10-31-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-31-2011)
  #13762  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light is coming from long ago and is giving us clues to a past event, but we're not seeing the actual galaxies as they existed [in my humble opinion]. I don't believe any of this rules out real time seeing.
Then quit ignoring the photo below (that I have posted 5 times) and tell me what this image is. Is it a clue? A relic? A remnant?

Sure looks like an "actual galaxy" to me. And since the light had to travel for 25+ million years to get here to create this image, it stands to reason this is the "actual galaxy as it existed".

The final image is 16,000 x 12,000 pixels.

<snipped image>
This is an interesting website because it explains dark matter, and it could be the matter that is interacting with the light to give it it's composition and appearance. Just a thought so don't go ballistic.

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php
I know what dark matter is (in a very layperson general way), but what do you think it could do to the light to give light "its composition and appearance"? What does that even mean?
Never mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The reason it is "dark" is because it doesn't emit or scatter light...though it does have a role in gravitational lensing, I believe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Dark Matter is simply matter that does not interact with light. We can detect it using gravitational methods (NewtonUs Laws), but not as light. Dark Matter neither absorbs nor radiates light. Dark Matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Also, you dodged the question. Is that image an actual galaxy, or a relic, or a remnant, or a clue?
It all depends on whether efferent vision is right. If it is, then light is not bringing the past (the image) to us. If efferent vision is wrong, then it is bringing a past image to us. As I said before, may the best man win. I believe it's too early to know even though everyone believes this has already been proved many times over.
Reply With Quote
  #13763  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I think that if the discussion could move on to 'free will', 'determinism' and some of the other philosophical subjects it could revive some of the interest and attract a few more contributers.
Nope, because her and Lessans' claims are a dead loss there as well, and have already been shown to be so, by me, around, oh, page 20 or so. The argument commits a straighforward modal fallacy. Way back when I also linked to some papers on this; will re-link if the conversation returns to this subject. But she and Lessans are as hopelessly wrong here as they are on light and sight.

I was not really thinking of Peacegirl and Lessans contribution, but of everyone elses, much like the debate on sight, Peacegirl/Lessans offer nothing but nonsense, but other posters have provided a great deal of useful and interesting dialogue.
The Modal Fallacy

Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinsim

Foreknowledge and Free Will

All by Prof. Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Fraser University. If you Google him you will also find that he is the author of three splendid books on philosophy and each book can be downloaded for free. Nice stuff here; of course peacegirl won’t read any of it because (1.) I doubt she has the intellectual capacity and (2.) I know she doesn’t have the intellectual integrity, because the above-linked papers thoroughly refute Lessans’ “arguments” on free will and determinism.
I don't care about Swartz' credentials. That should not even be part of the conversation, and for you to use that as some kind of proof is very telling. I read some of the papers. Lessans' proof has nothing to do with any of these modal fallacies. You can't stand that you could be wrong about Lessans, can you? Well you are, and it will come out whether it's in this thread or some other avenue. The truth always wins David.
Reply With Quote
  #13764  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
The discussion of the other "discoveries" will consist of

Lessans reasoning is fallacious and here's exactly how
No it isn't! It's spot on!
There is a modal fallacy and tautology and argument from assertion...etc.
No, you're a meanie

During the course of this, peacegirl will argue from adverse consequences, offer ad-hoc explanations to try to make Lessans ideas fit reality, appeal to non-existent future "proof" she thinks will vindicate Lessans, and dismiss any and all counterexamples and refutations on spurious grounds while simultaneously calling for "one single proof"
All of this comes down to is a vendetta because, like David, you don't like the implications. I am not trying to make his ideas fit. I am not at all appealing to non-existent future proof. The proof exists now, but you are too blind to even open your mind to see it. That's the crux of the problem in this forum. Lessans will be vindicated because he's correct and the facts will show this. The counterexamples used do not apply because Lessans' proof has nothing to do with a modal fallacy. Do you even remember where he showed his actual observations as to why we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction? He clearly demonstrated why man can only go in one direction from his observations, not from his logic. Therefore, this is not a tautology at all as if to say we do what we do because we do it, and therefore any choice we make is the right one. :(
Reply With Quote
  #13765  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:50 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/freewill1.htm#part2

peacegirl, see specifically 4. and 5. at the above link, and carefully consider this sentence from that section:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swartz
not everything that is actually true is necessarily true
Reply With Quote
  #13766  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:53 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It all depends on whether efferent vision is right. If it is, then light is not bringing the past (the image) to us. If efferent vision is wrong, then it is bringing a past image to us. As I said before, may the best man win. I believe it's too early to know even though everyone believes this has already been proved many times over.
Assuming, as you do, that efferent vision is correct. How would you describe the image of the Pinwheel Galaxy? Is the galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, something else?

Quit dodging the very direct question with your waffling!
Reply With Quote
  #13767  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:04 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
The discussion of the other "discoveries" will consist of

Lessans reasoning is fallacious and here's exactly how
No it isn't! It's spot on!
There is a modal fallacy and tautology and argument from assertion...etc.
No, you're a meanie

During the course of this, peacegirl will argue from adverse consequences, offer ad-hoc explanations to try to make Lessans ideas fit reality, appeal to non-existent future "proof" she thinks will vindicate Lessans, and dismiss any and all counterexamples and refutations on spurious grounds while simultaneously calling for "one single proof"
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
All of this comes down to is a vendetta because, like David, you don't like the implications.
I gave a precise and accurate description of your debate points over the last 550 pages of discussion peacegirl. There's no vendetta...and also see "you're a meanie" in my above prediction...lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not trying to make his ideas fit.
You brought up dark matter of all things trying to make real time seeing fit observed reality. You'll pull any old thing out of thin air to try to make a fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not at all appealing to non-existent future proof.
What do you think "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" means? What do you think you were saying all those times you said something along the lines of "When scientists run more tests Lessans will be proved right."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The proof exists now, but you are too blind to even open your mind to see it.
Show the currently existing proof then, as you have been asked to for months on end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans will be vindicated because he's correct and the facts will show this.
Right here is an appeal to non existent future proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The counterexamples used do not apply because Lessans' proof has nothing to do with a modal fallacy.
LOL dismissing counterexamples on spurious grounds

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Do you even remember where he showed his actual observations as to why we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction? He clearly demonstrated why man can only go in one direction from his observations, not from his logic.
He presented a logical argument, not a scientific observation

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Therefore, this is not a tautology at all as if to say we do what we do because we do it, and therefore any choice we make is the right one. :(
Of course it tautological.

Lessans argument is basically "We do what we do because we must do what do and we know this because we do it".

Last edited by LadyShea; 10-31-2011 at 06:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (11-01-2011), Dragar (10-31-2011)
  #13768  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:28 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCDVI
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Here's food for thought:

Question and examine everything. Conclusions
that sound logically persuasive may not be true, even if
you can't immediately prove those conclusions are not true,
even if you can't immediately prove what IS true instead,
even if you may never be able to prove to others' satisfaction
what IS true instead
.

Don't discount commonsense, intuition that something is not
quite right, personal experience, and other practical experience.

Any of these routes to knowledge can be in error, but
if we rely only on authority, statistics, and
persuasive sounding logic,
we will have given away much
of our power to detect error where that may occur.
The only one relying an authority here is you, and it's the "authority" of a dumb ass.

Amazing that you can be so ignorant and arrogant that after 550 pages, you still think scientific practices are appeals to authority. My zod, are you arrogant and dumb.
Thou shalt not take the Lord thy Zod's name in vain ...

__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (10-31-2011), davidm (10-31-2011), Kael (11-01-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-31-2011)
  #13769  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:41 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book...

Etc.
No, that's not what I'm saying. The accuracy can only come from the observations themselves. It's true that it's difficult to know whether an observation is accurate or not. I believe his observations regarding man's nature are correct because what he describes makes sense and there is nothing to counteract these observations. It's like saying I have observed for years and years that apples fall from a tree. How do we know that's correct if all apples haven't been tested? There comes a time where we can confidently conclude that our observations are correct and there are no exceptions to this universal law of gravity which causes apples to fall down instead of up or sideways. Unfortunately, even if Lessans is right it won't matter if everyone thinks he is wrong because this knowledge will never have a chance to be tested in real life.
Reply With Quote
  #13770  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:44 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

But everyone can observe that apples fall from trees, and apples always fall straight down, that's what makes it a valid observation. Which of Lessans observations can be observed by everyone, every single time?
Reply With Quote
  #13771  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:45 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How this occurs I really don't know.
Truer words were never written.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not an astronomer.
The hell you say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon.
What did the word "theory" ever do to deserve the abuse you've heaped upon it in this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not sure what they are.
If that's the case, what's your basis for unequivocally claiming that there are "many" of them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.
The reconciliation you're proposing would be apologetics.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (10-31-2011), LadyShea (10-31-2011), Spacemonkey (10-31-2011)
  #13772  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:51 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Notes on Free Will and Determinism - Prof. Norman Swartz

peacegirl, see specifically 4. and 5. at the above link, and carefully consider this sentence from that section:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swartz
not everything that is actually true is necessarily true
This comment makes no sense in terms of this natural law. There is no "necessarily true" until something becomes an actuality. In other words, it is only necessarily true that someone had to wear a certain hat because he did, in fact, wear that hat as the choice that was most preferable given his particular circumstances. There was no foreknowledge that said it is necessarily true that he must choose that hat before actually choosing it.
Reply With Quote
  #13773  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
But everyone can observe that apples fall from trees, and apples always fall straight down, that's what makes it a valid observation. Which of Lessans observations can be observed by everyone, every single time?
That's what I've been trying to tell you. The observations Lessans made are not as easily seen as apples falling from trees, but they are just as valid. We have a certain nature, and it is this nature that crosses all religious, political, gender, or denominational lines. That is the only reason he could say, with confidence, that this is a universal law. There are no exceptions just like there are no exceptions to the fact that apples fall down from trees, not up.
Reply With Quote
  #13774  
Old 10-31-2011, 06:00 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Notes on Free Will and Determinism - Prof. Norman Swartz

peacegirl, see specifically 4. and 5. at the above link, and carefully consider this sentence from that section:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swartz
not everything that is actually true is necessarily true
This comment makes no sense in terms of this natural law. There is no "necessarily true" until something becomes an actuality. In other words, it is only necessarily true that someone had to wear a certain hat because he did, in fact, wear that hat as the choice that was most preferable given his particular circumstances. There was no foreknowledge that said it is necessarily true that he must choose that hat before actually choosing it.
Then you don't understand the sentence or the discussion at the link. Additionally you don't seem to understand the correct usage of modal verbs like must, will, might, could, should at all, as I have mentioned previously.

What it says is that X did happen doesn't mean It was necessary for X to happen.

not everything that is actually true is necessarily true

Possible Truth: I will wear a blue hat
Actual truth: I wore a blue hat
Necessary Truth: I necessarily wore a blue hat

If there are additional possibilities, such as not wearing a hat at all, or wearing a red hat, then "I wore a blue hat" isn't a necessary truth in this instance, only an actual truth
Reply With Quote
  #13775  
Old 10-31-2011, 06:07 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's what I've been trying to tell you. The observations Lessans made are not as easily seen as apples falling from trees, but they are just as valid. We have a certain nature, and it is this nature that crosses all religious, political, gender, or denominational lines. That is the only reason he could say, with confidence, that this is a universal law. There are no exceptions just like there are no exceptions to the fact that apples fall down from trees, not up.
If nobody else can make the same observation then it is an unsupported assertion.

As for no exceptions, you have stated that certain mental illnesses and brain damage would result in exceptions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.05692 seconds with 14 queries