A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

GPS, Relativity, and pop-Science Mythology

[ChuckF]

so many layers in this li'l onion

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Epistemology tells us there are other ways which you are refusing to consider. Remember, dear, that the proof is in the pudding. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think. It’s always darkest before the dawn. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. Dead men tell no tales. All that glitters is not gold. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

The Distinguished Gentleman (Obama) - YouTube

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GPS, Relativity, and pop-Science Mythology

Another example of the fascinating work of crackpots working in isolation (or in groups). This reminds me a bit of the "Electric Universe" cult. If you think you don't have to make quantifiable predictions, you can make up whatever the fuck you want.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can do that Vivisectus but observation tells us nothing about the color blue and bad thoughts. It can be observed that conscience demands a justification to hurt others, even if the justification isn't readily obvious. Being hurt in childhood is often all it takes to become a killer. Remove the hurt and you remove the justification.

It is true that the awesome revelation has lain hidden behind the door that says "The color blue causes all evil", and that until now no-one was astute enough to discover (after 30 years of study, 8 hours a day, reading and thinking) the patterns in history that reveal the relations that I have now offered to you as my gift to mankind. I do so humbly, but it is kind of a big deal.

It can be observed, quite clearly (and astutely) that whenever evil thoughts occur, the color blue has been involved somehow.

Clear correlation!

It can also be observed that people who do bad things have consciences that do not stop them from doing bad things.

I am about to prove to you, undeniably and mathematically, that this is caused by the color blue.

Once blue things are limited as much as possible, people will no longer do bad things, because the very thing that allows them to think evil thoughts will have been removed. This will mean that all marriages will be perfect, since from the moment people get married, they will agree that hurting them is bad, and since bad thoughts simply won't happen anymore, they won't.

It also means that all marriages will have separate dinner tables. Eating dinner together, day after day, whether you feel like it or not, decreases interest and increases irritation as you have to watch them eat stuff. This is a bad thing, and since people won't be able to want bad things anymore, I will never have to watch some mouth-breather chomp his way open mouthed through some cereal ever again.

At some stage you might find yourself confused with these relations, in which case you will just have to read it again as it just means you did not get it.

There! I hope this cleared things up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No-one in the world had disproven that all jealousy is actually caused by the color green either, but that does not tell us much. The problem is that none of this has been proven. We cannot know if it is correct until we do.

Yet your book claims it HAS been proven - that it is in fact an undeniable fact.

By your own admission this is not correct.

What are you talking about Vivisectus? Once again, you are making up comparisons just to make it appear that Lessans' observations are just assertions that have nothing to back them up. His observations were spot on and can be tested. Bringing up these ridiculous analogies are just that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, in your book the narrator says that he observed something. In other words, he claimed conscience works a certain way. And then promised "undeniable evidence", which never appears.

I could say "I have observed, thought and read many books, and I have spotted a pattern in human behavior and history: all bad deeds are caused by the color blue!"

You would say "That is a bold claim. Can you prove it?"

If I were you, I would then say airily that I gave my observations and they hold, that blue causes bad thoughts which lead to bad deeds, and that you should be patient and not rush to judgement. If you carefully read what I said, you will see that blue causes bad thoughts. Also, this can be tested.

But none of that makes it true. It remains an unsupported claim. The same goes for your book.

Srsly, this is such a bad analogy that if this is all you have and you believe this proves Lessans wrong, we are done. It can easily be seen that people hurt others for reasons. They don't just grow up and desire to kill. Killers are bred. Remove the causes that lead them to desire to kill, and you don't breed a killer.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Vivisectus? Once again, you are making up comparisons just to make it appear that Lessans' observations are just assertions that have nothing to back them up. His observations were spot on and can be tested. Bringing up these ridiculous analogies are just that.

I am talking here about the claim in the book that it provides evidence. It doesn't: it just never gets back to the subject of evidence.

And without any sort of evidence, they are just claims. Speculations, that would need some sort of reason to believe they are correct in order to become more than that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In order to see that blue causes evil, you need to assume I am right about it. It is the only way to move forward. If you automatically assume it is wrong, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. I gave my observations, which are spot on. Why will you not even entertain the idea that it is correct, when it could solve all of our problems and save millions of lives?

Please stop mimicking me Vivisectus. I am asking you not to rush to judgment when I ask you to assume temporarily that he could be right. You have to read the entire text carefully and thinking he must be wrong right off the bat will prevent you from understanding why these principles are so powerful. You all have already stripped the book of its true meaning. Why don't you try something different for a change?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are probably doing it because it threatens your worldview or something. You are not open minded enough. You won't even entertain the thought and just dismiss it before it has even been tested! Call that scientific?

It has never been disproved. And it could easily be proven: all we need to do is simulate an environment with a minimal amount of blue in it. This could be done by people who give my idea the benefit of the doubt, and they could determine if this principle is valid.

I am not asking you to accept this discovery without a careful study of it. But you have not done that. Even if you have questions, if you read it carefully I am almost sure that many questions would be answered. You certainly would not throw the book out like it's trash.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can do that Vivisectus but observation tells us nothing about the color blue and bad thoughts. It can be observed that conscience demands a justification to hurt others, even if the justification isn't readily obvious. Being hurt in childhood is often all it takes to become a killer. Remove the hurt and you remove the justification.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is true that the awesome revelation has lain hidden behind the door that says "The color blue causes all evil", and that until now no-one was astute enough to discover (after 30 years of study, 8 hours a day, reading and thinking) the patterns in history that reveal the relations that I have now offered to you as my gift to mankind. I do so humbly, but it is kind of a big deal.

It can be observed, quite clearly (and astutely) that whenever evil thoughts occur, the color blue has been involved somehow.

Clear correlation!

It can also be observed that people who do bad things have consciences that do not stop them from doing bad things.

I am about to prove to you, undeniably and mathematically, that this is caused by the color blue.

Once blue things are limited as much as possible, people will no longer do bad things, because the very thing that allows them to think evil thoughts will have been removed. This will mean that all marriages will be perfect, since from the moment people get married, they will agree that hurting them is bad, and since bad thoughts simply won't happen anymore, they won't.

It also means that all marriages will have separate dinner tables. Eating dinner together, day after day, whether you feel like it or not, decreases interest and increases irritation as you have to watch them eat stuff. This is a bad thing, and since people won't be able to want bad things anymore, I will never have to watch some mouth-breather chomp his way open mouthed through some cereal ever again.

At some stage you might find yourself confused with these relations, in which case you will just have to read it again as it just means you did not get it.

There! I hope this cleared things up.

You've really lost your objectivity yet you think you're being objective. BTW, most irritations come from criticism from the outside world. When all criticism is removed, then how a person eats won't be nearly as irritating as you think. Also, when partners stop hurting each other in little irritating ways, the irritation you think will be a problem won't be. Lastly, if the way someone eats bothered you so much, you could eat at another table. There is no standard that says being married has to confine you to eating with your spouse and watching her chomp down her cereal, as you put it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Srsly, this is such a bad analogy that if this is all you have and you believe this proves Lessans wrong, we are done. It can easily be seen that people hurt others for reasons. They don't just grow up and desire to kill. Killers are bred. Remove the causes that lead them to desire to kill, and you don't breed a killer.

My claim and yours have the same level of supporting evidence, is what I am getting at. I am defending my claim in the exact same way you are defending yours. You are now trying to dismiss that by simply threatening to run away from the discussion, and repeating what you believe. I assume that is because you do not like the fact that there is little difference between my defense of the color blue as the color of evil, and your defense of the central tenet of your book.

Both require some sort of evidence to back them up if we are to feel confident that the claims are correct. Even if scientific evidence is not available, we need something to make us think this could be what is actually going on, to move it past the stage of a simple claim.

So far, you have not produced anything of the kind: all you have done is point out that sometimes people justify doing bad things (which they would do whether blame and conscience have the relationship you assert they have or not, in the same way that people do bad deeds in the current world, if blue causes it, and also if blue does not cause it) or asked us to simply assume it is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

My claim and yours have the same level of supporting evidence, is what I am getting at. I am defending my claim in the exact same way you are defending yours. You are now trying to dismiss that by simply threatening to run away from the discussion, and repeating what you believe. I assume that is because you do not like the fact that there is little difference between my defense of the color blue as the color of evil, and your defense of the central tenet of your book.

Both require some sort of evidence to back them up if we are to feel confident that the claims are correct. Even if scientific evidence is not available, we need something to make us think this could be what is actually going on, to move it past the stage of a simple claim.

So far, you have not produced anything of the kind: all you have done is point out that sometimes people justify doing bad things (which they would do whether blame and conscience have the relationship you assert they have or not, in the same way that people do bad deeds in the current world, if blue causes it, and also if blue does not cause it) or asked us to simply assume it is correct.

You are so out in left field by thinking you can do easily compare pigs can fly (blue colors cause bad thoughts) with Lessans' very very astute observations that it takes a justification to kill, I have nothing more to say to you. This thread is a lost cause.

[Vivisectus]

That is because you simultaneously want to believe the book is correct, but cannot plausibly deny that you have the same level of evidence as my examples. So you just run away from the discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is because you simultaneously want to believe the book is correct, but cannot plausibly deny that you have the same level of evidence as my examples. So you just run away from the discussion.

I have strong evidence that Lessans is right. Your reasoning is so off in an effort to prove Lessans' wrong, I cannot win because you are offering deceptive comparisons. You talk nonsense!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tremendous evidence than your flimsy examples of ridiculous correlation. Your reasoning is so off in an effort to prove Lessans' wrong that I cannot argue with appearances. You talk nonsense!

That is just content-free blustering - and a feeble excuse. Next up is generally some sort of claim that you are persecuted, that the other person is biased... anything to distract from the fact you really just have no answer.

But I love "tremendous evidence".... bigly Trumpian!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tremendous evidence than your flimsy examples of ridiculous correlation. Your reasoning is so off in an effort to prove Lessans' wrong that I cannot argue with appearances. You talk nonsense!

Yet in almost 6 years you have presented no actual evidence or concrete examples of observations, you have only made unsupported claims about how conscience works, and how the vision works. And your misuse of terms demonstrates that you don't really understand those terms.

You are also blaming faulty reasoning in the effort to prove Lessans wrong, when one only has to read the book and compare it to reality to see how incorrect Lessans was on any subject where he contradicted reality, so there is no reason to believe that he was correct about the few ideas he had that did not touch on physically based ideas.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can easily be seen that people hurt others for reasons. They don't just grow up and desire to kill. Killers are bred. Remove the causes that lead them to desire to kill, and you don't breed a killer.

Vivisectus, I cannot speak for your intriguing and very, very astute observations (more astute than astute, apparently) regarding blue light, but I just wanted to remind you to beware of peacegirl's Corrupted Text. peacegirl's Corrupted Text is Corrupt and must be rejected.

The Authentic Text, on the other hand, mathematically resolves the problem of killer-breeding through the boohog corollary - needless to say this is both undeniable and done in a manner that brooks no opposition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

My claim and yours have the same level of supporting evidence, is what I am getting at. I am defending my claim in the exact same way you are defending yours.

I disagree. His observations hold a lot more weight than your ridiculous assertion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are now trying to dismiss that by simply threatening to run away from the discussion, and repeating what you believe. I assume that is because you do not like the fact that there is little difference between my defense of the color blue as the color of evil, and your defense of the central tenet of your book.

That is exactly why I am ending this discussion. If you believe the comparison between Lessans' observations regarding conscience and your flimsy assertion that the color blue correlates with bad behavior, we're done. I've wasted too much time here already.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Both require some sort of evidence to back them up if we are to feel confident that the claims are correct. Even if scientific evidence is not available, we need something to make us think this could be what is actually going on, to move it past the stage of a simple claim.

When you say this it makes me know you did not study this work. You may have read some parts or maybe even skimmed the whole thing but you do not have the depth of understanding that you think you have.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far, you have not produced anything of the kind: all you have done is point out that sometimes people justify doing bad things (which they would do whether blame and conscience have the relationship you assert they have or not, in the same way that people do bad deeds in the current world, if blue causes it, and also if blue does not cause it) or asked us to simply assume it is correct.

You keep repeating that people would do bad things regardless of a different set of antecedent events, which is just not true. When the conditions of the environment change, so does the behavior. What those conditions comprise of is clearly delineated.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you say this it makes me know you did not study this work.

peacegirl, you make it difficult to study the work because you have Corrupted it! You cannot expect people to "study this work" when all you do is hawk your Corrupted Text on the internet at $41.00 a pop. That is why it is so important that I am compelled of my own free will to be the True Steward of the Authentic Text! We reject your Corrupted Text. We shall interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you.

[Vivisectus]

I disagree. His observations hold a lot more weight than your ridiculous assertion.

...to you. But not because it has any more evidence (scientific or otherwise) in favor of it.

Originally Posted by vivisectus

...I assume that is because you do not like the fact that there is little difference between my defense of the color blue as the color of evil, and your defense of the central tenet of your book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly why I am ending this discussion.

I know! But at least you honestly admit you are just deciding to deal with this problem by resolutely running away from it so you can pretend it does not exist.

If you believe the comparison between Lessans' observations regarding conscience and your flimsy assertion that the color blue correlates with bad behavior, we're done. I've wasted too much time here already.

I believe they both have the same amount of evidence to support them, which is not the same thing.

When you say this it makes me know you did not study this work. You may have read some parts or maybe even skimmed the whole thing but you do not have the depth of understanding that you think you have.

Completely irrelevant - does not change the fact both my claim and yours are not supported. You are merely trying to avoid the issue, which is that in order to be more than a claim, we need some reason to assume the claim is correct.

You keep repeating that people would do bad things regardless of a different set of antecedent events, which is just not true. When the conditions of the environment change, so does the behavior. What those conditions comprise of is clearly delineated.

Again: irrelevant, and not even accurate. The red herrings are sure in season with you at the moment, aren't they?

This has absolutely no bearing on the fact that what you keep repeating is a claim. Why should I assume that claim is correct? What do you base that claim on? Why does your narrator state explicitly it will soon show evidence... and then seemingly forgets to get back to that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...to you. But not because it has any more evidence (scientific or otherwise) in favor of it.

I know! But at least you honestly admit you are just deciding to deal with this problem by resolutely running away from it so you can pretend it does not exist.

I believe they both have the same amount of evidence to support them, which is not the same thing.

Completely irrelevant - does not change the fact both my claim and yours are not supported. You are merely trying to avoid the issue, which is that in order to be more than a claim, we need some reason to assume the claim is correct.

Again: irrelevant, and not even accurate. The red herrings are sure in season with you at the moment, aren't they?

This has absolutely no bearing on the fact that what you keep repeating is a claim. Why should I assume that claim is correct? What do you base that claim on? Why does your narrator state explicitly it will soon show evidence... and then seemingly forgets to get back to that?

Sorry Vivisectus but the evidence is clear in Chapters One and Two. He shows exactly why a blame filled environment allows a person to shift his responsibility, the very thing our penal system is trying to prevent, and why a no blame environment increases moral responsibility because one cannot shift his responsibility to something else as a justification. This is not an assertion. This is what actually occurs.

[Vivisectus]

Sorry Vivisectus but the evidence is clear in Chapters One and Two. He shows exactly why a blame filled environment allows a person to shift his responsibility, the very thing our penal system is trying to prevent, and why a no blame environment increases moral responsibility because one cannot shift his responsibility to something else as a justification. This is not an assertion. This is what actually occurs.

No, he claims THAT "a blame filled environment allows a person to shift his responsibility".

That is the problem you are trying to avoid: even you can only find a claim, not any sort of objective reason to believe that claim is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, he claims THAT "a blame filled environment allows a person to shift his responsibility".

That is the problem you are trying to avoid: even you can only find a claim, not any sort of objective reason to believe that claim is correct.

It is 100 percent correct that the advance knowledge that you will be blamed, if caught, is the justification that allows you to follow through with what you are contemplating. When questioned you can easily shift your responsibility to something else as the cause which allows your conscience to excuse your actions.

[Vivisectus]

Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yup, that is the claim. And you believe it, for reasons only known to yourself so far. But I ask the question: why should I assume that claim is correct?

And then I get a whole lot of red herrings and evasions and ultimately, like you did just now, a simple repetition of the claim with the assurance that it is 100% correct.

If anyone is going to be convinced by this book, you will need to back that claim up somehow. Just saying that it is like that is not enough.

Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not so Vivisectus. I am not just saying it. This phenomenon is absolutely backed up by observation. You have to be blamed or questioned in order to shift your responsibility.

But so is my claim that the color blue causes evil! I have observed it. Astutely, even. I just saw a pattern in human behavior, and perceived the relations that show blue causes the ability to do bad things.

So we have two claims, both backed up by observation. And yet you dismiss one, but not the other! How odd! Could it be that you determine which one you believe in some other way?