#25776  
Old 04-28-2013, 10:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

duplicate

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-28-2013 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25777  
Old 04-28-2013, 10:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

...continued from earlier post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I wanted to share a discovery. True discoveries don't need to be disputed. They need to be heard
LOL and you dare to call it science. That is a statement of religious faith if I ever heard one.
Quote:
You always seem to conveniently forget how many times I have said that genuine discoveries can be demonstrated, and this is no exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So let's see the demonstration! Edison had working prototypes of every invention. Mendel had his detailed notes of all experiments and results as well as his actual plants.

Einstein couldn't empirically demonstrate relativity, and he was refuted big time, as various scientists did their damnedest to prove him wrong. That's how discoveries are addressed in science.
We're talking about something that cannot be physically demonstrated (determinism), as in a working prototype, but nevertheless can be proven through observation and reasoning, something you don't believe in and therefore won't accept.

Quote:
I don't need you though to confirm 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 LadyShea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am very glad I don't need to confirm for you that X=X. It is not a scientific discovery, you see, that .5 is the same as .5
I don't even think you understand the point he was making.

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion
that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter
will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank,
title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as
a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with
knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its
veracity
. In other words, your background, the color of
your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what
you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli
(or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever
to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.


Quote:
You are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. You place yourself on some kind of intellectual pedestal.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nope, I don't place myself on any pedestal. You and I are on equal footing, here presenting our arguments and making our cases. I do think I am right though just as you do. If I am arrogant then you are equally so.
Nope, you are giving yourself way too much credit for being able to determine, using your standard of proof, whether something is true or not.

Quote:
It's no wonder you call everyone who is not like you "woos"
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I reserve the label woo for a specific type of credulous person who accepts psuedoscience as reality without any credible evidence.
But not all woo woos are like that. They wait to see if there is any possibility of credibility, something you don't do. That's why you could end up losing out by prematurely throwing out a claim instead of taking a wait and see attitude.

Quote:
You are also unjustifiably condescending to some of the most spiritually enlightened people on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
OMG, you found some woos to talk to now, and are trying to convince yourself that these are important people to get this knowledge out...am I right? Anyway, WTF does spiritual enlightenment have to do with scientific discoveries?
Just in the fact that people who are spiritually led tend to be softer in tone and manner, which ends up playing a big role in my ability to get across these principles before being condemned.
Reply With Quote
  #25778  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Vivisectus, I really do suggest you read over the first three chapters. His observations are so spot on it's ashame that you are going to dismiss this work and let it go without a second thought when I leave this thread.
Indeed: you believe them to be spot on, even though you agree that there is no evidence (in the book or outside of it) that conscience works that way.
I know that his explanation is correct because he describes to a t how people, in a punitive society, are able to get away with certain behaviors, and why they cannot act the same way under different environmental conditions. This universal law of conscience functions the same way no matter who you are or where you come from.

Quote:
No, that's not why I came to these forums. I came because I wanted to share a discovery. True discoveries don't need to be disputed. They need to be heard, and because of the type of venue this is (everyone's opinions are equal), you and others didn't like that you couldn't assert your opinion as being equal to Lessans. That's why you call him arrogant. It's very clear to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Exactly my point: you came to proselytize.
Call it what you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
People react to that badly, and we cannot blame them for that. Your approach not only disparages their ability to think and reason, but it is also a very dishonest way of arguing a point. As long as you persist in doing it, you will never earn the respect of the people you converse with.
Quote:
I am sorry if you don't like that your opinion doesn't count as much as his knowledge. That's why you won't read the book in earnest. The only way you will be happy is if I say I'm not sure if Lessans is right but I cannot lie; I believe he was right. I also realize that his claim about light and sight has turned people off from pursuing anything he might say. What ashame!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Why, we are barely worthy of licking his boots aren't we? :lolhog:

I think we are in perfect agreement: you do not treat the ideas in these books as philosophic or scientific material, but as absolute truth. Like religions.
There you go again, always turning back to your resentment of him due to personal reasons. You don't have to lick his boots, nor did he expect it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
At the same time, you are expecting everyone to just take your word and your fathers word for it and wait for some future evidence to emerge. More: you expect people to experimentally try the things explained in the books, at considerable expense and perhaps even risk, to see if things works the way the book says.
What risk are you talking about?

Quote:
No, his observations and his reasoning are epistemologically sound, but if you want more evidence, you'll have to wait until the new world is here. It's really not necessary to set up a simulation of the new world, but it could be done on a smaller scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But you already admitted that there is no evidence in the book regarding the way conscience works. If I am wrong, go ahead and show me it, and I will happily admit I was wrong.
I said that he didn't start off with a hypothesis, so there is no written data, but he does explain his observations very clearly. Do you even remember what he wrote? I only remember a few rebuttals coming from you other than arguing over the eyes, and that is fireman don't cause fires, therefore blaming doesn't cause crime. Bad logic because it was never stated that blaming does cause crimes. Here's another: if we allow our mates to have the right-of-way, they would become very selfish by going to play golf instead of going to the birth of their child. Do you know how utterly stupid this sounds? This is not at all what would happen; in fact, it would be the very opposite. And one more from you: there is no standard to determine what is considered a hurt or first blow since, in your estimation, it's all relative. You need to listen to Sam Harris' take on moral objectivity. Maybe that will clear things up for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
As for his reasoning being epistemologically sound, why don't you submit it to the philosophy forum I gave you the link to? They will be able to confirm or deny easily if you are right, and there is no fallacy in it, or if they agree with everyone else.
I did go to askaphilosopher.com, and called some people by phone. In fact, I am going to send a copy of the book to someone from there. I am not going to send the book to philosophers who aren't interested in determinism. As far as efferent vision, the only way to know if he was right is to do more empirical testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Apart from the fact that both you and the book fail to provide people with a reason to believe the book is correct, how on earth is anyone going to give this book enough credence to spend all that time, effort and money on it if it's sole proponent shrilly denounces every last critic as biased, stupid or malicious?
Quote:
The critics have been way too critical but part of the problem was my fault, for coming online (which I wouldn't have known until after the fact) and giving little excerpts of the book that can only cause more confusion and more questions. My father would have have understood why I attemped this as a means of getting the knowledge out there. But it backfired. How can this be a fair representation of what the book is about when the book has not been thoroughly studied, and don't you dare tell me that you, or anyone here, have thoroughly studied this work? It's no wonder people are being overly critical. And I'm not even talking about the eyes. That's a different ballgame altogether because it's already been established that the eyes are a sense organ, so it's that much harder to even open people's minds even a little bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
*Sigh* as usual you take no responsibility whatsoever and blame it all squarely on other people. Some example of the brave new world you are!

And for your information, I HAVE actually gone through the whole book and carefully read it. I even kept notes. It is tedious work because the style is so messy and rambling. It just do not think it is any good.
If you read it and took notes, why are there no questions? You can't just say it's rambling because I wrote it and I know what's in there. Maybe it's a little repetitive, but for good reason. I even put that in the foreword. After all, this is new knowledge. People just don't get a concept that fast. That's why going over it a few times helps people get a much better grasp of the material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You cannot imagine that such a thing can be, so you imagine I must be lying, or stupid, or biased, or just plain mean. You complain "no one reads the book!". Then when someone DOES read it, you complain "They did not read it properly because they disagree!" To you, understanding the book means you must agree with every word. But hey - nothing I can say will ever change that, I can see.
I still can't understand why you have no questions. Okay, so I'll ask you...what does he mean by greater satisfaction. Let's start there. Can you explain what it means in your own words and why this proves that man's will is not free?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Do you think people are blind to the way you go about arguing? Every time there is some evidence that conflicts with the book, you simply dismiss it. It is never good enough for you.
Quote:
Because I don't like the way you have rewritten history Vivisectus. How many times do I have to tell you that my father was not arrogant. And I cannot stand the way people don't ask questions with an open mind, but rather they tell me that all this is is an assertion, as if it's nothing. That is why I have to go elsewhere even if it's to woos; people who won't rush to judgment and won't call me names; they will give this book a chance. It makes my blood boil when I hear people telling me, in so many words, that this book is valueless when it is anything but.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Re-written history? Hardly. You do that all the time - even now.

When people say it is an assertion, they mean it is just your father saying something is a certain way without backing it up, without providing any reason to assume he is correct. I am afraid they have him bang to rights on that front. Unless you can show me a reason to believe conscience works as described int he book?

It is like saying the moon is a certain distance away from the earth without showing how you calculated it: pretty much useless.
No it is not useless. He had reasons; he didn't just say something without seeing it. Just because he didn't show data doesn't mean his description was inaccurate. How many times do I have say this? And no one has him bang to rights on any front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey, do keep going the way you have. The result will be the same regardless.
With this group, no doubt.

Quote:
Let it go Vivisectus. This was never meant to be an argument. I came here to share what I know to be true, 100% true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
My point exactly. The book is absolutely correct and there can be no argument about that: it is the final and absolute truth.

If observing reality seems to conflict with the book, then we are just looking at reality in the wrong way. "Something else must be going on".

You are a fundamentalist.
It's not that you are looking at reality in the wrong way. Reality is what it is. What you're not seeing is how reality could be made better by this knowledge. I don't think there's anyone that would not want to see a world where there is no more war, crime, hatred, poverty and misery for those who are afflicted.

Quote:
Each one of his discoveries is valid and sound; he just observed certain things that others didn't. But he always said that someone in the world might be making the same discoveries because these observations are based on reality, and, as such, are part of the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Personally I prefer to follow the evidence. It is not perfect, but it is better than to accept truth based only on the authority of some prophet, as you want me to do.

Now that you have apparently accepted that you are peddling a religion, and not sharing a scientific discovery, does it change your point of view in any way?
I am not peddling a religion, and I never used the word prophet in reference to my father. If you don't make an effort to understand what he wrote, you could take notes and highlight all you want, but it won't penetrate because you're not allowing yourself to hear or understand his words. So I'll ask you again, what did he mean by "greater satisfaction"? Do you even know?

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-28-2013 at 11:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25779  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:10 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I still can't understand why you have no questions. Okay, so I'll ask you...what does he mean by greater satisfaction. Let's start there. Can you explain what it means in your own words and why this proves that man's will is not free?
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25780  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I still can't understand why you have no questions. Okay, so I'll ask you...what does he mean by greater satisfaction. Let's start there. Can you explain what it means in your own words and why this proves that man's will is not free?
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
You're out the door Spacemonkey. You have no conception at all of Chapter One, absolutely nothing. It's astounding that after all this time this is what you come up with? That he didn't define it? I suggest you read these chapters over if you aren't in this thread just to hear your own voice. Otherwise, I can't help you.
Reply With Quote
  #25781  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:24 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Take it or leave it, but there's nothing more that I can tell you.
Why is that all you can tell me? Is it because you don't have the faintest idea of how efferent vision could possibly work?
Bump.
Understanding photons was not even how Lessans came to his conclusions.
Obviously, for his claims are inconsistent with even a basic understanding of photons, as you have discovered yourself. If he had understood photons he wouldn't have been able to make these claims. Nonetheless, for efferent vision to be possible, there must be some consistent account of the location and motion of photons on his account. Are you admitting that you don't have the faintest idea of how efferent vision can be made compatible with the nature and behaviour of photons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He didn't need to be a physicist to know that objects do not reflect the world; light reveals the world.
If he had known some basic physics he would have known that neither of these are true, and that objects reflect light. Hell, you don't even need to know physics for this - just the meaning of the word 'reflect'. Was this word missing from his seven dictionaries?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You can try and try to figure this out using your logic, but if your premises are off, then your conclusions will be off as well.
Which of my premises are off? My only premises were your own. So if one of them is off, then that means something is wrong with what you have been telling me about efferent vision. Don't you want to find out how to fix this and find a coherent model of efferent vision?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
To undertand the exact mechanism is secondary to understanding his reasons as to why he did not put the eyes in the same category as the other senses.
We know his stated reasons, and we have repeatedly explained to you his flawed reasoning on that front. His stated reasons were false claims about babies and dogs, which you have zero evidence for and which wouldn't even support his claims if they were true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All your effort to try to make this claim look contradictory is just wasted breath as far as I'm concerned. We are no better off than thousands of posts ago, and you are no closer to proving that Lessans was wrong in regard to any of his discoveries.
I'm not trying to make his claim look contradictory. I'm pointing out the incontrovertible fact that your claims about how you think efferent vision might work are contradictory. We are no better off, and you are no closer to working out how efferent vision might plausibly work, because you keep refusing to discuss the topic in any rational manner. If you wanted to make progress, you'd begin by answering instead of constantly evading my questions.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25782  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:27 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
You're out the door Spacemonkey. You have no conception at all of Chapter One, absolutely nothing. It's astounding that after all this time this is what you come up with? That he didn't define it? I suggest you read these chapters over if you aren't in this thread just to hear your own voice. Otherwise, I can't help you.
I've read his book, which is how I know that he never defined the term. We've been over this before. I asked you for several weeks to either show me where he defined the term or admit that he didn't. So why do you keep asking other people to explain to you aspects of Lessans' work that you don't understand yourself?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25783  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:33 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I really don't know what you're talking about. [...] I question your entire approach toward this problem, and I'm sorry to say it is wrong, not the model.
How could you possibly know my approach is wrong if you don't even know what I'm talking about? Does that make any sense to you?


Anyway, there are three components to my approach:

1. The general method of reductio ad absurdum (RAA), which states that anything which implies a contradiction or absurdity must be false.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


2. That your position entails that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from somewhere they were never located.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


3. That it is not possible for photons (or anything else) to ever have come from somewhere they never were.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


Please indicate which part of my approach you reject, or admit that your only objection to my approach is that you don't like it because it refutes your claims.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25784  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:34 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never said photons can come from somewhere they were never located.
You said the photons at the retina at 12:00 (when the Sun is first ignited) came from the Sun. They could never have been located at the Sun. Do you disagree with this?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25785  
Old 04-28-2013, 11:51 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:
I wanted to share a discovery. True discoveries don't need to be disputed. They need to be heard
LOL and you dare to call it science. That is a statement of religious faith if I ever heard one.
Quote:
You always seem to conveniently forget how many times I have said that genuine discoveries can be demonstrated, and this is no exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So let's see the demonstration! Edison had working prototypes of every invention. Mendel had his detailed notes of all experiments and results as well as his actual plants.

Einstein couldn't empirically demonstrate relativity, and he was refuted big time, as various scientists did their damnedest to prove him wrong. That's how discoveries are addressed in science.
We're talking about something that cannot be physically demonstrated (determinism), as in a working prototype, but nevertheless can be proven through observation and reasoning, something you don't believe in and therefore won't accept.
Then why did you say it could be demonstrated?

It cannot be proven unless you are using a very strange definition of proof. Concepts like this can be indicated, they can be agreed with or disagreed with, but cannot be proven.

I am a big believer in observation and reasoning. You have offered us no observations, only conclusions, and poor, fallacious reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't need you though to confirm 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 LadyShea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am very glad I don't need to confirm for you that X=X. It is not a scientific discovery, you see, that .5 is the same as .5
I don't even think you understand the point he was making.
I was responding to your statement that I need not confirm for you that half equals half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. You place yourself on some kind of intellectual pedestal.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nope, I don't place myself on any pedestal. You and I are on equal footing, here presenting our arguments and making our cases. I do think I am right though just as you do. If I am arrogant then you are equally so.
Nope, you are giving yourself way too much credit for being able to determine, using your standard of proof, whether something is true or not.
Of course I use my standards of proof, what standards do you use to determine whether something is true or not? Someone else's? How did you determine that Scientology is not true, for example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's no wonder you call everyone who is not like you "woos"
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I reserve the label woo for a specific type of credulous person who accepts psuedoscience as reality without any credible evidence.
But not all woo woos are like that.
If they are not like that then they aren't woos according to my criteria that I just posted and you responded to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They wait to see if there is any possibility of credibility, something you don't do.
If they refrain from accepting something as true until there is ample evidence, then they aren't who I am calling a woo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's why you could end up losing out by prematurely throwing out a claim instead of taking a wait and see attitude.
Whether I wait and see or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. I can change my mind later if evidence is presented indicating my initial disbelief was wrong. How am I losing out? If at some point down the road it turns out Lessans was right, will I be rejected from citizenship? Will I not benefit from the Golden Age of Peace because I was skeptical?


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are also unjustifiably condescending to some of the most spiritually enlightened people on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
OMG, you found some woos to talk to now, and are trying to convince yourself that these are important people to get this knowledge out...am I right? Anyway, WTF does spiritual enlightenment have to do with scientific discoveries?
Just in the fact that people who are spiritually led tend to be softer in tone and manner, which ends up playing a big role in my ability to get across these principles before being condemned.
So? What's that got to do with me?
Reply With Quote
  #25786  
Old 04-29-2013, 01:34 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
I know that his explanation is correct because he describes to a t how people, in a punitive society, are able to get away with certain behaviors, and why they cannot act the same way under different environmental conditions. This universal law of conscience functions the same way no matter who you are or where you come from.
You have just repeated what you believe. I already knew that is what you believe. However, the question was why you believe it to be correct. For this you have no answer.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Exactly my point: you came to proselytize.
Call it what you want.
That is what it is.

Quote:
There you go again, always turning back to your resentment of him due to personal reasons. You don't have to lick his boots, nor did he expect it.
:lolhog:

All I am trying to point out is that you value what your father said over and aboce what anyone else could ever say, just because it was him saying it.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
At the same time, you are expecting everyone to just take your word and your fathers word for it and wait for some future evidence to emerge. More: you expect people to experimentally try the things explained in the books, at considerable expense and perhaps even risk, to see if things works the way the book says.
What risk are you talking about?
The risk of your father being dead wrong and the result being chaos, of course.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But you already admitted that there is no evidence in the book regarding the way conscience works. If I am wrong, go ahead and show me it, and I will happily admit I was wrong.
I said that he didn't start off with a hypothesis, so there is no written data, but he does explain his observations very clearly. Do you even remember what he wrote? I only remember a few rebuttals coming from you other than arguing over the eyes, and that is fireman don't cause fires, therefore blaming doesn't cause crime. Bad logic because it was never stated that blaming does cause crimes. Here's another: if we allow our mates to have the right-of-way, they would become very selfish by going to play golf instead of going to the birth of their child. Do you know how utterly stupid this sounds? This is not at all what would happen; in fact, it would be the very opposite. And one more from you: there is no standard to determine what is considered a hurt or first blow since, in your estimation, it's all relative. You need to listen to Sam Harris' take on moral objectivity. Maybe that will clear things up for you.
You are actually flat out lying here. In your system blame, and the resulting ability to justify bad actions, cause people to be able to commit crimes. Have you forgotten your own credo?

As for the right of way system, leaving your partner alone at child-birth if you happen to feel like going golfing is perfectly justified according to this system. That is what I was pointing out - I was not saying anything about it being a result of it or anything like that. I was pointing out that it is not a very good system, as you can do very selfish things and still follow it perfectly.

As for firemen causing fires - there is no real difference between saying it and saying that blame allows bad behavior to happen through justification. It has exactly the same amount of evidence in favor of it. If you have some more evidence than for the firemen, please bring it up.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
As for his reasoning being epistemologically sound, why don't you submit it to the philosophy forum I gave you the link to? They will be able to confirm or deny easily if you are right, and there is no fallacy in it, or if they agree with everyone else.
I did go to askaphilosopher.com, and called some people by phone. In fact, I am going to send a copy of the book to someone from there. I am not going to send the book to philosophers who aren't interested in determinism. As far as efferent vision, the only way to know if he was right is to do more empirical testing.
Do let me know what they say. Or rather, let me make a prediction: anyone with a relevant degree will tell you it is a fallacy.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
*Sigh* as usual you take no responsibility whatsoever and blame it all squarely on other people. Some example of the brave new world you are!

And for your information, I HAVE actually gone through the whole book and carefully read it. I even kept notes. It is tedious work because the style is so messy and rambling. It just do not think it is any good.
If you read it and took notes, why are there no questions? You can't just say it's rambling because I wrote it and I know what's in there. Maybe it's a little repetitive, but for good reason. I even put that in the foreword. After all, this is new knowledge. People just don't get a concept that fast. That's why going over it a few times helps people get a much better grasp of the material.
It is rambling, messy, unclear. It takes ages to get to the point, and sometimes forgets to get to the point it set out to make altogether.

I see you are starting to admit you wrote it yourself?

Quote:
I still can't understand why you have no questions. Okay, so I'll ask you...what does he mean by greater satisfaction. Let's start there. Can you explain what it means in your own words and why this proves that man's will is not free?
But I do not think it proves mans will is not free.

I know what the book says, but I feel that is based on a mistake: it thinks that just because something did happen, it had to happen.

The reasoning is roughly like this: we cannot choose to not do anything, unless we cease existing. Whatever we do choose, is what brings us the most satisfaction, as determined by our make-up and history. Therefor whatever we do choose is what gives us the most satisfaction, even though we have no control over what determines what our greatest satisfaction will be.

However, what the writer does not seem to notice is that there is a problem with this kind of reasoning: it is something that is only ever determined after the fact, and yet here it is used to say something about our choices before they have been made. That makes no sense: it is like saying that whatever has happened had to happen because it happened.

It is tantamount to saying "we end up choosing that which we end up choosing".

But that is not even the really vital part. We can argue about different interpretations of determinism, and about the possible fallacy in the book, all we want: even if I accepted your point entirely, it would make no difference unless we can prove that conscience works the way the book says it does.

Quote:
No it is not useless. He had reasons; he didn't just say something without seeing it. Just because he didn't show data doesn't mean his description was inaccurate. How many times do I have say this? And no one has him bang to rights on any front.
Right. He was just right, and we just have to take that on faith. I prefer to follow the evidence: I am not big on blind faith.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey, do keep going the way you have. The result will be the same regardless.
With this group, no doubt.
It did not work on any group in the past decade. And I have found quite a few you tried it on. But hey - hope springs eternal eh?

The problem is that the book is both short on evidence, clarity, and appeal. You can get away with not having one or two of these, but not all three.

Quote:
It's not that you are looking at reality in the wrong way. Reality is what it is. What you're not seeing is how reality could be made better by this knowledge. I don't think there's anyone that would not want to see a world where there is no more war, crime, hatred, poverty and misery for those who are afflicted.
In order for reality to be improved the book needs to be correct first. And that is where the problem lies: in order to think the book is correct you need to ignore reality, because it conflicts with what is said in the book.

Quote:
I am not peddling a religion, and I never used the word prophet in reference to my father. If you don't make an effort to understand what he wrote, you could take notes and highlight all you want, but it won't penetrate because you're not allowing yourself to hear or understand his words. So I'll ask you again, what did he mean by "greater satisfaction"? Do you even know?
No, you merely expect people to consider him a prophet.

The book is not very complicated - it is just badly written, full of self-congratulatory embellishments and grandiose language. I bet you could strip the book to 1/4th of the size without removing a single concept or actual explanation.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-29-2013)
  #25787  
Old 04-29-2013, 02:37 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
No, you merely expect people to consider him a prophet.

Really, I think that she considers him to be a profit.
Reply With Quote
  #25788  
Old 04-29-2013, 05:01 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
...the writing style is certainly different.
Is "different" a synonym for atrocious?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #25789  
Old 04-29-2013, 10:23 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I think it is clear that everyone here has spotted quite a few flaws in this book. You disagree that these flaws exist, but you have been unable to convince anyone that this is the case.

Whatever the case may be, there are a few lessons to take away. One of them is that in it's current form, the book does not seem to be quite so overwhelmingly convincing as you seem to believe.

There seems to be a huge gap between the way you experience the book, or sometimes just your presentation of the ideas in it, and the way every single other person experiences it.

Perhaps it is time to examine why this is? Surely not every single person you meet can be a biased, close-minded meany.
Reply With Quote
  #25790  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
You're out the door Spacemonkey. You have no conception at all of Chapter One, absolutely nothing. It's astounding that after all this time this is what you come up with? That he didn't define it? I suggest you read these chapters over if you aren't in this thread just to hear your own voice. Otherwise, I can't help you.
I've read his book, which is how I know that he never defined the term. We've been over this before. I asked you for several weeks to either show me where he defined the term or admit that he didn't. So why do you keep asking other people to explain to you aspects of Lessans' work that you don't understand yourself?
You have not read this book as carefully as you think Spacemonkey, and that's the problem. You are coming off like an arrogant person right now and I'm losing all desire to talk to you. Let me ask you a question: Are you 100% positive you are right, or is there the slightest possibility that your reasoning isn't up to snuff and you could be wrong? Would you put your hand to the chopping block to prove how right you are? It's a yes or no question. Just answer it:

Are you that positive? [Yes or No]
Reply With Quote
  #25791  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:46 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
You're out the door Spacemonkey. You have no conception at all of Chapter One, absolutely nothing. It's astounding that after all this time this is what you come up with? That he didn't define it? I suggest you read these chapters over if you aren't in this thread just to hear your own voice. Otherwise, I can't help you.
I've read his book, which is how I know that he never defined the term. We've been over this before. I asked you for several weeks to either show me where he defined the term or admit that he didn't. So why do you keep asking other people to explain to you aspects of Lessans' work that you don't understand yourself?
You have not read this book as carefully as you think you have Spacemonkey, and that's the problem. You are coming off like an arrogant person right now and I'm losing all desire to talk to you. Let me ask you a question: Are you that positive you are right, or is there the slightest possibility that your reasoning isn't up to snuff and you could be wrong? Would you put our hand to the chopping block to prove how right you are?
I'm completely certain that I'm right when I say that Lessans never defined the term 'greater satisfaction'. I know this because I've read the book. You know I'm right about that too, which is why you're desperately trying to avoid this point in your response.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25792  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I think it is clear that everyone here has spotted quite a few flaws in this book. You disagree that these flaws exist, but you have been unable to convince anyone that this is the case.

Whatever the case may be, there are a few lessons to take away. One of them is that in it's current form, the book does not seem to be quite so overwhelmingly convincing as you seem to believe.

There seems to be a huge gap between the way you experience the book, or sometimes just your presentation of the ideas in it, and the way every single other person experiences it.

Perhaps it is time to examine why this is? Surely not every single person you meet can be a biased, close-minded meany.
Vivisectus, in all this time, we have hardly gotten through Chapter One, so you cannot use the fact that people have not experienced the book the way I have as a reason to dismiss the legitimacy of this knowledge. There is a huge gap but not for the reasons you imagine. I don't think you're a meany althought the things people have said about me and about Lessans are very hurtful and are unjustified.
Reply With Quote
  #25793  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:51 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
You're out the door Spacemonkey. You have no conception at all of Chapter One, absolutely nothing. It's astounding that after all this time this is what you come up with? That he didn't define it? I suggest you read these chapters over if you aren't in this thread just to hear your own voice. Otherwise, I can't help you.
I've read his book, which is how I know that he never defined the term. We've been over this before. I asked you for several weeks to either show me where he defined the term or admit that he didn't. So why do you keep asking other people to explain to you aspects of Lessans' work that you don't understand yourself?
You have not read this book as carefully as you think you have Spacemonkey, and that's the problem. You are coming off like an arrogant person right now and I'm losing all desire to talk to you. Let me ask you a question: Are you that positive you are right, or is there the slightest possibility that your reasoning isn't up to snuff and you could be wrong? Would you put our hand to the chopping block to prove how right you are?
I'm completely certain that I'm right when I say that Lessans never defined the term 'greater satisfaction'. I know this because I've read the book. You know I'm right about that too, which is why you're desperately trying to avoid this point in your response.
You didn't answer the question Spacemonkey, which again shows me how arrogant you really are. :fuming:
Reply With Quote
  #25794  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:54 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You didn't answer the question Spacemonkey, which again shows me how arrogant you really are. :fuming:
The question wasn't even in your post at the time I replied to it.

And how much of a hypocrite can you possibly be to complain that I'm not answering your questions?????

The answer is no, I would not bet my own limbs on being right. That would be stupid.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25795  
Old 04-29-2013, 01:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I still can't understand why you have no questions. Okay, so I'll ask you...what does he mean by greater satisfaction. Let's start there. Can you explain what it means in your own words and why this proves that man's will is not free?
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
This shows me what a fraud you are. You are not the deep thinker you claim to be, even with all your credentials. Go back to where you belong: with people who all feel they know it all because they have a philosophy degree. There's plenty of people around who will agree with you and you can feel wonderful that you have your comrades supporting you and telling you that your reasoning is beyond reproach. Stop coming here, okay? :wave:
Reply With Quote
  #25796  
Old 04-29-2013, 01:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You didn't answer the question Spacemonkey, which again shows me how arrogant you really are. :fuming:
The question wasn't even in your post at the time I replied to it.

And how much of a hypocrite can you possibly be to complain that I'm not answering your questions?????

The answer is no, I would not bet my own limbs on being right. That would be stupid.
Yes, it would be stupid, so stop acting stupid, okay? Take one thought at a time without attacking this knowledge as if you know it all. That's a requirement at this point, otherwise, I'm truly done. I will chalk this up to talking to people who are so ignorant in the guise of being smart that I could not break through.
Reply With Quote
  #25797  
Old 04-29-2013, 01:42 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, you don't know what Lessans meant by greater satisfaction. Hell, neither did he. Nowhere in his book does he define this term. Why do you keep asking other people to explain to you the things you are trying to teach but don't understand yourself?
This shows me what a fraud you are.
How does my response show you that? Am I wrong to say that Lessans never defined 'greater satisfaction'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Stop coming here, okay? :wave:
You first.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25798  
Old 04-29-2013, 01:45 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Where did those photons at the retina come from?

Do you still think they could have come from the Sun?

Do you think they could have come from the Sun despite never having been located there?

Or do you think there is some time when they could have been located at the Sun?

Do you think it is reasonable of you to keep ignoring this problem?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-29-2013)
  #25799  
Old 04-29-2013, 02:28 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...That's a requirement at this point, otherwise, I'm truly done.
Again?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25800  
Old 04-29-2013, 03:18 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You didn't answer the question Spacemonkey, which again shows me how arrogant you really are. :fuming:
The question wasn't even in your post at the time I replied to it.

And how much of a hypocrite can you possibly be to complain that I'm not answering your questions?????

The answer is no, I would not bet my own limbs on being right. That would be stupid.
Yes, it would be stupid, so stop acting stupid, okay? Take one thought at a time without attacking this knowledge as if you know it all. That's a requirement at this point, otherwise, I'm truly done. I will chalk this up to talking to people who are so ignorant in the guise of being smart that I could not break through.
How is this time's truly done different than your other truly dones? How do we know when you are very most sincerely truly done?
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 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.25442 seconds with 14 queries