#40926  
Old 08-20-2014, 12:57 AM
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 didn't alter his writing. I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned the dog part twice. am not the co-author. I am the compiler; that's it
Why did YOU mention anything twice if you did not write the book? If you didn't alter his writings, then you shouldn't have written or mentioned anything at all. Of course, you have your own definition of alter I guess. Also, mere compilers don't write and mention things in a book, as they compile. You did more than that, so no that's not it.

You are so dishonest.
I don't think you're correct. A person who owns the rights to a particular work can compile it in his own way with some creative license, as long as he doesn't change the basic concept. That's why copyrighting it would be redundant. This is not my definition. This is the definition used by the copyright office.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it honest :lol:

The term "compile" means to assemble information collected from other sources.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014)
  #40927  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:00 AM
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=LadyShea;1201934]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Events that are happening in the present become events that happened in the past. The present is just a concept as well, it doesn't exist physically either.
Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
An event is happening in the present...that doesn't make the present more than an immaterial concept.
And immaterial concepts can be correct. Obviously, these concepts aren't physical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Right, that's my point. So, why are you requiring physicality for the past and future to say they exist when you think the present exists even though it isn't physical either?
None of these concepts are physical, but only one of them is correct in its immaterial form. The reason for this is exactly what Lessans said.

What's the difference between the present, past, and future that you say one exists and the other two do not?

I already pasted this verbatim. You can take it or leave it. I'm sure you'll leave it because my father said it so it must be wrong. After all, no one else has confirmed my father's claims, right?

p. 488 As you begin to
understand what death actually is, your fear will be replaced by the
certain knowledge that death is truly not the end.
Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there what is left behind as
you travel is called the past, and your destination is the future.

Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
never lived in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him allows us to think back to this time period. The
reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is because this particular
individual is no longer here.

But is it possible for you to say that God
existed in the past? Does anyone ever sleep in the past; does the sun
ever shine in the past; is it possible for you to do anything in the past?
If you were sitting up on a high cloud these last ten thousand years,
never asleep, you would have watched Socrates in the present, just as
you are watching me write this book in the present. In order for me
to prove what seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I deconfuse
the mind of man so we can communicate.

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are slides
in our brain projector through which we see the number of times, or
what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but if we were
not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would
never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die
all in the present.

In reality, everything that we can possibly do from
the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even our sleep, is
done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.

“Are you saying that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did,
there would be no such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.
The recollection of the various things we did in our life, or to put it
another way, the recollection of our past is just as good as our
memory, but if we were not able to remember (store away these word
slides that contain every conceivable kind of relation), the word past
would never have come into existence. Animals cannot think in terms
of past and future because they don’t have the ability to store away
these word slides.

We use words like beginning and end, apply this to
the universe and think we perceive mathematical relations. We say
God is the first cause, and we reason from here as if we are discussing
reality. Yet there are innumerable relations which cannot be denied
once they are understood. The actual reason it isn’t strange to me
that you are alive this moment and conscious of your existence with
the earth as old as it is, is because there is no such thing as the past or
future.

Consciousness, like the sun, can only exist in the present and
it is absolutely impossible for any consciousness to exist but your very
own. By perceiving things that are born and die, and by not
understanding the underlying substance, a fallacious relation develops
which can easily be clarified once the word symbols are understood.

“I know that all we have is actually the present, so does everybody
else, but what does that prove?”

“It is just fact number one; there is no such thing as the past or
future simply because the only thing we can ever have is the present.

Are we in agreement so far?


Quote:
There is no such thing as the past in reality because the present is where we reside at each and every moment of our lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no such thing as the present in reality either. All that can be said is that things have a state, and the state of things changes constantly.
Quote:
Wrong! We can look back at the past, or look forward to the future, but there is no state of things that move from the past to the future on a dimensional line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What did I say that was wrong? I said nothing like what you are refuting. I said the present is the state of things. That's what it is.
Quote:
It is the only state of things. You are saying this as if there is another state one can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The state of things is constantly changing, and we can observe the changes. Or is your current state that of a newborn infant?
What does that have to do with the reality that we live, breathe, and do everything in the present? Of course we can observe changes. You are creating a strawman for no good reason.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
My very perceptive father told me his astute observation years ago when he explained that the actual nature and mechanics of time is a big old mindfuck, and we have to make do with our inadequate language and models.
Nope, you can't blame the nature and mechanics of time on the inadequacy of language. NOW is all there is. We can't live on a timeline called "the past" or "the future" and say it is someone else's now. This is pure crackpottery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What does living on a timeline called the past have to do with anything at all and what does it even mean? Nobody is arguing that we can live on a timeline called the past or future...what the fuck? It's not even a strawman it's so far from what anyone is talking about.

You wonder why people call you an idiot?
Quote:
LadyShea, don't play these semantic games with me and then act like you're all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What semantic games? I am not davidm so quit conflating my points with his. I am coming only from a pragmatic, everyday perspective here, not a physics one.
From an everyday perspective we are able to recall past events and to use those memories to help us make future choices, but this is not what we've been discussing. Time dilation and special relativity where we can theoretically be in a different "now" on a timeline of past, present, and future is an accepted theory which may be leading this generation of physicists down the wrong path.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 01:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40928  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:08 AM
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

Since the way your talking indicates you don't know yet what time dilation even is, I will say again, Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014)
  #40929  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:10 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

"The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle
and it has never been challenged."

Here is one of Lessans stupid ideas, because this idea has been challenged thoughout the ages, but the idea has held up in spite of every attempt to dispute it, including Lessans.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #40930  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:15 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=peacegirl;1201980]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Events that are happening in the present become events that happened in the past. The present is just a concept as well, it doesn't exist physically either.
Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
An event is happening in the present...that doesn't make the present more than an immaterial concept.
And immaterial concepts can be correct. Obviously, these concepts aren't physical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Right, that's my point. So, why are you requiring physicality for the past and future to say they exist when you think the present exists even though it isn't physical either?
None of these concepts are physical, but only one of them is correct in its immaterial form. The reason for this is exactly what Lessans said.

What's the difference between the present, past, and future that you say one exists and the other two do not?

I already pasted this verbatim. You can take it or leave it. I'm sure you'll leave it because my father said it so it must be wrong. After all, no one else has confirmed my father's claims, right?

p. 488 As you begin to
understand what death actually is, your fear will be replaced by the
certain knowledge that death is truly not the end.
Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there what is left behind as
you travel is called the past, and your destination is the future.

Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
never lived in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him allows us to think back to this time period. The
reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is because this particular
individual is no longer here.

But is it possible for you to say that God
existed in the past? Does anyone ever sleep in the past; does the sun
ever shine in the past; is it possible for you to do anything in the past?
If you were sitting up on a high cloud these last ten thousand years,
never asleep, you would have watched Socrates in the present, just as
you are watching me write this book in the present. In order for me
to prove what seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I deconfuse
the mind of man so we can communicate.

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are slides
in our brain projector through which we see the number of times, or
what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but if we were
not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would
never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die
all in the present.

In reality, everything that we can possibly do from
the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even our sleep, is
done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.

“Are you saying that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did,
there would be no such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.
The recollection of the various things we did in our life, or to put it
another way, the recollection of our past is just as good as our
memory, but if we were not able to remember (store away these word
slides that contain every conceivable kind of relation), the word past
would never have come into existence. Animals cannot think in terms
of past and future because they don’t have the ability to store away
these word slides.

We use words like beginning and end, apply this to
the universe and think we perceive mathematical relations. We say
God is the first cause, and we reason from here as if we are discussing
reality. Yet there are innumerable relations which cannot be denied
once they are understood. The actual reason it isn’t strange to me
that you are alive this moment and conscious of your existence with
the earth as old as it is, is because there is no such thing as the past or
future.

Consciousness, like the sun, can only exist in the present and
it is absolutely impossible for any consciousness to exist but your very
own. By perceiving things that are born and die, and by not
understanding the underlying substance, a fallacious relation develops
which can easily be clarified once the word symbols are understood.

“I know that all we have is actually the present, so does everybody
else, but what does that prove?”

“It is just fact number one; there is no such thing as the past or
future simply because the only thing we can ever have is the present.

Are we in agreement so far?

Quote:
There is no such thing as the past in reality because the present is where we reside at each and every moment of our lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no such thing as the present in reality either. All that can be said is that things have a state, and the state of things changes constantly.
Quote:
Wrong! We can look back at the past, or look forward to the future, but there is no state of things that move from the past to the future on a dimensional line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What did I say that was wrong? I said nothing like what you are refuting. I said the present is the state of things. That's what it is.
Quote:
It is the only state of things. You are saying this as if there is another state one can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The state of things is constantly changing, and we can observe the changes. Or is your current state that of a newborn infant?
What does that have to do with the reality that we live, breathe, and do everything in the present? Of course we can observe changes. You are creating a strawman for no good reason.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
My very perceptive father told me his astute observation years ago when he explained that the actual nature and mechanics of time is a big old mindfuck, and we have to make do with our inadequate language and models.
Nope, you can't blame the nature and mechanics of time on the inadequacy of language. NOW is all there is. We can't live on a timeline called "the past" or "the future" and say it is someone else's now. This is pure crackpottery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What does living on a timeline called the past have to do with anything at all and what does it even mean? Nobody is arguing that we can live on a timeline called the past or future...what the fuck? It's not even a strawman it's so far from what anyone is talking about.

You wonder why people call you an idiot?
Quote:
LadyShea, don't play these semantic games with me and then act like you're all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What semantic games? I am not davidm so quit conflating my points with his. I am coming only from a pragmatic, everyday perspective here, not a physics one.
From an everyday perspective we are able to recall past events and to use those memories to help us make future choices, but this is not what we've been discussing. Time dilation and special relativity where we can theoretically be in a different "now" on a timeline of past, present, and future is an accepted theory which may be leading this generation of physicists down the wrong path.

Ah, copy paste from ch 10, FYI, I only quoted it, in case Peacegirl decides to delete it later.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #40931  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:15 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends! Is that what you are still yammering about?
It is discussing the fact that time itself is slowing down instead of measuring change due to velocity and the conservation of energy. How can time slow down when time as a dimension doesn't exist because all we have is the present? For time to expand, contract, dilate, or bend, what else could it be but physical? How else could it be conceptualized?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40932  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:16 AM
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 peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Events that are happening in the present become events that happened in the past. The present is just a concept as well, it doesn't exist physically either.
Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
An event is happening in the present...that doesn't make the present more than an immaterial concept.
And immaterial concepts can be correct. Obviously, these concepts aren't physical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Right, that's my point. So, why are you requiring physicality for the past and future to say they exist when you think the present exists even though it isn't physical either?
None of these concepts are physical, but only one of them is correct in its immaterial form. The reason for this is exactly what Lessans said.

What's the difference between the present, past, and future that you say one exists and the other two do not?

I already pasted this verbatim. You can take it or leave it. I'm sure you'll leave it because my father said it so it must be wrong. After all, no one else has confirmed my father's claims, right?

p. 488 As you begin to
understand what death actually is, your fear will be replaced by the
certain knowledge that death is truly not the end.
Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there what is left behind as
you travel is called the past, and your destination is the future.

Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
never lived in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him allows us to think back to this time period. The
reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is because this particular
individual is no longer here.

But is it possible for you to say that God
existed in the past? Does anyone ever sleep in the past; does the sun
ever shine in the past; is it possible for you to do anything in the past?
If you were sitting up on a high cloud these last ten thousand years,
never asleep, you would have watched Socrates in the present, just as
you are watching me write this book in the present. In order for me
to prove what seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I deconfuse
the mind of man so we can communicate.

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are slides
in our brain projector through which we see the number of times, or
what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but if we were
not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would
never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die
all in the present.

In reality, everything that we can possibly do from
the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even our sleep, is
done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.

“Are you saying that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did,
there would be no such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.
The recollection of the various things we did in our life, or to put it
another way, the recollection of our past is just as good as our
memory, but if we were not able to remember (store away these word
slides that contain every conceivable kind of relation), the word past
would never have come into existence. Animals cannot think in terms
of past and future because they don’t have the ability to store away
these word slides.

We use words like beginning and end, apply this to
the universe and think we perceive mathematical relations. We say
God is the first cause, and we reason from here as if we are discussing
reality. Yet there are innumerable relations which cannot be denied
once they are understood. The actual reason it isn’t strange to me
that you are alive this moment and conscious of your existence with
the earth as old as it is, is because there is no such thing as the past or
future.

Consciousness, like the sun, can only exist in the present and
it is absolutely impossible for any consciousness to exist but your very
own. By perceiving things that are born and die, and by not
understanding the underlying substance, a fallacious relation develops
which can easily be clarified once the word symbols are understood.

“I know that all we have is actually the present, so does everybody
else, but what does that prove?”

“It is just fact number one; there is no such thing as the past or
future simply because the only thing we can ever have is the present.

Are we in agreement so far?


Quote:
There is no such thing as the past in reality because the present is where we reside at each and every moment of our lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no such thing as the present in reality either. All that can be said is that things have a state, and the state of things changes constantly.
Quote:
Wrong! We can look back at the past, or look forward to the future, but there is no state of things that move from the past to the future on a dimensional line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What did I say that was wrong? I said nothing like what you are refuting. I said the present is the state of things. That's what it is.
Quote:
It is the only state of things. You are saying this as if there is another state one can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The state of things is constantly changing, and we can observe the changes. Or is your current state that of a newborn infant?
What does that have to do with the reality that we live, breathe, and do everything in the present? Of course we can observe changes. You are creating a strawman for no good reason.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
My very perceptive father told me his astute observation years ago when he explained that the actual nature and mechanics of time is a big old mindfuck, and we have to make do with our inadequate language and models.
Nope, you can't blame the nature and mechanics of time on the inadequacy of language. NOW is all there is. We can't live on a timeline called "the past" or "the future" and say it is someone else's now. This is pure crackpottery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What does living on a timeline called the past have to do with anything at all and what does it even mean? Nobody is arguing that we can live on a timeline called the past or future...what the fuck? It's not even a strawman it's so far from what anyone is talking about.

You wonder why people call you an idiot?
Quote:
LadyShea, don't play these semantic games with me and then act like you're all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What semantic games? I am not davidm so quit conflating my points with his. I am coming only from a pragmatic, everyday perspective here, not a physics one.
From an everyday perspective we are able to recall past events and to use those memories to help us make future choices, but this is not what we've been discussing. Time dilation and special relativity where we can theoretically be in a different "now" on a timeline of past, present, and future is an accepted theory which may be leading this generation of physicists down the wrong path.

Ah, copy paste from ch 10, FYI, I only quoted it, in case Peacegirl decides to delete it later.
I'm glad it's so important to you that you would want to keep it. :D
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 06:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40933  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:20 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 peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Ah, copy paste from ch 10, FYI, I only quoted it, in case Peacegirl decides to delete it later.
I'm glad it's so important to you that you would want to keep it. :D
Only as an example of your fathers confused way of thinking, and you believe every word?

Are you going to post more from ch 10?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #40934  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:58 AM
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: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
"The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle
and it has never been challenged."

Here is one of Lessans stupid ideas, because this idea has been challenged thoughout the ages, but the idea has held up in spite of every attempt to dispute it, including Lessans.
It's not even true, as was pointed out to her years ago.

For example, we have a sense known as proprioception. We have two independent senses of equilibrium -- static equilibrium and rotational equilibrium (they use different sensory receptors). We have nociceptors as well -- specialized receptors that detect and respond to tissue damage, giving us a sense of pain.

There's some evidence that humans may have a limited ability to sense magnetic fields. It's well-established that at least some mammals can sense magnetic fields -- for example, Red Foxes can use the Earth's magnetic field to orient themselves.

And don't even get me started on what's generally lumped into the "sense of touch." That "sense" includes at least 4 different types of mechanoreceptors that respond to different types of mechanical stimulation (including pressure and vibration, for example), as well as at least 2 different types of thermoreceptors.

And it's not like Lessans couldn't have learned this for himself if he'd ever bothered to crack open any introductory-level A&P textbook.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014), But (08-20-2014), Cynthia of Syracuse (08-20-2014), Dragar (08-20-2014), LadyShea (08-20-2014)
  #40935  
Old 08-20-2014, 02:24 AM
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
Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends! Is that what you are still yammering about?
It is discussing the fact that time itself is slowing down
No, it doesn't discuss time itself slowing down. From Wiki: time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. Actual, observed, difference between clocks. You have admitted this phenomena exists, it is called time dilation.

Quote:
For time to expand, contract, dilate, or bend, what else could it be but physical? How else could it be conceptualized?
Um, I am pretty sure those words are used analogically or metaphorically to explain the physics to laypeople like us, due to the inadequacies of language...as I already discussed.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014)
  #40936  
Old 08-20-2014, 02:28 AM
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
From an everyday perspective we are able to recall past events and to use those memories to help us make future choices
And we have a physical record of the past in our own bodies and everything else that exists.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014)
  #40937  
Old 08-20-2014, 06:04 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
From an everyday perspective we are able to recall past events and to use those memories to help us make future choices
And we have a physical record of the past in our own bodies and everything else that exists.
That physical record proves that the past has existed just as surely as the present exists. So that only leaves the future in debate, and if the past and present can be shown to have some form of physical existence, surely the future has an equivalent form of existence.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #40938  
Old 08-20-2014, 06:07 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 The Lone Ranger View Post
And it's not like Lessans couldn't have learned this for himself if he'd ever bothered to crack open any introductory-level A&P textbook.

You've got to be kidding? Lessans, or even Peacegirl, learning something for real? Surely that's not possible.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (08-20-2014)
  #40939  
Old 08-20-2014, 12:54 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I didn't alter his writing. I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned the dog part twice. am not the co-author. I am the compiler; that's it
Why did YOU mention anything twice if you did not write the book? If you didn't alter his writings, then you shouldn't have written or mentioned anything at all. Of course, you have your own definition of alter I guess. Also, mere compilers don't write and mention things in a book, as they compile. You did more than that, so no that's not it.

You are so dishonest.
I don't think you're correct. A person who owns the rights to a particular work can compile it in his own way with some creative license, as long as he doesn't change the basic concept. That's why copyrighting it would be redundant. This is not my definition. This is the definition used by the copyright office.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it honest :lol:

The term "compile" means to assemble information collected from other sources.
You're wrong. I am going by the rules of the copyright office. You said I should make myself the co-author. Just because I added some examples and changed the wording around to make the concepts more clear, does not make me a co-author. All I did was put together the knowledge in his seven books to create one book.

com·pi·la·tion
/ˌkämpəˈlāSHən/
noun
the action or process of producing something, especially a list, book, or report, by assembling information collected from other sources.
a thing, especially a book, record, or broadcast program, that is put together by assembling previously separate items.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 06:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40940  
Old 08-20-2014, 12:57 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 is not the definition of copyright is. [...] It is about compiling what source of your information.
LadyShea wasn't defining copyright, and the above isn't even coherent English. Are you posting drunk again?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (08-20-2014)
  #40941  
Old 08-20-2014, 12:59 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

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (08-20-2014)
  #40942  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:03 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 LadyShea View Post
Since the way your talking indicates you don't know yet what time dilation even is, I will say again, Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends!
So how can we have a different "now" LadyShea on a timeline that doesn't exist? You are the expert so go ahead. Explain this so I can get it.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 06:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40943  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:06 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
That is not the definition of copyright is. [...] It is about compiling what source of your information.
LadyShea wasn't defining copyright, and the above isn't even coherent English. Are you posting drunk again?
She was defining what compilation allows. I did not breach any rules according to the copyright office. Check with them and let me know. Obviously, you are upset that I breached some rule. So go for it Spacemonkey. Obviously, if the rule was breached, that would automatically vindicate you and condemn my father and I would thank you for showing me how wrong Lessans was. :crazy:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #40944  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:09 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
LOL, the stuff huh? Big discovery!
I used that word on purpose. You are nitpicking again and you haven't even read the chapter.
I read the part about germinal substance, how else would we have heard of it?

And no, I am not nitpicking. Lessans used a term and you can't even begin to define or explain it!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014), Dragar (08-20-2014)
  #40945  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:37 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
That is not the definition of copyright is. [...] It is about compiling what source of your information.
LadyShea wasn't defining copyright, and the above isn't even coherent English. Are you posting drunk again?
She was defining what compilation allows...
No, she was defining what compilation means. And you responded with broken English typical of either a non-native English speaker or a 5-year old child. What is wrong with you?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014), Dragar (08-20-2014), LadyShea (08-20-2014)
  #40946  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:48 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Ah, copy paste from ch 10, FYI, I only quoted it, in case Peacegirl decides to delete it later.
I'm glad it's so important to you that you would want to keep it. :D
Only as an example of your fathers confused way of thinking, and you believe every word?
You have no idea what his thinking is. How can anyone dispute what they haven't read or understood? If this group is supposed to be the cream of the crop, we're in trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Are you going to post more from ch 10?
Nope, I'm not. You'll just have to buy the book or the .pdf if I put it online. I know this bothers you, but oh well...
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 06:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40947  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:51 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
That is not the definition of copyright is. [...] It is about compiling what source of your information.
LadyShea wasn't defining copyright, and the above isn't even coherent English. Are you posting drunk again?
She was defining what compilation allows...
No, she was defining what compilation means. And you responded with broken English typical of either a non-native English speaker or a 5-year old child. What is wrong with you?
You have nothing on me at all, but you will do anything to make it appear that way because you, like David, cannot believe that Lessans may have been right. You're just mad because you don't understand how light can be at the eye without getting there. :confused:

What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 06:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40948  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:52 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
LOL, the stuff huh? Big discovery!
I used that word on purpose. You are nitpicking again and you haven't even read the chapter.
I read the part about germinal substance, how else would we have heard of it?

And no, I am not nitpicking. Lessans used a term and you can't even begin to define or explain it!
How do you know that when you don't even know how he used it in the context of his writings?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #40949  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:54 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
From an everyday perspective we are able to recall past events and to use those memories to help us make future choices
And we have a physical record of the past in our own bodies and everything else that exists.
That physical record proves that the past has existed just as surely as the present exists. So that only leaves the future in debate, and if the past and present can be shown to have some form of physical existence, surely the future has an equivalent form of existence.
You are lost in space thedoc. I don't even know where to begin helping you in your confusion. It's amazing to me how you have misconstrued every single thing that this man wrote. And when I show you where you're wrong, you just press the restart button so you don't have to listen.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 08-20-2014 at 06:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40950  
Old 08-20-2014, 01:56 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I didn't alter his writing. I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned the dog part twice. am not the co-author. I am the compiler; that's it
Why did YOU mention anything twice if you did not write the book? If you didn't alter his writings, then you shouldn't have written or mentioned anything at all. Of course, you have your own definition of alter I guess. Also, mere compilers don't write and mention things in a book, as they compile. You did more than that, so no that's not it.

You are so dishonest.
I don't think you're correct. A person who owns the rights to a particular work can compile it in his own way with some creative license, as long as he doesn't change the basic concept. That's why copyrighting it would be redundant. This is not my definition. This is the definition used by the copyright office.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it honest :lol:

The term "compile" means to assemble information collected from other sources.
You're wrong. Could you ever admit it? Of course not, I forgot you are all knowing. Should I replace God's name with Ladyshea? :laugh: I am going by the rules of the copyright office. This has nothing to do with adding other sources. It is about compiling information from the original source. You are now entering la la land where you are right because that's what you want to be. Admit it LadyShea that you don't know the rules of copyright at all. Why don't you find out what their requirements are before you open your mouth and reveal your ignorance, and then we can talk.
I am not discussing copyright at all! What is wrong with you? You own the copyright, you can do whatever the hell you want. You can legally rewrite the whole damn thing, change every word and still attribute it to Lessans...because Lessans isn't here to complain or assert his original copyright.

Unaltered writing means no alterations...no additions, no wording changes. Compiled means assembled from other sources (assembling his writings from different books into one book).

So, if you were an honest person, you wouldn't alter and add and change things and then claim to be offering an unaltered product that you compiled and "that's it".

Last edited by LadyShea; 08-20-2014 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2014), But (08-20-2014), Cynthia of Syracuse (08-20-2014), Dragar (08-20-2014)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.15175 seconds with 14 queries