A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, you are once again repeating the same stuff at me. This does not make it more true. All you do is say THAT it is so without showing the WHY or the HOW. I could just as easily keep re-stating that firemen are a condition for house-fires, with exactly the same level of support. Saying it a hundred times does not make it more or less true.

I am afraid you are simply repeating dogma at me - is that all you can do? Can we not go into a discussion about why it is that blame is a condition for justification? And please stop quoting endless Lessans at me - the problem I have is that this is what is missing in his book - a clear and undeniable explanation of WHY this is so.

If we can establish that, we can move on. If we cannot, then Lessans idea is missing it's base. A rational person would then amend or abandon.

But maybe we should side-step for a moment and discuss the emotional side to this? I have taken the time to think of a way to make Lessans ideas about sight fit into what we currently know about how the eye works, and how we are finding out the brain processes these images.

If we abandon Lessans conclusion that it is the actual eye that works differently, and in stead say that it is the brain that models differently than we think, would that be something you would be willing to entertain, or is all of the text sacrosanct and unfailingly correct in your opinion? Because we can keep all his extrapolations and conclusions without having to re-invent how the eye works. In this area, Lessans may well be right, but simply mistaken about where in the information-chain the eye works differently than most people think it does.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, you are once again repeating the same stuff at me. This does not make it more true. All you do is say THAT it is so without showing the WHY or the HOW. I could just as easily keep re-stating that firemen are a condition for house-fires, with exactly the same level of support. Saying it a hundred times does not make it more or less true.

You just do not understand why firemen are a condition for house fires :sulk:

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, you are once again repeating the same stuff at me. This does not make it more true. All you do is say THAT it is so without showing the WHY or the HOW.

Vivisectus, I told you that to know why this occurs is not important for the purposes of this discussion. There are many why's in science that cannot be answered, but it doesn't make certain observations any less accurate. Why do we have two eyes? I don't know. The fact is we have two eyes. It might be interesting to think about why we have two eyes from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's not necessary in order to learn about the structure of the eyes and how to better improve vision. The first thing that needs to be established is that his observations are absolutely undeniable, which they are. How these observations, when applied on a global scale, will cause tremendous changes in the environment, is the next important consideration.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could just as easily keep re-stating that firemen are a condition for house-fires, with exactly the same level of support. Saying it a hundred times does not make it more or less true.

I am afraid you are simply repeating dogma at me - is that all you can do?

Please don't use the word 'dogma' in reference to this discovery. This is anything but dogma, even if you don't see it yet.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can we not go into a discussion about why it is that blame is a condition for justification? And please stop quoting endless Lessans at me - the problem I have is that this is what is missing in his book - a clear and undeniable explanation of WHY this is so.

I can't give you that. I can only give you what were his critical observations. Conscience works very predictably and he is showing that when blame is removed from the environment because we now know for a fact that will is not free, mankind must move in a different direction for satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we can establish that, we can move on. If we cannot, then Lessans idea is missing it's base. A rational person would then amend or abandon.

Just because you don't see that there is no missing base, doesn't make me irrational. Isn't that what you're implying? If that's the case, then you're welcome to abandon. This knowledge is not dependent on you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But maybe we should side-step for a moment and discuss the emotional side to this? I have taken the time to think of a way to make Lessans ideas about sight fit into what we currently know about how the eye works, and how we are finding out the brain processes these images.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we abandon Lessans conclusion that it is the actual eye that works differently, and in stead say that it is the brain that models differently than we think, would that be something you would be willing to entertain, or is all of the text sacrosanct and unfailingly correct in your opinion? Because we can keep all his extrapolations and conclusions without having to re-invent how the eye works. In this area, Lessans may well be right, but simply mistaken about where in the information-chain the eye works differently than most people think it does.

That's fine with me. I just want the truth to come out. He never ever said the eye works differently than what science has discovered thus far. Why do you think I keep saying that their knowledge regarding the structure of the eye is not what he is disputing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nope, just a compelling reason to believe it is so.

You keep repeating that, as if that is somehow going to make it true. I do not see why we should believe this to be so.

That's because you do not understand how conscience works in every case. I don't know why it works this way, BUT IT DOES. This is a psychological mechanism built into the brain that when someone takes advantage of another without provocation, the only way he can do this is knowing that if he gets caught, and his excuses fail, he would be blamed and punished for his wrongdoing, which allows him to go ahead with what he is contemplating. It is the price he is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires; in this case (for example) taking what doesn't belong to him.

The advance knowledge that one will be punished if he does something considered wrong by others, frees his conscience to go do that very thing. Once again, this is an undeniable observation of how the mind works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am afraid it is not undeniable. That this is so is an article of faith for you - one that you are unable to support. Just repeating "it IS true! it IS it IS it IS" does not change that one jot.

No it isn't. If I say you don't understand yet, I will be laughed at. This is not faith based at all. I have to keep trying to get you to see the way conscience plays out in a world of blame, and in a world of no blame, because that is the key that will allow this new world to become a reality.

He never said blame was the cause of justification. He said blame gives a person the opportunity to come up with reasonable excuses. Why? I don't know why. Why do apples fall to the ground? I don't know why except to say it's an accurate observation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, we can be pedantic about it and say blame is a condition for justification. There is still no reason to believe that this is so. Are firemen a condition for fires?

Firemen are not a condition for fires, but blame is a condition for justification. I will repeat what I said yesterday, how can you justify your actions when no one is blaming you? It can't be done. I think you are believing that even though there was no blame from others, and there was no need to justify your hurtful behavior, you would still be able to rationalize your behavior without having to worry about punishment. Tell me if I'm right.

Not all harmful acts need to be justified in order to be perpetrated, that is true, but part of what allows someone to follow through with his harmful acts is the knowledge that, if caught, he will be seriously punished

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again you simply repeat "It is so! It just is!" and provide nothing else.

This can be tested. As I just mentioned above, I think what is throwing you off is not understanding how it is impossible, when one is not being blamed by anyone, to rationalize or justify their behavior to themselves. For the moment, instead of thinking about others and how they would react, just use yourself as a guinea pig and focus on how you would react, which might bring some clarity, at least I hope.

These are observations that are absolutely undeniable if you look closely enough.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am afraid they are not. You have decided that they are true, and rigorously avoid looking at their inherent flaws. If you actually look closely, you see the tripod that the whole system rests on is missing a leg.

No Vivisectus, there isn't. If you want to abandon the discussion because you are absolutely positive there are inherent flaws, then please be my guest. It's up to you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I told you that to know why this occurs is not important for the purposes of this discussion. There are many why's in science that cannot be answered, but it doesn't make certain observations any less accurate. Why do we have two eyes? I don't know. The fact is we have two eyes. It might be interesting to think about why we have two eyes from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's not necessary in order to learn about the structure of the eyes and how to better improve vision. The first thing that needs to be established is that his observations are absolutely undeniable, which they are. How these observations, when applied on a global scale, will cause tremendous changes in the environment, is the next important consideration.

The fact that we have two eyes is something we can actually observe, and therefor support. That blame is a condition for justification is not. Hence your inability to support it. Repeating "it is just true, yes it is!" does not change that one jot.

Please don't use the word 'dogma' in reference to this discovery. This is anything but dogma, even if you don't see it yet

.

So you say, but without the slightest bit of support. I say firemen are a condition for house-fires. You just haven't realized how right I am yet.

I can't give you that. I can only give you what were his critical observations. Conscience works very predictably and he is showing that when blame is removed from the environment because we now know for a fact that will is not free, mankind must move in a different direction for satisfaction.

Repetition does not make something more true and is not support for an idea. You said that over and over and I showed you clearly where the idea goes wrong. Unless we deal with the problem, we have to admit that the ideas need either amending or need to be discarded.

Just because you don't see that there is no missing base, doesn't make me irrational. Isn't that what you're implying? If that's the case, then you're welcome to abandon. This knowledge is not dependent on you.

Whether your treatment of these ideas is rational or not depends on what you do next. So far your response has been "It is true because it is just true!" which is a religious response, not a scientific one, nor a rational one. The "knowledge" is indeed valid or invalid independent of what I think - or of what you think. So far it looks like it will turn out to be invalid, since Lessans assumes that blame is a condition for justification without showing why or how. Anyone can just say they have solved the problem of evil - the trick is to solve it and then show that you have, conclusively.

Unless we can find a compelling reason to believe that blame is a condition for justification, we have not done so.

That's fine with me. I just want the truth to come out. He never ever said the eye works differently than what science has discovered thus far. Why do you think I keep saying that their knowledge regarding the structure of the eye is not what he is disputing?

[/QUOTE]

Then I would remove the parts that speak of faster-than-light vision, as it does the book no favors and make it seem extremely eccentric. Rather re-write it and focus on conditioning and the way the brain presents us with a model, using the raw input from the eyes as data, but not really directly presenting what we see to us - especially if we focus elsewhere or if we expect to see something else. There is the famous gorilla experiment, for instance, and the way we perceive patterns even in chaotic "white noise".

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

It's a chunk of matter isn't it? And, it's either propagated (and accrues) when light slows down or it doesn't. That's what I was asking? I mean I'll look it up if I have to, but I thought it was already pretty well understood.

Yes, that's it. You've nailed it perfectly. I don't think anyone could explain it better.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Which is to say it has no mass until it starts to decelerate and/or collides with chunks of matter?

Or, how about this. If space has no mass, and light has no mass (at "no rest"), where does mass come from? Is it all what's left over from the Big Bang then?

OK.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is a fallacy in your reasoning Vivisectus. Just because two eyes are easily observable does not tell us WHY we have two eyes. Moreover, just because the eyes are easily observable, and this knowledge is not easily observable, does not discredit what is observed. Obviously, it's easy to observe something on the surface. The challenge is to see that what is being observed, although more difficult, is undeniable.

.

You are right when it comes to firemen and house-fires. But the analogy is wrong when it comes to blame and justification. In other words, the connection between advance blame and the ability to justify one's actions is not the same as the firemen analogy whatsoever.

I as not repeating, but have you noticed that you are? You are a broken record Vivisectus and you have closed yourself from further analysis.

Obviously, this knowledge is independent of what I think or what you think. But somewhere along the line what you think takes precedence. I am trying to show you that the problem of evil is solved, conclusively, but you are resisting because it sounds so unbelievable. Therefore, you are telling me he his wrong. Your refutations don't add up. I hope you keep listening and reading, for if you do, I believe you will change your mind accordingly. If you stop hearing the proof, all bets are off.

Are you purposely avoiding my posts? I showed you why justification has to be involved whenever someone does something to hurt another unless, of course, it is for self-preservation, or unless they have been hurt and feel justified to retaliate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then I would remove the parts that speak of faster-than-light vision, as it does the book no favors and make it seem extremely eccentric. Rather re-write it and focus on conditioning and the way the brain presents us with a model, using the raw input from the eyes as data, but not really directly presenting what we see to us - especially if we focus elsewhere or if we expect to see something else. There is the famous gorilla experiment, for instance, and the way we perceive patterns even in chaotic "white noise".

The book is already printed and ready for sale. It is live on Trafford.com, although I am upset because I found a sentence without a period. Ughhhh. I know this is unimportant in the scheme of things, but when you've worked on something for so long, you want it to be perfect. I understand your resistance in the case of the eyes. I want to say, once again, that he is telling us that there is no raw input. If there was, the brain could not project words containing a value, that appear realistic, onto a screen of undeniable substance, but have no corresponding accuracy.

[Hermit]

For the third time:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seraph, that is his entire discovery. Did you read the previous post? If we can't even make headway here, how can I move forward to clarify anything?

I did read the previous post, but somehow I missed the part where replicable experiments were described on which the theory that "advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame a person for doing something evil will stop said person from committing the evil deed" are based. Please help me find it. Best would be if you provided a link to that replicable experiment.[/QUOTE]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

For the third time:

I did read the previous post, but somehow I missed the part where replicable experiments were described on which the theory that "advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame a person for doing something evil will stop said person from committing the evil deed" are based. Please help me find it. Best would be if you provided a link to that replicable experiment.

Seraph, if you were here the whole time you would know that he came to his conclusions from observation alone. He did not form a hypothesis, and then support it through replicable experiments. You are not going to find any experiments in this book, but that alone does not negate his discovery.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he came to his conclusions from observation alone. He did not form a hypothesis, and then support it through replicable experiments. You are not going to find any experiments in this book

Then it is not, despite his repeated claims, a SCIENTIFIC theory. You would be well advised to edit those repeated, and by your own admission mistaken, claims. They will alienate anyone who knows anything about what science is and how it works. The same is true of the claims of mathematical support that he repeatedly makes but never shows any actual math for. You do understand the problem of making such claims without presenting any of the actual math or science, do you not?

but that alone does not negate his discovery.

It is certainly possible to discover something that is true without being a scientist or a mathematician, and without using experiments or hypotheses. Where that the only problem with his book you could rest easy at night.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Then it is not, despite his repeated claims, a SCIENTIFIC theory. You would be well advised to edit those repeated, and by your own admission mistaken, claims.

The only thing that might need clarification is the word 'scientific' because of the confusion with what he meant by the word and what others think that word means.

Originally Posted by Seraph

They will alienate anyone who knows anything about what science is and how it works. The same is true of the claims of mathematical support that he repeatedly makes but never shows any actual math for. You do understand the problem of making such claims without presenting any of the actual math or science, do you not?

I do, but he assumed that by clarifying in the introduction that scientific and mathematical only meant (in the context of this book) undeniable, it would have been enough, but I guess he assumed wrong.

but that alone does not negate his discovery.

Originally Posted by Seraph

It is certainly possible to discover something that is true without being a scientist or a mathematician, and without using experiments or hypotheses. Where that the only problem with his book you could rest easy at night.

But he was a scientist of human nature (even though he didn't define scientific in the way it is presently defined), and he was also a mathematician in his own right. I rest easy because I'm not just throwing around words and observations in the face of absolute fact. If that's what I was doing, you're right, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

[Kael]

Lessans' idiosyncratic definitions of scientific and mathematical are unnecessary, and even a charitable view of their use in his book would likely classify them as a transparent attempt to dress up his claimed observations in more authoritative terms, to lend them weight and credibility they simply do not have. As Lady Shea pointed out way back when this train wreck first started, many of the phrases the book uses are hallmarks of unsupported, unsubstantiated, most decidedly unscientific bald assertions and crack-pottery.

If you do not want people to perceive it as such, these need to be clarified, qualified, or removed.

[wildernesse]

Why not just use the word undeniable when that is what is meant instead of using words that are not synonymous with undeniable?

[Doctor X]

Yet you have provided no valid observations.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Lessans' idiosyncratic definitions of scientific and mathematical are unnecessary, and even a charitable view of their use in his book would likely classify them as a transparent attempt to dress up his claimed observations in more authoritative terms, to lend them weight and credibility they simply do not have.

Kael, I realize that that is what people think he was doing, but I knew him, and that was the farthest thing from his mind. The problem might have been that he wanted to interchange the terms because it was easier that way; not to make his work appear more authoritative. When people are accusing him of things he did not do, yet everyone here is free to misconstrue everything this man stood for, is a very sad state of affairs, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by "As Lady Shea pointed out way back when this train wreck first started, many of the phrases the book uses are hallmarks of unsupported, unsubstantiated, most decidedly [i

un[/i]scientific bald assertions and crack-pottery.

If you do not want people to perceive it as such, these need to be clarified, qualified, or removed.

I am not altering his concepts. If you carefully follow his reasoning and observations, you will be able to see that no one, who knows the difference between right and wrong, could take even the slightest chance of hurting another intentionally or unintentionally. I am still trying to show Vivisectus that all pillars are solid in Lessans' structure. Nothing but nothing that Lessans has put forth in his book is a bald assertion or crackpottery. This is not an article of faith on my part either. Until this knowledge is confirmed valid (and I'm not even referring to the light/sight fiasco), no one is going to believe that what this man has discovered is genuine. Afterall, it looks like I'm just another troll traipsing around the internet trying to upset everyone.

[thedoc]

The problem with this theory is that a desirble end does not prove that the means are true. This is what Lessans has done, is to come up with a very desirable end (the elimination of all evil) and then argue that because the end is so desirable the means (no free will, and elimination of blame) must be true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The problem with this theory is that a desirble end does not prove that the means are true. This is what Lessans has done, is to come up with a very desirable end (the elimination of all evil) and then argue that because the end is so desirable the means (no free will, and elimination of blame) must be true.

That's not what he is doing doc. The truth is that the end is desirable, and the means he has outlined to achieve this end is the most reliable way to get there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he is doing doc. The truth is that the end is desirable, and the means he has outlined to achieve this end is the most reliable way to get there.

But that, in no way proves that the means are true, and if they are not true, they will not lead to the end. And thus far there has been no proof that the means are true, only unsurppoted assersions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Why not just use the word undeniable when that is what is meant instead of using words that are not synonymous with undeniable?

I don't mind using the word undeniable. If he knew he was going to be judged so harshly on account of his wording, and this was holding people back from taking his book seriously, he would have dropped those other words in a heartbeat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But that, in no way proves that the means are true, and if they are not true, they will not lead to the end. And thus far there has been no proof that the means are true, only unsurppoted assersions.

Doc, I realize that. That's why until I can convince Vivisectus (because he is the most in touch with Chapter Two) that the three pillars of Lessans' structure stand solid as a rock, no one else is going to listen.

[thedoc]

duplicate

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, I realize that that is what people think he was doing, but I knew him, and that was the farthest thing from his mind.

Yet here we are. The central point here is this: Lessans' choice to use terms like 'scientific' and 'mathematical' in instances where they do not match or even resemble the standard definitions of those terms only serves to detract from his already shaky credibility, and in no way bolsters his argument. Except, of course, among those vulnerable to such rhetorical tactics, who do not know what it means for something to be 'scientific' or 'mathematical.' It is possible, of course, that Lessans himself was such a person, that these terms are the result of nothing more than bad writing and were simply used incorrectly by mistake. Whether that is the case, or whether they were chosen in a deliberate attempt to deceive the careless or uninformed reader, they serve no positive function for the work. They are one of the many parts of the book that would be improved greatly by a more careful or more honest editor.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't mind using the word undeniable. If he knew he was going to be judged so harshly on account of his wording, and this was holding people back from taking his book seriously, he would have dropped those other words in a heartbeat.

Then why don't you edit the book to clarify it? If how it is written is a stumbling block to understanding and it will not change the meaning, then why not change it?

Also, why aren't you interested in responding to my previous post?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he was a scientist of human nature (even though he didn't define scientific in the way it is presently defined), and he was also a mathematician in his own right.

Science and mathematics are both well defined areas of study, that Lessans had to redefine them ment that he was outside the accepted definition. He did not follow accepted scientific methods and presented no math to support his claims. He was neither a scientist or a mathematician, but at best one who came up with a novel idea and didn't have the means to present it. If, instead of going to people with a flat out assersion of and undeniable truth, he had gone and asked for assistence with the proof he may have gotten some help. Einstein developed his theorys of relativity and then went to better mathematicians for help to prove his theory, he did not just stand up and say 'Here it is accept it or you're to dumb to understand it.'