A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then correct my understanding, in stead of simply dismissing my - valid! - objections. You cannot, so in stead of re-examining your own beliefs, you move on.

I have no problem changing mine - but I must be convinced first, with evidence. If you could produce some evidence that blame is the sole cause of justification, or even a compelling reason to believe it is so, you would pretty much be there. But so far neither you nor Lessans have done so, to my knowledge.

So far I have not used words like "talking to a brick wall". Do you not find such statements offensive? I might even see that as something harmful.

He never said one time in the entire book that blame is the sole cause of justification.

[DaveT]

What's wrong with the word "beautiful"?

[peacegirl]

These words hurt because of the conditioning they cause, and because they set a standard for everyone, when no such standard exists. Why would you want to use a word that is not accurate?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because the words have definitions that are accurate descriptors of a human's subjective experience. Beautiful means only "pleasing to one's mind or senses", how is that "inaccurate"? Ugly means "displeasing to one's mind or senses", again which can certainly be an accurate description.

If a word is describing my personal taste regarding objects or events, no one can be hurt. I even say look at that beautiful sunset. Even if a difference of opinion occurs, it doesn't have the power to destroy self-image. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone they are wonderful, or great, or stupendous. These descriptors are not hurting anyone unless you say these things in front of children who might conclude that they are not wonderful, or great, or stupendous because you didn't say it to them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, with no such conditioning or standard set because there would be no intention to cause hurt, then words would only mean what they mean, correct?

Right, but just as you said anytime you use a word to describe one child and not another, then that one child may think that he doesn't measure up, or that you don't love him as much as the other. Words can absolutely devastate and we have to be careful when using them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And there is no analogy or comparison to be made between the N word to be made with accurate descriptors like beautiful, lovely, pretty, pleasing, ugly, homely etc. . That word was a pejorative from the beginning of it's use.

Yes, that's why the N word is so despised. Are you now saying that words like beautiful and ugly people are accurate descriptors?

[DaveT]

Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you have time I would like a response to this post

The passage below is what led to Viv's conclusion, and I read it the same way.

I parse the bolded above as:

If determinism is false, then free will is true (THIS IS CORRECT)
He has "proven" free will is not true. WRONG. HE HAS DEMONSTRATED WHY FREE WILL CANNOT BE PROVEN TRUE -- BECAUSE WE CANNOT REVERSE TIME WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR ABSOLUTE PROOF.
Therefore determinism must be NOT FALSE. WRONG. THEREFORE, DETERMINISM CAN STILL BE PROVEN TRUE AND CONSEQUENTLY FREE WILL FALSE.

How do you parse it?

Ya'll need to read this more carefully.

[DaveT]

Hello, stone, may I have some blood? I may? Why, thank you, that was much easier than trying to get peacelass to explain why "beautiful" should be abolished.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by DaveT

Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?

Dave, this discussion has been going on for days now. I don't think people want to rehash this again. I'll say one thing only. Beautiful should be abolished because it's not symbolic of reality. If we weren't conditioned by this word, we may find an attraction to someone who in today's world is thought to be ugly. All that exists in truth is our personal likes and dislikes, but to call someone ugly or to imply that someone is ugly by calling others beautiful is a subtle form of injustice that could not be rectified because we didn't understand how the brain works.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by DaveT

Anybody going to explain to me why "beautiful" should be abolished?

Perhaps someone here isn't, and feels discriminated by it?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;933262]

I've said this numerous times, his solid evidence comes from his observations regarding how we learn words. This beautiful person is not traveling from the light to the eyes, through the optic nerve, and to the brain where this beauty is seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Beautiful means "pleasing to one's mind or senses". It's a descriptor of a subjective experience one has when seeing or sensing something (therefore it can be used to describe sounds, tastes, odors, and tactile sensations as well)

But it isn't a descriptor of a subjective experience, that's just the point. The experience has been manipulated.

I don't think you're clear on how absurd it is to be arguing over who is more beautiful; even to say who is more beautiful to me, because it assumes just by the word itself, that this beauty that this individual possesses cannot be denied.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who is arguing over who is more beautiful? I've never had such an argument in 40 years of life. Everyone I know seems to understand that "beautiful" is a descriptor of a subjective experience.

It can't be because the word itself creates a standard for everyone. You may feel it's subjective, but it's not. If it was truly subjective, you wouldn't have been conditioned already. None of us can remove ourselves from this conditioning.

I'm sorry if it screams crackpot to you. His observations were astute. Why do you think it's so hard to get people to believe that this simple observation was somehow overlooked? It's seems too easy. People are looking for something more mysterious; more difficult.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think you are trying to make his "observations" into something they aren't.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"You are assuming his observations apply to all, when he seems to have only observed himself.[/quote]
I am not even going to respond to that.

[quote="LadyShea

He tried to manipulate the reader into viewing the work as something more authoritative than it is, which is mere musings and hypotheses, by using terms like scientific and mathematician and comparing himself to famous scientists and discoverers.

As much as I appreciate your questions, that remark is below the belt. He is doing no such thing.

The word does not create the dog as it does words like heaven, soul, spirit, etc.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait what? That makes no sense. You're saying that by giving concepts names, the concepts are created?

Yes, people think that certain concepts are real because they give it a name. They take for granted that heaven and hell exist, or that we have souls and spirits. These words do not represent anything in the real world, and yet many believe they have absolute existence.

Blind people can identify objects through touch. But they don't have the ability to be conditioned by words like beautiful and ugly. That's why they don't judge people the same way sighted people do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A blind person can find sounds, smells, and tastes "beautiful" because beautiful has a specific definition of "pleasing to one's mind or senses". They can certainly label a discordant or jarring sound, or music they find displeasing as "ugly".

I am going to keep repeating that to use the word beautiful in regard to music is not hurting anyone. I often say certain music is beautiful. I also say I love that music. But more importantly, we are talking about how the eyes are conditioned when it comes to someone's features.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They can judge people by the sound of their voice, their odor, and their personalities...the only type of judgment eliminated for a blind person is appearance and that's only one of many, many, many aspects of a person.

I agree.

That goes back to his belief that light does not send signals with the information contained within it to the brain to be interpreted. Rather, the brain is able to see objects in the real world because of the properties of light (such as wavelengths and frequencies) as we look through the eyes, as windows, to see what exists..

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I followed up on this this morning, let me know when you get to it.

Okay.

he takes issue with the claim that light is sending chemical messages, as in sound, to the brain. And this is because of the fact that this beauty and ugliness would exist externally, which it doesn't. I don't think you're getting this yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not getting it because it makes no sense. Why would beauty and ugliness, which are merely words use to describe a subjective internal experience, have to exist externally for sight to be a sense?

If it existed externally, we wouldn't be conditioned by the word itself. The light would bounce off of this beautiful person and would be seen as an image in the brain. If you really want to understand what he's saying, you need to read this chapter again. I can't keep repeating myself. I'm sure I'm boring a lot of people.

You are going back to the idea that the only truth can be found from empirical testing. I told you that empirical testing would help to confirm his observations, but if his observations turn out to be sound, then his claims that the eyes function differently are also sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am just wondering who he observed? Did he only observe himself and family?

He observed how the brain functions in general. He didn't observe one or two people.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no basis for empirical testing unless one can point out some aspect of sight that science has missed so far, form a testable hypothesis, design some tests etc.

The only way this could be tested is to have children grow up without hearing these words, and see how children (especially girls) are affected. Certainly, they will not grow up with the feelings of inferiority that we see today. It is true that children in this society feel so insecure, that if you don't tell them they look beautiful, they would begin to doubt themselves. This can only work when children have not been exposed to these words, and have not yet been conditioned.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dave, this discussion has been going on for days now. I don't think people want to rehash this again. I'll say one thing only. Beautiful should be abolished because it's not symbolic of reality. If we weren't conditioned by this word, we may find an attraction to someone who in today's world is thought to be ugly. All that exists in truth is our personal likes and dislikes, but to call someone ugly or to imply that someone is ugly by calling others beautiful is a subtle form of injustice that could not be rectified because we didn't understand how the brain works.

What the fuck are you talking about, you weird, insane, probably hideous nutjob?

First of all, beauty is relative (it's also in the eye of the beholder a lot of the time, ergo somewhat subjective, but we all know that through experience and the from viewing the world through beer goggles).

Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.

Thirdly, your claim that the word "beautiful" causes people to be unattracted to people who are considered not beautiful by society, and by abolishing the word, this wouldn't happen; well, it fucking would, because it's not the word per se that causes this discrimination. Even without any word that would be synonymous with beautiful, such a situation as you describe could and world still happen, because we have magazines with images of females, and those images make good use of make-up, airbrushing, photo-editting, shadow, etc.

It is thanks to magazines mentioned in the third point (well, it's thanks to a number of factors, but that's the clincher) that your plan to eradicate "beautiful" and "ugly" is naive, useless, and fucking idiotic.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by DaveT

Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.
.

L.O.L. No I would never do that but I am digging a nice deep hole for you up in the woods. Do you like looking at Oak trees? from under the roots?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by DaveT

What the fuck are you talking about, you weird, insane, probably hideous nutjob?

First of all, beauty is relative (it's also in the eye of the beholder a lot of the time, ergo somewhat subjective, but we all know that through experience and the from viewing the world through beer goggles).

Secondly, me calling a bonnie lassie beautiful does not mean that I am calling other lassies ugly. Me saying (for example), theDoc's wife is beautiful (and, I might add, very good in bed), that doesn't mean that all other females in the world/area/earshot are ugly. It just means that I am paying a compliment to one particular female, and that theDoc now has me marked for termination.

Thirdly, your claim that the word "beautiful" causes people to be unattracted to people who are considered not beautiful by society, and by abolishing the word, this wouldn't happen; well, it fucking would, because it's not the word per se that causes this discrimination. Even without any word that would be synonymous with beautiful, such a situation as you describe could and world still happen, because we have magazines with images of females, and those images make good use of make-up, airbrushing, photo-editting, shadow, etc.

It is thanks to magazines mentioned in the third point (well, it's thanks to a number of factors, but that's the clincher) that your plan to eradicate "beautiful" and "ugly" is naive, useless, and fucking idiotic.

Obviously, we're in a society that is making tons of money off of women's insecurities. It's not idiotic at all. Every girl is bombarded with images of perfection and when don't measure up to this standard of beauty, they berate themselves. Women hate their bodies, hate their looks, hate everything about themselves. Their confidence is shaken to the core. Our society is definitely unhealthy in this respect. And please don't post anymore because you will be ignored.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by thedoc

L.O.L. No I would never do that but I am digging a nice deep hole for you up in the woods. Do you like looking at Oak trees? from under the roots?

Include a couple of beeches and a weeping willow, and you've got yourself a deal.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, we're in a society that is making tons of money off of women's insecurities.

Well, it's actually certain industries that are doing that, and they're just exploiting the psychology of the genders, along with cultural expectations, to make their money.

It's not idiotic at all.

Of course. It's ignorant, naive, and fucking retarded, but it's not idiotic.

Every girl is bombarded with images of perfection and when don't measure up to this standard of beauty, they berate themselves.

Don't repeat to me what I just said, as if YOU'RE trying to educate ME! Besides, as I already explained, this isn't why "beautiful" should be abolished. I used this to explain why abolishing the aforementioned word would be a waste of time, and you're trying to use it as a red herring.

Women hate their bodies, hate their looks, hate everything about themselves. Their confidence is shaken to the core. Our society is definitely unhealthy in this respect.

You're generalising. While some women (you, for instance) hate their bodies, there are many that don't.

And please don't post anymore because you will be ignored.

Who the you; the fucking internetz police? The fucking mayor? The fucking Gestapo? You don't have an argument against most of what I've said, so like the pathetic, ugly coward that you are, you choose to ignore me. I've a good mind to make you uglier than you already are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by DaveT

Include a couple of beeches and a weeping willow, and you've got yourself a deal.

Awww, you're being so nice I'll even include a pipe to pour hot soup down thru.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained that. Color blindness results from an absence or malfunction of certain color - sensitive cells in the retina.

Which makes them sensory cells and the eye a sense organ

And you can objectively demonstrate people see different colors. Sort of the basic for color-blind testing.

He really is a complete FAIL with respect to even the basics.

I am beginning to feel like I am beating a baby seal to death. This one is not even challenging.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

I think this thread is losing its steam. If anyone has any last minute questions, I will try to answer them before leaving. It's been a true learning experience on many levels. Unfortunately, we didn't make the kind of progress I had hoped for.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't stand that this book might have something of value.

You cannot sand that you can demonstrate nothing of value from it and every one else has show it is worthless.

I think you've wasted enough time here.

The only one wasting time is you.

Why are you still here?

Why are you?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Talking about dogs, this is hysterical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVwlM...mbedded#at=216

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, we didn't make the kind of progress I had hoped for.

You should cease trying to sell ignorant nonsense to critical thinkers, particularly those who actually know the subjects the author of said ignorant nonsense so pathetically pontificates upon.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You should cease trying to sell ignorant nonsense to critical thinkers, particularly those who actually know the subjects the author of said ignorant nonsense so pathetically pontificates upon.

--J.D.

Doctor X, you never read the book so your opinion of him means nothing. I know you couldn't wait to say this. I hope you feel better now.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doctor X, you never read the book so your opinion of him means nothing. I know you couldn't wait to say this. I hope you feel better now.

On the contrary.

You really know nothing. Enjoy your temper-tantrum, child.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

DaveT, have you ever seen the movie 'Battle Beyond the Stars'?

[DaveT]

I have not.

[thedoc]

There is one sequence in the movie where Gelt (a mercenary played by Robert Vaughn) agrees to fight for the safety of a planet for a meal and a place to stay. In the end it's a grave and a full meal buried with him. The movie was based on the 'Magnificent Seven' which was based on 'Seven Samurai'.