A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These observations are 100% absolute. This law is invariable and it was observed.

That is a definitive example of assertion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way to prove that his observations are valid unless you can see the mathematical relations. This has nothing to do with his opinion.

If they were valid, it wouldn't matter if I could see the mathematical relations or not...they would be easily validated by scientists and mathematicians. You have had both read his work and none have found it valid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't work that way because he was dealing with physics which can be tested empirically by simulating certain events.

Yes, so not at all similar to Lessans psychological and philosophical ideas so why do you keep comparing Lessans to Einstein?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge can also be tested, but it will take time to to prove it. God is very patient. Time is on His side. This day is coming, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. This new world, a world we all want, is just as matter of time because we have now have the key to unlock it.

Statement of faith

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true LadyShea; it's only because you're not reading in depth. You are reading superficially because you're not taking it seriously. Trust me for once, will you? Of course not.

No, he was a poor writer and used poor reasoning and argumentation. This is not evidence of any great intellect. Molecules of light!

And what have you done to earn my trust? Why on Earth would I trust you about anything at all?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't it sad that you are using your own experience here to determine what will happen with this book? And you don't see this as self-righteous and cocky?

Again, I am not the one claiming to speak for God, and claiming to have the answer to all of the world's problems. It doesn't get much more self righteous and cocky than that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world can you know for a fact who is going to read this book and what they are going to think about it? Are you a fortune teller?

I am making a prediction based on my reading and our discussions and my knowledge of our society. I may be wrong. We shall see...have you gotten that proof back yet? When will you start marketing the book in earnest so I can monitor reviews and such?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have refuted these and you ignore them.

Liar, you've never offered a demonstration or refutation. What you've offered is assertions and denials. "Not it isn't the modal fallacy!" is not a demonstration, nor does it refute the charge.

If you can link me any actual demonstration you've presented, I will apologize. There isn't one though, I have been waiting for one a long time. I would have noticed it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems to me that when you ask me to refute these charges, you are challenging me to a dual.

I am challenging you to support your statements and claims, and refute the statements and claims of your interlocutors, in an intellectual debate kinda way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you were interested you wouldn't have this attitude, you would have asked me to explain what I meant, not challenged me to a debate.

If you had an explanation worth a shit, you would have offered it by now and my attitude would be irrelevant

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a win/lose mentality and that's not easy to overcome.

Why would you need to overcome it? Just beat me at my own game if you can.

Originally Posted by peacegir

If you could just be a little teeny weany bit more humble, maybe I would go over it with you, but not with this attitude of yours. It is preventing you from learning.

Weasel...you're just making excuses

Originally Posted by peacegir

I spent many many pages going over this.

You've spent many pages making assertions and weaseling. Show me what you got or shut the fuck up about it.

If you aren't sure, then ask in a nice way to go over it again.

No

Don't charge him with an assertion when you're not capable of determining this. It's total hubris for you to do this.

It was hubris of Lessans to claim undeniability without supporting evidence or sound reasoning. I will call assertion when I see it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I want you to understand this knowledge. What I cannot tolerate is your smart-alecky way of responding. It is so snippety and patronizing, I don't know how to handle it because you're so completely off base.

Boo hoo, deal or don't I don't care.

Originally Posted by peacegir

Yes I do, and it's getting ever so close.

Okay

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will

LOL, you've had two years. Start stomping

Originally Posted by peacegir

Everytime I explain something you throw it in my face and scream "assertion" when it is anything but an assertion.

All you do is make assertions. If you don't want to be called on making assertions, stop doing it.

Originally Posted by peacegir

You need to change your bedside manner or we're done. It's okay, this thread is history. I refuse to talk to Vivisectus (he suddenly turned on me out of nowhere), Angakuk doesn't have a clue, and Spacemonkey calls this a non-discovery. Thedoc and NA I pay no attention to; these two are the most ignorant people I've ever had the honor to meet online.

Weasel

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What is amazing, and just a bit hypocritical, is that all of Peacegirls criticism is directed at others but she doesn't understand that it applies even more-so to her.

That's because Janis is the Frank Burns of Internet forums. If she doesn't get the results she wants it's either God's will or somebody else's fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

That's because Janis is the Frank Burns of Internet forums. If she doesn't get the results she wants it's either God's will or somebody else's fault.

And this is a reasonable answer to my heartfelt post? Is this sick people or what? This is the most insane response yet, and is there any wonder why I'm leaving?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is a definitive example of assertion.

If they were valid, it wouldn't matter if I could see the mathematical relations or not...they would be easily validated by scientists and mathematicians. You have had both read his work and none have found it valid.

Yes, so not at all similar to Lessans psychological and philosophical ideas so why do you keep comparing Lessans to Einstein?

Statement of faith

No, he was a poor writer and used poor reasoning and argumentation. This is not evidence of any great intellect. Molecules of light!

And what have you done to earn my trust? Why on Earth would I trust you about anything at all?

Again, I am not the one claiming to speak for God, and claiming to have the answer to all of the world's problems. It doesn't get much more self righteous and cocky than that.

I am making a prediction based on my reading and our discussions and my knowledge of our society. I may be wrong. We shall see...have you gotten that proof back yet? When will you start marketing the book in earnest so I can monitor reviews and such?

Liar, you've never offered a demonstration or refutation. What you've offered is assertions and denials. "Not it isn't the modal fallacy!" is not a demonstration, nor does it refute the charge.

If you can link me any actual demonstration you've presented, I will apologize. There isn't one though, I have been waiting for one a long time. I would have noticed it.

I am challenging you to support your statements and claims, and refute the statements and claims of your interlocutors, in an intellectual debate kinda way.

If you had an explanation worth a shit, you would have offered it by now and my attitude would be irrelevant

Why would you need to overcome it? Just beat me at my own game if you can.

Weasel...you're just making excuses

You've spent many pages making assertions and weaseling. Show me what you got or shut the fuck up about it.

No

It was hubris of Lessans to claim undeniability without supporting evidence or sound reasoning. I will call assertion when I see it.

Boo hoo, deal or don't I don't care.

Okay

LOL, you've had two years. Start stomping

All you do is make assertions. If you don't want to be called on making assertions, stop doing it.

Weasel

Without any thought to what I was saying, you have done nothing but respond with a kneejerk reaction. Goodbye LadyShea, and goodluck to you. I have realized we are so far removed from a meeting of the minds that we will only get into a quagmire of anger and retaliation. I refuse. Take care of yourself, and I mean that wholeheartedly.

[Spacemonkey]

Why do you keep saying goodbye to people who aren't leaving?

[Vivisectus]

If you leave - and you probably won't, because I don't think any other venue will supply you with the attention you crave - you will leave because your lies will become intolerably transparent. Even you are not be able to ignore the level of dishonesty you are forced to stoop to in order to cling to your ideas. So you will try to re-set the conversation and pretend it did not happen, or find a new spot. It has been you M.O. for over a decade.

Always JUST on the brink of properly marketing the book. Always sadly beset by other people's bias. Nothing is ever you fault, or caused by flaws in the book.

At least your dad had some balls and predicted that he would be vindicated within his own lifetime. You however conveniently postpone the new world until after you are dead.

How sad. In all this time you were unable to find anyone more foolish than you, and it has made you stoop to pure dishonesty.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And this is a reasonable answer to my heartfelt post?

No, it was obviously a response to thedoc's post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is this sick people or what? This is the most insane response yet...

Sick and insane, yes, but it's hardly your worst.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and is there any wonder why I'm leaving?

No, there's wonder at why you keep saying you're leaving when you plainly are not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

what is most important is the knowledge regarding the will of man and conscience, and his observations are 100% accurate. I also know how difficult it must be for all of you to believe that a discovery such as this could actually be made, and here I am talking to you. Well, it's true, so give yourself a little credit for my being here. If you weren't searching for truth, I would have never found you.

This has got to be the height of arrogance that Peacegirl feels that we should be credited for being here at (purely figuratively speaking) the feet of the one true disciple of the great messiah Lessans. We are searching for truth and because of that Peacegirl has found us just waiting to be her followers? L.O.L.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you wouldn't, you would not challenge what you can't understand. You would wait to hear what other respected scientists have to say. You would be quiet and not open your mouth. You're fooling yourself LadyShea to think that you would challenge Einstein directly.

We would challenge because we want to understand, but when clear explinations are not forthcomming everyone gets frustrated and angry. You are also projecting your hero worship of your father onto everyone else, and this group is in no way afflicted with hero worship of anyone, and I have a definite lack of respect for many of my predecessors who I was expected to respect. If we were sitting with Einstein and he said something foolish we would laugh, and then mock him, and then challenge his statement.

Given that it was Einstein, he would probably laugh with us at his joke, which I would expect Lessans might do, if he isn't really such a fool as his book indicates.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This new world, a world we all want, is just as matter of time because we have now have the key to unlock it.

And this is another example of your projection of your's and Lessans idea that everyone should be just like you are, and if they aren't they'er wrong. I, for one, don't want any part of the world Lessans describes, Peace, no war, and no crime, are wonderful ideas but all that extra baggage are just more than I am willing to endure. There are other ways to eliminate or reduce war and crime, and reduced population is probably the best way. Not everyone wants Lessans "Golden Age".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to talk to Vivisectus, Angakuk doesn't have a clue, and Spacemonkey calls this a non-discovery. Thedoc and NA I pay no attention to; these two are the most ignorant people I've ever had the honor to meet online.

It is certainly a great honor to be in such good company, Thankyou Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I spent many many pages going over this. If you aren't sure, then ask in a nice way to go over it again. Don't charge him with an assertion when you're not capable of determining this. It's total hubris for you to do this.

So everyone is expected to Kiss Peacegirl's Ass to even get an evasion or dodging the question. And now she is telling us what we are capable of or not when she isn't capable of anything herself.

[LadyShea]

It wasn't kneejerk at all. I have exhorted you many times to start demonstrating (not asserting) that the charge of modal fallacy is incorrect, and the same with regards to tautology. I did so yet again in that post. Yet you just keep on whining and making it about me.

Put up or shut up.

[LadyShea]

Here is the original explanation of how Lessans committed to modal fallacy. Can you address it?

Originally Posted by davidm

Your argument commits the modal fallacy.

Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that all of us invariably do what we think will bring us the greatest satisfaction (a premise that I find highly dubious, but let’s just assume it for argument’s sake.)

Your argument, or the author’s argument, seems to go: If option A is best for me, than I must choose option A (hence, no free will).

This commits the fallacy of modal logic, illicitly assigning neccessity to a contingent outcome.

If indeed there is a “necessity” component to your argument (true in all possible worlds,) then the necessity lies, not in the consequent, but in the conjoint relation between the consequent and the antecedent.

Assuming the truth of the claim that we all invariably choose what we think is best for us, the proper logical construction is:

Necessarily, (If I think A is best for me, then I will (Not Must!) choose A)

And NOT:

If I think A is best for me, then I must (necessarily) choose A.

The modal fallacy here is plain to see, and the author’s argument against free will is formally logically invalid, and needs no further rebuttal.

For more on the modal fallacy, see here, for example.

[LadyShea]

As I said on literally Day 1, your first day here

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I hope you'll stay and participate peacegirl. I guarantee your ideas will be examined and critiqued, which most scholarly types consider a good thing. As to whether you'll appreciate the criticisms or be able to handle having to defend the work, well so far I wouldn't lay odds on that.

So you can't handle it, I was correct.

And, here is a post from you from 2 years ago and you didn't really mean goodbye then, nor any of the subsequent times you've said it, what makes you think we'll believe it this time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just wanted to say that I'm not going to continue the discussion if Lone Ranger cannot accept that science could be wrong, because there's no point. Lessans will be viewed as a jerk, a crackpot, and an ignoramus, and I'm not going to let people disrespect him in this way. Very few people are interested in the actual book. Why? Because they are being influenced negatively. They are using the responses to determine if there could be something of value, and if they don't see anyone even considering that there could be something worth considering, why read a 600 page book? I know what they're thinking. They have given up on the legitimacy of Lessans claims; now they are using this as entertainment, similar to a dog fight and they are transfixed on this thread to see who wins. It has nothing to do with the knowledge being presented. I'm not interested in this at all, and if someone else doesn't come to the forefront besides LadyShea, Vivisectus, and Specious_reasons, we're doomed. You are blind to see that you are no different than those you rail against. I have invested a lot of time in here, which is why it's hard to leave because I know there are questions that could have been answered quite satisfactority, IF Lessans was given half a chance. But he wasn't. I am letting people know that I'm not leaving with my tail between my legs. I'm leaving because this group is being unfair, whether they see why they are being unfair, or not. Prejudice comes in many forms, and the irony is that there is definite prejudice in here, even though people in here think they are more enlightened than the average person. It's very funny to me!! I think I've given you all food for thought, and it can't go beyond that unless more empirical studies are done to confirm what Lessans knew all along. No one knows enough about this knowledge to even explain why a no blame environment will create a paradigm shift, because they haven't understood the two-sided equation. What am I supposed to do? I'm being cornered without any real proof against me. Therefore, the gig is up. I am being forced to say goodbye. Maybe one day you will read this work the way it was meant to be read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is the original explanation of how Lessans committed to modal fallacy. Can you address it?

No LadyShea, you are 100% wrong, do you not get that? If A is the most satisfying choice in comparison to the available alternatives, you must (not will) choose A. YOU CANNOT CHOOSE B. This is a necessary truth which has nothing whatsoever to do with a free choice. This is not a formally logically invalid argument; it is valid, and for you to come off like you know what you're talking about makes me throw up. You are arrogant beyond belief!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are 100% wrong, do you not get that? If A is the most satisfying choice in comparison to the available alternatives, you must (not will) choose A. YOU CANNOT CHOOSE B. This is a necessary truth which has nothing whatsoever to do with a free choice. This is not a formally logically invalid argument; it is valid, and for you to come off like you know what you're talking about makes me throw up. You are arrogant beyond belief!

If arrogance makes you throw up, you must throw up each time you look in the mirror. You must be quite familiar with the porcelain receptacle.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are 100% wrong, do you not get that?

No, no-one does. As far as any of us can tell, she's perfectly correct.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And this is a reasonable answer to my heartfelt post? Is this sick people or what? This is the most insane response yet, and is there any wonder why I'm leaving?

What "Heartfelt" post are you refering to? the only posts of yours that I am aware of have been "profit" motivated, and not prophet oriented.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, no-one does. As far as any of us can tell, she's perfectly correct.

Scwartz was wrong. All LadyShea does is copy and paste. That's why Lessans said "free will" is a REALISTIC mirage. It looks like we have a choice, but we don't in actuality. You are blind Spacemonkey. You're just another one of the naysayers I have no interest in talking to anymore. You're responses have been reduced to nothing more than unwarranted attacks.

[peacegirl]

added to previous post:

There are success stories LadyShea, plenty, but if you follow the money there isn't a lot to be made from natural products. Pharmaceutical companies have a lot of money invested in research and development, which is why we get bombarded with advertisements for their drugs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That stops people telling their success stories to the media?

Yes, except on shows like "The Incurables" which are on cable networks and are coming into their own. It's becoming a level playing field, and it's about time for we are being easily manipulated. What we see when we watch primetime television are advertisements from major drug companies. You don't think this is biased television? These networks are depending on this money for their survival. Thank goodness there are laws that demand these pharmaceutical companies disclose many of the known side effects of these drugs. Unfortunately, the viewer has probably gotten immune to these disclosures and will ask the doctor for a prescription anyway.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

What's the Harm?

Thanks for this link. I'll read it over. I am not endorsing quack therapies Cynthia, but allopathic medicine has it's own brand of half-baked information which is done to deceive. Neither side is completely victimless, but there's a greater danger from taking drugs that are known to be risky but have not yet been taken off the market due to the FDAs reluctance ($$$). There's no question that there is often a conflict of interest between the drug companies and the institutions which fund the research. This has become a serious problem in our society, and they are allowed to kill people with impunity.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are 100% wrong, do you not get that? If A is the most satisfying choice in comparison to the available alternatives, you must (not will) choose A. YOU CANNOT CHOOSE B.

Unless you can prove that, with some kind of hard scientific evidence, it is fallacious reasoning because you are "illicitly assigning neccessity to a contingent outcome"


Please note that the explanation was davidm's, and I agree with his assessment after studying the fallacy. I quoted his original argument because it was well laid out. I do not claim the argument as my own.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

added to previous post:

Yes, except on shows like "The Incurables" which are on cable networks and are coming into their own. It's becoming a level playing field, and it's about time for we are being easily manipulated. What we see when we watch primetime television are advertisements from major drug companies. You don't think this is biased television? These networks are depending on this money for their survival. Thank goodness there are laws that demand these pharmaceutical companies disclose many of the known side effects of these drugs. Unfortunately, the viewer has probably gotten immune to these disclosures and will ask the doctor for a prescription anyway.

I don't watch much commercial television, but advertising is certainly not the only way people can get into the media. I can't find many success stories (as in curing cancer) on blogs or forums or in books either. There are some, yes, just as there are successful faith healings and cases of spontaneous remission without any treatment at all, but not nearly as many as one would expect were natural treatments highly effective.

Also, you seem to think people are really stupid. You constantly accuse them of groupthink and now of asking for prescriptions based on nothing more than advertising. Hopefully any readers of the book won't find out you think so little of the average human's abilities to think for themselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unless you can prove that, with some kind of hard scientific evidence, it is fallacious reasoning because you are "illicitly assigning neccessity to a contingent outcome"


Please note that the explanation was davidm's, and I agree with his assessment after studying the fallacy. I quoted his original argument because it was well laid out. I do not claim the argument as my own.

So is Lessans' description well laid out. The only difference is that Lessans' description is right. You think your ideas are well thought out, but they aren't. You are siding with people who have a position of respect. Your lack of capacity to even understand why he is so on key is troublesome. The only thing I'm upset about is how you are influencing so many people to ridicule Lessans (because people are followers) when it is YOU who is completely in the dark. This is why I will not go on any further in this thread as soon as I get my proof. It's a total sham, but you would never admit that you have played a part in this because you think of yourself as an adversary who is out to prove Lessans' wrong. You couldn't be more wrong than the man in the moon.