A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's food for thought:

Question and examine everything. Conclusions
that sound logically persuasive may not be true, even if
you can't immediately prove those conclusions are not true,
even if you can't immediately prove what IS true instead,
even if you may never be able to prove to others' satisfaction
what IS true instead.

Don't discount commonsense, intuition that something is not
quite right, personal experience, and other practical experience.

Any of these routes to knowledge can be in error, but
if we rely only on authority, statistics, and
persuasive sounding logic, we will have given away much
of our power to detect error where that may occur.

Yes, and this is why most here discount Lessans ideas and disagree with them, they just don't smell right. And Peacegirl, no-one else here is relying on 'authority', just you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting website because it explains dark matter, and it could be the matter that is interacting with the light to give it it's composition and appearance. Just a thought so don't go ballistic.

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php

I know what dark matter is (in a very layperson general way), but what do you think it could do to the light to give light "its composition and appearance"? What does that even mean?

The reason it is "dark" is because it doesn't emit or scatter light...though it does have a role in gravitational lensing, I believe

Dark Matter is simply matter that does not interact with light. We can detect it using gravitational methods (NewtonUs Laws), but not as light. Dark Matter neither absorbs nor radiates light. Dark Matter

Also, you dodged the question. Is that image an actual galaxy, or a relic, or a remnant, or a clue?

[LadyShea]

Quoting Lessans to support the veracity of Lessans. Yeah, nothing at all fundie or faith based about that.

[Kael]

How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book...

Etc.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think that if the discussion could move on to 'free will', 'determinism' and some of the other philosophical subjects it could revive some of the interest and attract a few more contributers.

Nope, because her and Lessans' claims are a dead loss there as well, and have already been shown to be so, by me, around, oh, page 20 or so. The argument commits a straighforward modal fallacy. Way back when I also linked to some papers on this; will re-link if the conversation returns to this subject. But she and Lessans are as hopelessly wrong here as they are on light and sight.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I never thought I'd actually have this conversation with anyone in real life.

Welcome to Peacegirlworld.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's food for thought:

Question and examine everything. Conclusions
that sound logically persuasive may not be true, even if
you can't immediately prove those conclusions are not true,
even if you can't immediately prove what IS true instead,
even if you may never be able to prove to others' satisfaction
what IS true instead.

Don't discount commonsense, intuition that something is not
quite right, personal experience, and other practical experience.

Any of these routes to knowledge can be in error, but
if we rely only on authority, statistics, and
persuasive sounding logic, we will have given away much
of our power to detect error where that may occur.

The only one relying an authority here is you, and it's the "authority" of a dumb ass.

Amazing that you can be so ignorant and arrogant that after 550 pages, you still think scientific practices are appeals to authority. My zod, are you arrogant and dumb.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Kael

How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book...

Etc.

[LadyShea]

The discussion of the other "discoveries" will consist of

Lessans reasoning is fallacious and here's exactly how
No it isn't! It's spot on!
There is a modal fallacy and tautology and argument from assertion...etc.
No, you're a meanie

During the course of this, peacegirl will argue from adverse consequences, offer ad-hoc explanations to try to make Lessans ideas fit reality, appeal to non-existent future "proof" she thinks will vindicate Lessans, and dismiss any and all counterexamples and refutations on spurious grounds while simultaneously calling for "one single proof"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nope, because her and Lessans' claims are a dead loss there as well, and have already been shown to be so, by me, around, oh, page 20 or so. The argument commits a straighforward modal fallacy. Way back when I also linked to some papers on this; will re-link if the conversation returns to this subject. But she and Lessans are as hopelessly wrong here as they are on light and sight.

I was not really thinking of Peacegirl and Lessans contribution, but of everyone elses, much like the debate on sight, Peacegirl/Lessans offer nothing but nonsense, but other posters have provided a great deal of useful and interesting dialogue.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I was not really thinking of Peacegirl and Lessans contribution, but of everyone elses, much like the debate on sight, Peacegirl/Lessans offer nothing but nonsense, but other posters have provided a great deal of useful and interesting dialogue.

The Modal Fallacy

Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinsim

Foreknowledge and Free Will

All by Prof. Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Fraser University. If you Google him you will also find that he is the author of three splendid books on philosophy and each book can be downloaded for free. Nice stuff here; of course peacegirl won’t read any of it because (1.) I doubt she has the intellectual capacity and (2.) I know she doesn’t have the intellectual integrity, because the above-linked papers thoroughly refute Lessans’ “arguments” on free will and determinism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know what dark matter is (in a very layperson general way), but what do you think it could do to the light to give light "its composition and appearance"? What does that even mean?

Never mind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The reason it is "dark" is because it doesn't emit or scatter light...though it does have a role in gravitational lensing, I believe

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dark Matter is simply matter that does not interact with light. We can detect it using gravitational methods (NewtonUs Laws), but not as light. Dark Matter neither absorbs nor radiates light. Dark Matter

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, you dodged the question. Is that image an actual galaxy, or a relic, or a remnant, or a clue?

It all depends on whether efferent vision is right. If it is, then light is not bringing the past (the image) to us. If efferent vision is wrong, then it is bringing a past image to us. As I said before, may the best man win. I believe it's too early to know even though everyone believes this has already been proved many times over.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The Modal Fallacy

Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinsim

Foreknowledge and Free Will

All by Prof. Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Fraser University. If you Google him you will also find that he is the author of three splendid books on philosophy and each book can be downloaded for free. Nice stuff here; of course peacegirl won’t read any of it because (1.) I doubt she has the intellectual capacity and (2.) I know she doesn’t have the intellectual integrity, because the above-linked papers thoroughly refute Lessans’ “arguments” on free will and determinism.

I don't care about Swartz' credentials. That should not even be part of the conversation, and for you to use that as some kind of proof is very telling. I read some of the papers. Lessans' proof has nothing to do with any of these modal fallacies. You can't stand that you could be wrong about Lessans, can you? Well you are, and it will come out whether it's in this thread or some other avenue. The truth always wins David.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The discussion of the other "discoveries" will consist of

Lessans reasoning is fallacious and here's exactly how
No it isn't! It's spot on!
There is a modal fallacy and tautology and argument from assertion...etc.
No, you're a meanie

During the course of this, peacegirl will argue from adverse consequences, offer ad-hoc explanations to try to make Lessans ideas fit reality, appeal to non-existent future "proof" she thinks will vindicate Lessans, and dismiss any and all counterexamples and refutations on spurious grounds while simultaneously calling for "one single proof"

All of this comes down to is a vendetta because, like David, you don't like the implications. I am not trying to make his ideas fit. I am not at all appealing to non-existent future proof. The proof exists now, but you are too blind to even open your mind to see it. That's the crux of the problem in this forum. Lessans will be vindicated because he's correct and the facts will show this. The counterexamples used do not apply because Lessans' proof has nothing to do with a modal fallacy. Do you even remember where he showed his actual observations as to why we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction? He clearly demonstrated why man can only go in one direction from his observations, not from his logic. Therefore, this is not a tautology at all as if to say we do what we do because we do it, and therefore any choice we make is the right one.

[LadyShea]

http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/freewill1.htm#part2

peacegirl, see specifically 4. and 5. at the above link, and carefully consider this sentence from that section:

Originally Posted by Swartz

not everything that is actually true is necessarily true

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all depends on whether efferent vision is right. If it is, then light is not bringing the past (the image) to us. If efferent vision is wrong, then it is bringing a past image to us. As I said before, may the best man win. I believe it's too early to know even though everyone believes this has already been proved many times over.

Assuming, as you do, that efferent vision is correct. How would you describe the image of the Pinwheel Galaxy? Is the galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, something else?

Quit dodging the very direct question with your waffling!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave a precise and accurate description of your debate points over the last 550 pages of discussion peacegirl. There's no vendetta...and also see "you're a meanie" in my above prediction...lol

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not trying to make his ideas fit.

You brought up dark matter of all things trying to make real time seeing fit observed reality. You'll pull any old thing out of thin air to try to make a fit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not at all appealing to non-existent future proof.

What do you think "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" means? What do you think you were saying all those times you said something along the lines of "When scientists run more tests Lessans will be proved right."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof exists now, but you are too blind to even open your mind to see it.

Show the currently existing proof then, as you have been asked to for months on end.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans will be vindicated because he's correct and the facts will show this.

Right here is an appeal to non existent future proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The counterexamples used do not apply because Lessans' proof has nothing to do with a modal fallacy.

LOL dismissing counterexamples on spurious grounds

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you even remember where he showed his actual observations as to why we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction? He clearly demonstrated why man can only go in one direction from his observations, not from his logic.

He presented a logical argument, not a scientific observation

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Therefore, this is not a tautology at all as if to say we do what we do because we do it, and therefore any choice we make is the right one.

Of course it tautological.

Lessans argument is basically "We do what we do because we must do what do and we know this because we do it".

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

The only one relying an authority here is you, and it's the "authority" of a dumb ass.

Amazing that you can be so ignorant and arrogant that after 550 pages, you still think scientific practices are appeals to authority. My zod, are you arrogant and dumb.

Thou shalt not take the Lord thy Zod's name in vain ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book. --> How do we know Lessans' book is accurate? --> Because he was the most astute observer ever to grace humankind. --> How do we know Lessans' astute observations are correct? --> Because he said so in his book...

Etc.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The accuracy can only come from the observations themselves. It's true that it's difficult to know whether an observation is accurate or not. I believe his observations regarding man's nature are correct because what he describes makes sense and there is nothing to counteract these observations. It's like saying I have observed for years and years that apples fall from a tree. How do we know that's correct if all apples haven't been tested? There comes a time where we can confidently conclude that our observations are correct and there are no exceptions to this universal law of gravity which causes apples to fall down instead of up or sideways. Unfortunately, even if Lessans is right it won't matter if everyone thinks he is wrong because this knowledge will never have a chance to be tested in real life.

[LadyShea]

But everyone can observe that apples fall from trees, and apples always fall straight down, that's what makes it a valid observation. Which of Lessans observations can be observed by everyone, every single time?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How this occurs I really don't know.

Truer words were never written.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not an astronomer.

The hell you say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon.

What did the word "theory" ever do to deserve the abuse you've heaped upon it in this thread?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what they are.

If that's the case, what's your basis for unequivocally claiming that there are "many" of them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.

The reconciliation you're proposing would be apologetics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Notes on Free Will and Determinism - Prof. Norman Swartz

peacegirl, see specifically 4. and 5. at the above link, and carefully consider this sentence from that section:

This comment makes no sense in terms of this natural law. There is no "necessarily true" until something becomes an actuality. In other words, it is only necessarily true that someone had to wear a certain hat because he did, in fact, wear that hat as the choice that was most preferable given his particular circumstances. There was no foreknowledge that said it is necessarily true that he must choose that hat before actually choosing it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But everyone can observe that apples fall from trees, and apples always fall straight down, that's what makes it a valid observation. Which of Lessans observations can be observed by everyone, every single time?

That's what I've been trying to tell you. The observations Lessans made are not as easily seen as apples falling from trees, but they are just as valid. We have a certain nature, and it is this nature that crosses all religious, political, gender, or denominational lines. That is the only reason he could say, with confidence, that this is a universal law. There are no exceptions just like there are no exceptions to the fact that apples fall down from trees, not up.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This comment makes no sense in terms of this natural law. There is no "necessarily true" until something becomes an actuality. In other words, it is only necessarily true that someone had to wear a certain hat because he did, in fact, wear that hat as the choice that was most preferable given his particular circumstances. There was no foreknowledge that said it is necessarily true that he must choose that hat before actually choosing it.

Then you don't understand the sentence or the discussion at the link. Additionally you don't seem to understand the correct usage of modal verbs like must, will, might, could, should at all, as I have mentioned previously.

What it says is that X did happen doesn't mean It was necessary for X to happen.

not everything that is actually true is necessarily true

Possible Truth: I will wear a blue hat
Actual truth: I wore a blue hat
Necessary Truth: I necessarily wore a blue hat

If there are additional possibilities, such as not wearing a hat at all, or wearing a red hat, then "I wore a blue hat" isn't a necessary truth in this instance, only an actual truth

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I've been trying to tell you. The observations Lessans made are not as easily seen as apples falling from trees, but they are just as valid. We have a certain nature, and it is this nature that crosses all religious, political, gender, or denominational lines. That is the only reason he could say, with confidence, that this is a universal law. There are no exceptions just like there are no exceptions to the fact that apples fall down from trees, not up.

If nobody else can make the same observation then it is an unsupported assertion.

As for no exceptions, you have stated that certain mental illnesses and brain damage would result in exceptions.