A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I wanted a circus, I'd train some lions, tigers, and bears. But circuses are cruel, according to many animal advocates, so that's out.

Awww, can't we at least have the clowns? No wait, they're here on this site!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So why the big focus on "eliminating" specific words like beautiful, and on "lawmakers" deciding which words are harmful.

It has to be assumed that if nobody intends hurt, then the words they use cannot be meant to hurt, and the listener should not BE hurt since there was no intent.

Do you believe words in and of themselves can be hurtful, when there was no intent to hurt?

I was only talking about words that have no basis in reality such as beautiful, gorgeous, ugly, homely, etc. 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?

If someone was using a word that heretofore had a negative connotation, such as the N word, there would be absolutely no reason to utter that word. If a new generation did not have the connotation a previous generation had, that's a different story, but there is no getting around the fact that this word was meant to hurt the blacks; to make them less than human. Sure, blacks can call each other the N word without this connotation, or it can mean anyone, not just blacks, who do bad things. But why would a word be brought back into circulation when people know it would bring up terrible memories (for anyone who is older) of such a difficult time in history? They could use it; no one would blame them, but I don't know why they would want to use it.

[LadyShea]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Lessans

Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context the opposite of free will) was proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock?

I parse the bolded above as:

If determinism is false, then free will is true
He has "proven" free will is NOT TRUE
Therefore determinism must be NOT FALSE

How do you parse it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. The present model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence. Lessans' model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're going to have to give me the definition of "solid evidence" you are using.

Accepted fact based on data from multiple experiments, examinations and hard data.

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. Even to say she may not be beautiful but she has a beautiful soul doesn't change the standard hidden in the word, it just changes the screen. "Scientists, believing the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what he saw with them because [B]they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically."

Originally Posted by LadyShea']How did Lessan's know the eyes contain rods and cones? Did he read it somewhere and accept THAT fact? Did he dissect an eye and look at its structures under a microscope?

The same claim made by every conspiracy theorist, quack medicine practitioner, and pseudoscience pusher. When they can't demonstrate their ideas with hard evidence, they blame the establishment for not recongizing their genius because it's such a threat.

Basically that sentence, right there, screams "Crackpot"[/quote]

He wasn't blaming anyone, but he did get perturbed when no one would give him the time of day because he wasn't part of any academic circles. 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 not picked up by previous scientists? It's seems too easy. People are looking for something more mysterious; more difficult.

[quote="LadyShea

He definitely wanted to put himself on the same level as people like Mendel, however Mendel was able to demonstrate his ideas with experimentation. He had a whole experimental garden and grew plants and they supported his hypothesis. Where are Lessan's experiments?

I told you that this knowledge did not come from experiments, yet his observations hold weight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it isn't because if it was, then the brain could not do what he is describing; project words (whether true or false) onto a screen of undeniable substance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By "projecting words onto a screen of undeniable substance" do you mean labeling things? Categorizing them? Associating them with emotions? Attaching meaning?

Yes, labeling undeniable substance. Can you see a soul in the real world? He was talking about things that are real; that we see. The word does not create the dog as it does words like heaven, soul, spirit, etc.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This particular use of words you cannot adhere to, because it needs to be defined using some other words. It may make perfect sense to you, but it does not to the reader. And I am a good reader with a big vocabulary.

And, when you explain that, then explain if blind people also do it.

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

Also. he defined sense as stimuli from the outside world coming in contact with nerves. You will need to explain how sight does NOT meet this definition because I think it does

Stimuli (light photons) from the outside world come in contact with the optic nerve

So, tell me how the above sentence is incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He maintains that light does not send signals with the information contained in 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 to see what exists..

The observations that led Lessans to making these claims. He is not refuting anything that scientists have observed regarding the structure of the eye, the neural pathways, the optic nerve, or the brain itself. But he takes issue with the claim that light is sending chemical messages, as with sound, to be decoded. 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.

Observations of what? Observation of who? Test subjects?

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

I think you are trying to make his "observations" into something they aren't. You are assuming his observations apply to all, when he seems to have only observed himself.

Why are you repeating yourself? I told you that this knowledge did not come from experiments, yet his observations hold weight.

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

The word does not create the dog as it does words like heaven, soul, spirit, etc. That's all he means by this.

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

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.

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".

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.

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..

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Some of us have, and beyond.

Tell me then, what is the discovery? I know you don't know.

[LadyShea]

Seriously, have you taken this beautiful thing to it's logical conclusion? You couldn't describe anyone as wonderful, delightful, appealing, or pleasant without implying that others are boring, dull, unappealing and unpleasant. Exactly how many words are you thinking will need to be eliminated?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, this has nothing to do with Mommie protectionism. No word will be off limits if it expresses what someone is trying to communicate. As far as lawmakers sounding like some kind of functionary of authority or institution, how is that possible, when there is going to be no more authority or control by government. Only small branches of government will still exist (such as these lawmakers), but will hold no power over anyone.

There is no such thing as a "true" hurt with words, at the very least (one can argue against all kinds of hurts being objectively identifiable I imagine). People have such unique sensitivities that what one finds extremely hurtful another might not even notice. This gives us an opportunity to get to know people, and respond accordingly if that individual says "I find that hurtful", but I don't see how uninvolved "lawmakers" could make that determination for all people.

It's all about intent. Lawmakers would only point out in cases where there is conflict, who is in the right. It's the same thing in this world when a lawyer determines who broke an agreement, and therefore is at fault.

I hope you realize that determining who might be striking a first blow doesn't involve just words. There are many situations where a person might not be sure, and would want to know (even small hurts will be avoided at all costs) so there will be books that he can go to in order to find answers. It would be similar to a law book. It would be up to him to do what he wants with that information. For example, if an individual was walking across someone's lawn and didn't realize that he was causing the grass to die, he would want to know this so as not to do it again. In this world a homeowner might come outside and scream at the person to get off the lawn. This might cause the person to react in anger and dig his feet into the grass even more. The homeowner would then call the police and press charges, and so on and so forth.

[LadyShea]

there will be books that he can go to to find out if he is in the wrong. It would be similar to a law book. It would be up to him to do what he wants with that information. For example, if I am walking across your lawn and don't realize that I'm causing the grass to die, I would want to know this.

So instead of finding out through human interaction that an individual would prefer you not walk on his/her grass, or that this particular person does not mind you walking on the grass, you would instead consult a book?

Really?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously, have you taken this beautiful thing to it's logical conclusion? You couldn't describe anyone as wonderful, delightful, appealing, or pleasant without implying that others are boring, dull, unappealing and unpleasant. Exactly how many words are you thinking will need to be eliminated?

I have taken it to its logical conclusion. To call one child wonderful while another is sitting there is discriminating and a hurt to the child who will now feel that he isn't wonderful. But once children are older, they will know that telling a child, for example, that his flute playing is wonderful is no discredit to him. He will know his parents love him just the same. But yes, people will have to be careful how they use words so as not to unintentionally send out the wrong message (to children especially).

Any words that express what someone is feeling deserve to be expressed. I am only referring to words that have a bad history, such as the N word, that no one will want to use. Maybe it will change, I don't know. But I know one thing for sure, no one will say a word with only one purpose in mind; to cause harm to another. No one is hurt when you use the word fuck, or shit, or God dam it, etc. I think you are imagining a puritan type of environment. That is not at all what I'm saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So instead of finding out through human interaction that an individual would prefer you not walk on his/her grass, or that this particular person does not mind you walking on the grass, you would instead consult a book?

Really?

That was a poor example. I am talking about situations where who is in the right and who is in the wrong is not clear. Just as in law, situations have to be carefully examined. But there is a right-of-way system that will help in most family situations, and the person who does not have the right-of-way will need to yield.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you are imagining a puritan type of environment. That is not at all what I'm saying.

You said you would eliminate any word that isn't "reality", or is "inaccurate", like beautiful is the example you've used. All the words I mentioned are similar to beautiful.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me then, what is the discovery? I know you don't know.

His 'discovery' was (very very briefly) that if you remove blame you can remove the desire to hurt others. I have read it and I do understand.

[Vivisectus]

It was based on his belief that these principles would have been thoroughly investigated. Vivisectus, I know I am ruffling your feathers like a lot of people in here. I do appreciate your interest but I cannot keep answering your questions when I know you don't understand the simplist aspect of this discovery. There are other people waiting to have their questions answered, so I have to give them a chance too. It's only fair. I'm really sorry about this, but I'm just one person, as Regis Philbin is famous for saying.

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.

[erimir]

I'm guessing that peace girl has never seen Crimes and Misdemeanors .

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking about the Jupiter experiment. Even if we can't see an object until the light reaches us, and Lessans was wrong by saying that if the sun exploded we would see it immediately, it still doesn't negate his discovery that the brain is looking through the eyes to see the external world.

Lessans discovered that teh brain was looking through the eyes to see the external world?

Oh, holy shit! He discovered that we see with the eyes???!1

All hail Lessans!

Oh, but wait! I thought he said we don't see with the eyes, because the eyes are not a fucking sense organ!

Or ... wait. Just what the fuck is Lessans talking about, anyhoo??

Wow, what a retarded thread!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I know I am ruffling your feathers like a lot of people in here.

And there it is again, the customary condescension of the clueless crackpot, who thinks she has secret knowledge to change the world, yet can't even master the Quote function on an Internet message board.

[Vivisectus]

Actually, I would then also need a compelling reason to believe that justification is the only way we can want to do a harmful act. I can imagine, for instance, just not giving a damn about the consequences for another - not because of any justification, but because of a genuine lack of caring.

Not nice, but certainly not unimaginable either.

So - for the idea to hold, we need to show a compelling reason to believe that blame leads to justification and is the only cause thereof, and that one cannot do a harmful act to another human being without justifying it somehow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So why the big focus on "eliminating" specific words like beautiful, and on "lawmakers" deciding which words are harmful.

It has to be assumed that if nobody intends hurt, then the words they use cannot be meant to hurt, and the listener should not BE hurt since there was no intent.

That is very true. But words that, in the past, were meant to cause harm would probably bring up an emotional reaction in the listener.

Do you believe words in and of themselves can be hurtful, when there was no intent to hurt?

Not at all. Only those words that condition us (as was explained in the book) can, in and of themselves, be hurtful, even if the intent to hurt was never a factor.

[peacegirl]

repeated this post

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, I would then also need a compelling reason to believe that justification is the only way we can want to do a harmful act. I can imagine, for instance, just not giving a damn about the consequences for another - not because of any justification, but because of a genuine lack of caring.

Not nice, but certainly not unimaginable either.

Someone who has a genuine lack of caring is one thing; doing something to hurt someone because of a genuine lack of caring is quite another. Most people have been hurt before and are lashing out, or have developed a grudge. This doesn't prove the principles in the book don't work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So - for the idea to hold, we need to show a compelling reason to believe that blame leads to justification and is the only cause thereof, and that one cannot do a harmful act to another human being without justifying it somehow.

Blame leads to the ability to make excuses. Didn't you read that part? I think the only way to make headway is to post Chapter Two. Otherwise, the posts seem to jump from one idea to the other without any real progress.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans discovered that teh brain was looking through the eyes to see the external world?

Oh, holy shit! He discovered that we see with the eyes???!1

All hail Lessans!

Oh, but wait! I thought he said we don't see with the eyes, because the eyes are not a fucking sense organ!

Or ... wait. Just what the fuck is Lessans talking about, anyhoo??

Wow, what a retarded thread!

You can't stand that this book might have something of value. I think you've wasted enough time here. Why are you still here?

[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.

I will tell you why I said what I said. I was retaliating and for good reason. You're coming off like you fully understand this chapter. You might understand some, but it's far from a complete understanding. You never once explained the two-sided equation. Instead of asking questions so I can answer you, you're coming off like some kind of authority. It's your tone that needs to change, or it will be difficult for me to communicate with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said you would eliminate any word that isn't "reality", or is "inaccurate", like beautiful is the example you've used. All the words I mentioned are similar to beautiful.

The word beautiful is projected onto a screen, and when a child hears that word associated with certain features, a photograph is taken of those features. That's how conditioning occurs. It is not an accurate symbol of reality, but it appears so. The word wonderful does not create this conditioning. We can't put the word wonderful next to a person and photograph a picture of a person who has wonderful characteristics. But if any of these adjectives are used indiscriminately, it can send a wrong message. A child might take to heart that you call his brother wonderful and not him, and he might conclude that he is not wonderful. This can be the beginning of jealousy between siblings.