A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, time will tell whether Lessans was a crackpot or a genius.

Too late, we already know, at least those who have read, at least, part of the book.

I just wonder who tied his shoes for him, were you his "favorite" daughter?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can look back and see for yourself who was doing the name calling. Stop defending your friends. It's so obvious.

One day you'll eat your words, that is, if this discovery is recognized in your lifetime. If not, he will still be vindicated.

I have been looking back. You started the name calling, by calling me bitter and angry. You said we were closed minded, easily confused, and accused us of unfair expectations that we never expressed. You went all persecuted martyr day 1 and here you are three years later still whining the same whine and fantasizing about your future vindication. You keep coming back to because you absolutely love playing the victim.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what if it turns out that he was right?

"What If' is a rather useless game to play. As you have said, "The proof of the pudding, is in the eating." People here have been hungry for over 3 years, and are still not satisfied. If your father's ideas were valid, that satisfaction should have happened from the beginning.

Vindication in the future, based on the results of tests, that you can't even specify, and that would contradict all the empirical evidence gathered thus far, is of little value in the real world. Show us his observations so that we can verify, or not, for ourselves.

"His observations were spot on, and you just have to trust me." doesn't cut it in the real world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep coming back to because you absolutely love playing the victim.

But she does it so well, annoying, but well.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you.

You're welcome. How's Archie holding up?

Flossy says hai.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You and Davidm have driven me out of here.

Dude, you're still here. A six-week hiatus, though a big step in the right direction for you, hardly qualifies as leaving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You were insulting people -- without provocation, mind you -- on your very first day. Because they committed the "sin" of not swallowing your amazing and wholly unsupported claims on pure faith. When people politely asked you to provide some evidence -- or at least a coherent explanation -- for your claims, you jumped right to the insults and the "Why are you being so mean to me?" hysterics.

No, you are totally off-base. You wanted empirical evidence and without it I could not prove to you that his observations were spot on thus making me defensive. I continue to be defensive because his observations mean something and are dismissed due to the idea that the scientific method, the only one accepted by science, can be the only contribution thus making my father's observations uninteresting and faulty at the very least. I'm sick and tired of scientific minds telling me he didn't have the evidence. He did, even though he did not meet the criteria of what scientists believe is necessary. Epistemology does not say that empiricism is the only way to truth. Why don't you people get that? Astute observation and sound reasoning matters, although the proof of the pudding is that it works in reality. I get that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're welcome. How's Archie holding up?

Flossy says hai.

Dude, you're still here. A six-week hiatus, though a big step in the right direction for you, hardly qualifies as leaving.

Well not talking to you will speed up the process.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You wanted empirical evidence and without it I could not prove to you that his observations were spot on thus making me defensive. I continue to be defensive because his observations mean something and are dismissed due to the idea that the scientific method, the only one accepted by science

You and Lessans called for scientific "verification", so of course evidence and the scientific method were called for in return.

If you don't have evidence, and don't have any testable hypotheses, then you don't get to expect or hope for scientific verification because you don't have science.

I'm sick and tired of scientific minds telling me he didn't have the evidence. Epistemology does not say that empiricism is the only way to truth. Why don't you people get that?

Epistemology is in the realm of philosophy, not scientific verification or validation. Quit calling it science and asking for science to validate philosophy if you don't want to deal with the scientific method.

The problem is in your own head and you can solve it, see?

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But she does it so well, annoying, but well.

Thedoc, I am allowing you to talk to me but only under certain conditions. If you continue to attack without asking questions, you will be immediately put back on ignore. Your choice. LadyShea, you are wrong as you have been through this thread. I don't even take what you take seriously at this point. You are basing all of your knowledge on empiricism, which is the reason why you think you refuse to listen, but you are wrong as is Lone Ranger and Davidm. You are so true to your cronies (and don't tell me that this doesn't have an influence on what you say) that you can't see the impact of your comments on the lurkers (although I realize this is not your responsibility). I know very well LadyShea (at least in this venue), so don't try to weasel yourself out of it. I am not telling you to not think logically, but the things you have attacked Lessans on has no bearing whatsoever on his knowledge and observations. For example, you said he was irrational when he burned his first set of books. This is absolutely crazy and why there are no people in this forum (although there are in others) trying to understand what he discovered. This immediately stops people from wanting to learn more because people take what other people say as gospel and then turn away. This is human nature and unfortunately you have contributed to this problem.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. It is not empirically based but based on accurate reasoning and astute observation.

This exchange happened your first day

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You and Lessans called for scientific "verification", so of course evidence and the scientific method were called for in return.

If you don't have evidence, and don't have any testable hypotheses, then you don't get to expect or hope for scientific verification because you don't have science.

Epistemology is in the realm of philosophy, not scientific verification or validation. Quit calling it science and asking for science to validate philosophy if you don't want to deal with the scientific method.

The problem is in your own head and you can solve it, see?

I don't care how you define it; that's what you're not getting.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care how you define it; that's what you're not getting.

I get that you expect it to be scientifically validated, but as it isn't science, that is an unreasonable expectation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This exchange happened your first day

This isn't even necessary if you understand why his observations are not assertions. But you don't even understand his spot on observations and reasoning which brought him to these conclusions. Your immediate dismissal because he didn't use the "scientific method" does not in and of itself discredit what he has observed. There needs to be ways to verify the validity of his observations short of moving toward this Golden Age through a transitional period. The fact that you keep confronting me by telling me he has nothing valuable, without knowing this, makes me not want to talk to you anymore. My lack of desire to deal with someone like you who is confrontative without the slightest understanding of these principles (I am talking about his proof of no free will) makes me feel there is no hope for any kind of deeper understanding in this thread. I am here only because I have to regroup to decide how to market. It's not an easy task as you well know. As distasteful as being here is, I can still talk about the book without starting over on another philosophy forum. I refuse to do that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I get that you expect it to be scientifically validated, but as it isn't science, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Does not matter. If you had tried to understand his reasoning in the slightest, you would not have answered me the way you have. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we haven't even gotten there yet because you and your cronies would not allow me to justify why I believe he was right. You attack me on all levels, and you have also tried to diminish this poor man by bringing into the conversation things that have no real bearing on anything such as his burning of his books. You are unfortunately becoming someone who has absolutely no credibility in this area at all. You cannot judge his motives as being less than normal unless you are trying in the worst way to discredit him, which you have nicely done. Thank you LadyShea for helping to cut off any further conversation that could have come from other lurkers. In the end you did what you did because you had no choice, so I'm really not blaming you. I'm just saddened by the whole thing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you and your cronies would not allow me to justify why I believe he was right

You have been allowed to say anything you want for three years. We know you believe he was right because you believe he made astute observations that are spot on. You've told us that as your only justification time and again.

Your personal convictions are not compelling to me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you LadyShea for helping to cut off any further conversation that could have come from other lurkers.

Again with my ruining it for your imaginary interested lurkers. You have your own platforms to discuss this with interested people. You have a Facebook page and a Twitter account, and an email address on the website. You can go set up a Google+ account and a blog in less than an hour if you want to talk to your imaginary friends. Those I have "cut off" can easily engage you elsewhere, right? You don't need do you? If so, why?

Please note that for the 6 weeks you were gone, only thedoc posted in this thread and was not responded to. There are no lurkers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have also tried to diminish this poor man by bringing into the conversation things that have no real bearing on anything such as his burning of his books

I didn't bring that incident into the conversation, you did. You judged the action as a positive thing that demonstrated good qualities...don't blame me for judging the action differently than you did.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are wrong as you have been through this thread. I don't even take what you take seriously at this point.

Then why are you addressing me and talking shit instead of ignoring me and/or going away from me forever?

You are basing all of your knowledge on empiricism, which is the reason why you think you refuse to listen, but you are wrong as is Lone Ranger and Davidm.

I invite you to demonstrate my wrongness rather than merely asserting it for the umpteenth time. You can't though.

You are so true to your cronies (and don't tell me that this doesn't have an influence on what you say)

It has no influence on what I say. In fact, many of my so called "cronies" think I am crazy and wrong for continuing to engage you.

that you can't see the impact of your comments on the lurkers (although I realize this is not your responsibility).

There are no lurkers. You imagined them, remember? We went through this.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, time will tell whether Lessans was a crackpot or a genius.

But there's no such thing as genius, remember? According to Lessans, that word is bogus and needs to be purged from the language because it doesn't describe anything real.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well not talking to you will speed up the process.

That's the spirit!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going that route because this discovery is too important to beg for reviewers who probably are not familiar with this subject matter.

One of the reasons people hold you in such low regard is that in addition to remaining willfully ignorant, you're a compulsive liar.

"Seymour Lessans" on Twitter

So, you're NOT going that route, eh, peacegirl? Then who is? Is this not you tweeting forlornly into the Twitterverse unsuccessfully seeking reviewers? Is it actually Seymour himself, tweeting from beyond the grave?

The reason this thread "never had a chance" has never really been about your demeanor, obnoxious as you have been. It's because you barged in here (just as you did at all the other online haunts you frequented) presenting a platter of pig shit and insisting it was a garland of roses, and furthermore demanding that everyone acknowledge it as such. But everyone except you can tell the difference between shit and roses, and even if you had been the nicest person on earth, everyone would have still told you it was shit and not roses. The thread "never had a chance" because of the content of Lessans' work, which is shit and not roses. And this fact that it is shit is easily demonstrated, and has been demonstrated, time and again, not just here but everywhere you've wasted your time for more than ten years now.

The rest is addressed to others, not you, since I doubt you can grasp it and even if you can, you are too dishonest to acknowledge the truth of this. You talk about "spot-on observations" and "astute reasoning," and in the next breath say there are other ways of learning about the world than the empiricism upon which science depends. And then in the very next breath you say that science can validate these "observations," and hence you are lost in a morass of contradictions.

A "spot-on observation" just is empiricism, as I explained to you some three years ago. To "observe" is to be empirical. I suspect you have some weaker meaning of "observation" in mind -- something like a hypothesis, or guess, or remark, or notion. Actually, I've no idea what you have in mind, but the strict meaning of "observation" is to observe something, like the way, you know, Galileo observed the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, or the way that Darwin observed finches. So, what did Lessans observe, in the real world, that led him to his conclusions? He never says in his book, and you have never told us. Therefore we can toss his "observations" into the trash, since no one knows what they are and no one can tell us. Even if you could tell us, we would know that he observed wrongly, since, for instance, his "theories" on light and sight have been known to be wrong for hundreds of years. They're not just wrong, they're logically incoherent. So no observations there.

The second part of your claim, about "astute reasoning," does have a pedigree in the history of philosophy. It's called rationalism, which is not to be confused with "rationality. Rationalism has always been in tension with empiricism. It is the thesis that people can figure out stuff about the world by pure thought alone, without recourse to empiricism. I do not believe that rationalism is valid. I do not think there is a single example in history of someone figuring out facts about the world by pure thought alone, not even in math. For after all, math is founded on counting, which requires at bottom observation and manipulation. But even if rationalism could be true, it behooves one who makes a claim of discovering truth through rationalism to explain, step by step, his/her chain of reasoning. But Lessans does not explain his chain of reasoning anywhere in his book, and nor do you, because you don't know what it is.

Which is because it does not exist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You and Lessans called for scientific "verification", so of course evidence and the scientific method were called for in return.

If you don't have evidence, and don't have any testable hypotheses, then you don't get to expect or hope for scientific verification because you don't have science.

Regardless of your complete dismissal of his claims, these claims can and will be verified as soon as I can reach scientists who are able to do just that. I don't even want to talk about the eyes, as my father knew this would be a major stumbling block. All I can do is try to get this knowledge into the hands of those who can do something about it. It may take another thousand years, who knows, but regardless of how long it takes this discovery will eventually be recognized as such, and will lead the way to the Golden Age of Man.

I'm sick and tired of scientific minds telling me he didn't have the evidence. Epistemology does not say that empiricism is the only way to truth. Why don't you people get that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Epistemology is in the realm of philosophy, not scientific verification or validation. Quit calling it science and asking for science to validate philosophy if you don't want to deal with the scientific method.

You and others have discarded this knowledge simply because he did not use the "scientific method" to come to his findings. This is the standard you and others are using to judge whether there is any merit to his claims. This is the source of the problem. I don't care whether it is called scientific, authentic, undeniable, mathematical, or genuine knowledge. The word used to describe what is part of the real world is less important than the truth of the reality itself. My calling this discovery scientific is fine as far as I'm concerned because I do not believe empiricism has a monopoly on finding the truth. Just because he did not start off with a hypothesis does not make his observations any less valid. Your desire that I stop using the term "scientific" is to try to take away its status and to put it in a classification it does not belong. If I say this is a discovery instead of a scientific discovery does not change anything. You are on the wrong track.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But there's no such thing as genius, remember? According to Lessans, that word is bogus and needs to be purged from the language because it doesn't describe anything real.

Very true. All of these words stratify people into layers of value which is why they will come to an end out of necessity. But as long as we're in this world and use words like crackpot and crank, I will use the word genius as its opposite. In truth, my father had a certain capacity that allowed him, with the help of Durant and other philosophers, to make this discovery, but that doesn't make him a genius, brilliant, or anything else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

One of the reasons people hold you in such low regard is that in addition to remaining willfully ignorant, you're a compulsive liar.

"Seymour Lessans" on Twitter

So, you're NOT going that route, eh, peacegirl? Then who is? Is this not you tweeting forlornly into the Twitterverse unsuccessfully seeking reviewers? Is it actually Seymour himself, tweeting from beyond the grave?

I spent one to two weeks on Twitter and didn't like it. Look at the dates. I never said I didn't try it; I said I'm not going to go that route David. You are too quick to accuse me, which is your goal.

Originally Posted by davidm

The reason this thread "never had a chance" has never really been about your demeanor, obnoxious as you have been. It's because you barged in here (just as you did at all the other online haunts you frequented) presenting a platter of pig shit and insisting it was a garland of roses, and furthermore demanding that everyone acknowledge it as such.

This is why I will not talk to you. You can't stop the negativity. Believe me, I will not take the crap from you I took for 3 years.

Originally Posted by davidm

But everyone except you can tell the difference between shit and roses, and even if you had been the nicest person on earth, everyone would have still told you it was shit and not roses.

This is coming from someone who has no understanding of what he meant when he said, "he is compelled, of his own free will..." You think it's a contradiction.

Originally Posted by davidm

The thread "never had a chance" because of the content of Lessans' work, which is shit and not roses. And this fact that it is shit is easily demonstrated, and has been demonstrated, time and again, not just here but everywhere you've wasted your time for more than ten years now.

No no no, it has not been demonstrated to be invalid. You can't see beyond your own vitriol because you don't want him to be right since, according to you, it violates special relativity when it comes to time.

Originally Posted by davidm

The rest is addressed to others, not you, since I doubt you can grasp it and even if you can, you are too dishonest to acknowledge the truth of this. You talk about "spot-on observations" and "astute reasoning," and in the next breath say there are other ways of learning about the world than the empiricism upon which science depends. And then in the very next breath you say that science can validate these "observations," and hence you are lost in a morass of contradictions.

I also said the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove that his observations were valid until someone in the scientific field can understand his proof and apply it in the real world. This will be a momentous undertaking but not something that's impossible to do.

Originally Posted by davidm

A "spot-on observation" just is empiricism, as I explained to you some three years ago. To "observe" is to be empirical.

Good, but as I said a moment ago this kind of knowledge cannot easily be verified in a double blind study. It doesn't work that way, but that does not invalidate his findings.

Originally Posted by davidm

I suspect you have some weaker meaning of "observation" in mind -- something like a hypothesis, or guess, or remark, or notion. Actually, I've no idea what you have in mind, but the strict meaning of "observation" is to observe something, like the way, you know, Galileo observed the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, or the way that Darwin observed finches. So, what did Lessans observe, in the real world, that led him to his conclusions? He never says in his book, and you have never told us.

You have to be kidding me David. In the very first chapter he explained why man's will is not free, but you didn't take the time to study it. You made it a joke the minute you heard that he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ. This thread changed from a serious thread to fodder for entertainment. Very unfortunate.

Originally Posted by davidm

Therefore we can toss his "observations" into the trash, since no one knows what they are and no one can tell us. Even if you could tell us, we would know that he observed wrongly, since, for instance, his "theories" on light and sight have been known to be wrong for hundreds of years. They're not just wrong, they're logically incoherent. So no observations there.

So let it go for now. I know it upsets you. You have pummeled me to the ground all because you don't even want to consider that he could be right. How can anyone contest something that may be untrue if people cannot even grapple with the possibility instead of attacking the messenger? You are throwing out this entire book because of this claim.

Originally Posted by davidm

The second part of your claim, about "astute reasoning," does have a pedigree in the history of philosophy. It's called rationalism, which is not to be confused with "rationality. Rationalism has always been in tension with empiricism. It is the thesis that people can figure out stuff about the world by pure thought alone, without recourse to empiricism.

Obviously, a person has to observe something in the real world. How can anyone figure out anything without a frame of reference?

Originally Posted by davidm

I do not believe that rationalism is valid.

I don't either.

Originally Posted by davidm

I do not think there is a single example in history of someone figuring out facts about the world by pure thought alone, not even in math. For after all, math is founded on counting, which requires at bottom observation and manipulation.

No one is arguing with you here.

Originally Posted by davidm

But even if rationalism could be true, it behooves one who makes a claim of discovering truth through rationalism to explain, step by step, his/her chain of reasoning. But Lessans does not explain his chain of reasoning anywhere in his book, and nor do you, because you don't know what it is.

David, you confound me to no end. His first and second chapter clearly explain why man's will is not free, and he goes on to reason in a step by step fashion. He even warned people not to jump ahead so they could follow his reasoning. Did you do that? NOOOOOOO

p. 5 The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules.

But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This discovery will be presented in a step by step
fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter
will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation,
or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he
thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I spent one to two weeks on Twitter and didn't like it. Look at the dates.

This is what I mean about you. You lie so often, so compulsively, as effortlessly as breathing, that you don't seem to know or care that your lies can be checked.

Look at the dates?

Two weeks, eh? Well, the bottom-most tweet on the page is dated March 3. Probably there are earlier pages, but I couldn't be arsed to look for them. And the most recent tweet is from yesterday.

Two weeks? That is three months right there.

LOL. No, you're not "going that route!"

Any luck rounding up the reviewers you claim you don't even want but keep begging for, as recently as yesterday?