A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

So, what happens to the people who cannot think rationally in your new society? Those people who do not have the mental capacity to follow cause and effect or whose mental illness distorts their rational thinking?

If they hurt someone under these new conditions, we would know he is sick and just as they do today, he would have to be confined in some way, or supervised by someone. But as I just wrote, mental illness is going to be virtually a thing of the past as the transition to the new world takes place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you the author's daughter? He thanks his children at the end and one is named Janis. Is that you?

[erimir]

Is there something unique about humans which makes this knowledge work for them but not other species?

Would, say, a dog no longer attack other dogs because of this? How about chimps? What kinds of animals does this apply to?

What of humans who have severe mental retardation? Will there be no more of them?

(Also, it was my understanding of sociopathy not that they understood the difference between right and wrong and choose to ignore it, but that they were unable to differentiate between conventions and morality. A convention being something like shake with your right hand. To them there is no difference between the convention of calling someone sir or ma'am and the moral idea that you shouldn't punch someone in the face for no reason - you can be a sociopath and still follow the rules, you just follow them because you're supposed to, or you might get in trouble, not because you feel that it's the right way to behave. But I might be wrong.)

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NoDeity, the administrator, invited me to have my very own sub-forum but due to their anything goes policy, I had to decline.

Are you not aware that this board also has, practically speaking, an "anything goes" policy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Is there something unique about humans which makes this knowledge work for them but not other species?

Of course; man has the ability to reason.

Originally Posted by erimir

Would, say, a dog no longer attack other dogs because of this? How about chimps? What kinds of animals does this apply to?

It applies to humans who have a unique ability to solve problems, whereas chimps, although they are closest to humans in many respects, do not have this ability. You need to remember that this knowledge does not change our basic nature. Animals nor humans have free will.

Originally Posted by irimir

What of humans who have severe mental retardation? Will there be no more of them?

This knowledge does not claim that it can solve the problem of specific genetic conditions, but man will be in a much better position, due to the change in the economic system, to research these maladies because the money will be available.

Originally Posted by irimir

(Also, it was my understanding of sociopathy not that they understood the difference between right and wrong and choose to ignore it, but that they were unable to differentiate between conventions and morality. A convention being something like shake with your right hand. To them there is no difference between the convention of calling someone sir or ma'am and the moral idea that you shouldn't punch someone in the face for no reason - you can be a sociopath and still follow the rules, you just follow them because you're supposed to, or you might get in trouble, not because you feel that it's the right way to behave. But I might be wrong.)

Again, this goes back to conscience. There are so many factors that come into play that would cause someone not to be able to distinguish between a convention and true right and wrong, that until the environment changes, we won't know whether these individuals actually do have the ability to empathize, or not, and we would have to act accordingly. But remember, so many of these individuals are the way they are because of their interaction with the environment, and it is difficult to imagine the immense change that is going to take place that will prevent these aberrant personalities from developing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are you not aware that this board also has, practically speaking, an "anything goes" policy?

So far the rudeness that I have seen is tolerable. If it gets out of hand, it will be time enough for me to say goodbye.

[JoeP]

Off topic: looking for information on the first scandal?

[LadyShea]

Which pages of the book discuss how the "new conditions" will prevent mental illness, with neuroscience in mind, rather than trauma theories.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which pages of the book discuss how the "new conditions" will prevent mental illness, with neuroscience in mind, rather than trauma theories.

LadyShea, the discovery which creates a new condition of the environment prevents mental illness in general. There may be some mentally people that are still sick, but eventually, due to this environmental change, mental illness will be a memory of what it took to get to this point in our history. I know this is hard to believe, but if you grasp the principles you will see that this is true. People are not born mentally ill. I cannot give you an exact page to go to; the entire book is about preventing the disturbed personalities that we believed were destined to ruin other people's lives. This is absolutely not the case, but you must understand the book in order to recognize why this is so.

[LadyShea]

People are not born mentally ill.

That's quite an assertion. Do you have evidence this is always true?

fMRI and sMRI both show that in many, many cases of mental illness, including in pedophilia, the brain is differently structured and/or functions differently when compared to average brains. We have to assume that in at least some of these the brain differences are congenital.

The book only seems to discuss psychology, not physiology, so I was hoping you could point me to some passage illustrating, or maybe paraphrase, the mechanism by which the concept can eliminate mental illness in light of current knowledge from neuroscience.

[ChuckF]

lol irimir

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's quite an assertion. Do you have evidence this is always true?

fMRI and sMRI both show that in many, many cases of mental illness, including in pedophilia, the brain is differently structured and/or functions differently when compared to average brains. We have to assume that in at least some of these the brain differences are congenital.

The book only seems to discuss psychology, not physiology, so I was hoping you could point me to some passage illustrating, or maybe paraphrase, the mechanism by which the concept can eliminate mental illness in light of current knowledge from neuroscience.

Only through very astute observation. If you want to reject this discovery because Lessans failed to test this through empirical proof, which some people require, then we will be unable to continue the discussion. I know I am being defensive because this objection has been the common theme in my experience with these type forums. To everyone's shock, proof does not always come from empirical testing. It can be verified through duplication, that is true, and is required to confirm validity. Lessans' observations were very thorough, and he did not need to test empirically to come to certain conclusions about human nature. Just as those who calculated the trajectory of the earth to the moon, they were so positive they were correct by their calculations that when the astranauts were asked to join the space mission, they were not hesitant to get into the space capsule because they believed the calculations were correct. And they were right.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It applies to humans who have a unique ability to solve problems, whereas chimps, although they are closest to humans in many respects, do not have this ability.

Humans are by no means unique among animals in being able to solve problems. Even a planarian can solve (very simple) problems. Chimpanzees most-definitely can solve problems.

You need to remember that this knowledge does not change our basic nature. Animals nor humans have free will.

Humans are animals.

[LadyShea]

I am not looking of empirical proof, I am looking for an understanding of how the concept applies "on the ground" in real situations.

How can it change the world if you, who have studied it for years, can't even answer pretty simple questions regarding practical issues?

Why the defensiveness and continued evasions and vagueness? This is really very frustrating.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's quite an assertion. Do you have evidence this is always true?

fMRI and sMRI both show that in many, many cases of mental illness, including in pedophilia, the brain is differently structured and/or functions differently when compared to average brains. We have to assume that in at least some of these the brain differences are congenital.

The book only seems to discuss psychology, not physiology, so I was hoping you could point me to some passage illustrating, or maybe paraphrase, the mechanism by which the concept can eliminate mental illness in light of current knowledge from neuroscience.

Maybe the structure did, in fact, change, just like depression can cause alterations in the seratonin and dopamine synapses. But you can't dismiss the possibility that something other than what they believe is occuring could be happening. Often scientists are biased and will skew the results in order to confirm their hypotheses. But, even so, my question is what came first? If the interaction between nature vs. nurture is significantly altered, then the physiological manifestations in the brain and therefore in one's outward behavior may not be observed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not looking of empirical proof, I am looking for an understanding of how the concept applies "on the ground" in real situations.

How can it change the world if you, who have studied it for years, can't even answer pretty simple questions regarding practical issues?

Why the defensiveness and continued evasions and vagueness? This is really very frustrating.

LadyShea, with all due respect this is where the discussion gets hairy. I have bent over backwards to offer the book for free. I have to constantly meet everyone's demands to prove this knowledge without anyone taking the time to understanding what his discovery is, and it can't be done in a forum set up. This is an unfair expectation. Yes, I have studied the book, and yes I know that this man has a discovery. You can think whatever you want. I am not trying to be snub or cold. But I'm very tired of people demanding more of me, and demanding nothing of themselves. If you can't meet me halfway by going to the book and reading it (not just glancing over it), then the discussion is hangin on by a hairs breath.

[LadyShea]

It is possible the structure changes in reaction to the environment working on congenital predispositions, and it is probable that we have no idea yet what genetic dispositions and what types of environmental stimuli interact in what ways to cause the changes.

However, that's a lot of maybe and we don't know, and yet you assert "creates a new condition of the environment prevents mental illness in general."

At most you can claim that the concepts could possibly prevent mental illness, but we have no reason to believe that.

[LadyShea]

I have bent over backwards to offer the book for free.

I linked to your posting of the book on someone else's forum. I gave you sound advice on how to prevent hostility and suspicion in your introductions.

Go to Blogger, sign up for free, and post the book.

I have to constantly meet everyone's demands to prove this discovery on the spot, without them having read any of the book.

Nobody has asked you to prove anything. All anyone has asked you is to answer questions and paraphrase and describe the concept. This is how people present new ideas and theories. If they know the material inside and out they have no problem defending it, tailoring their explanations to their audience, and inserting it into hypotheticals to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

I have read a fairly large portion of the book and the concept is not clear. It's a lot of assertion.

This is an unfair expectation.

The pretend expectation you think we have of your providing empirical proof is unfair yes. The very real expectations we have that you can present it and defend it is not unfair. That is expected from everyone from students to attorneys to doctors to theologians to philosophers to business people.

Yes, I have studied the book, and yes I know that this man has a discovery. If you can't meet me halfway by going to the book itself to get most of your answers, then the discussion is, sorry to say, doomed.

I am not finding the answers in the book. The concept which is very clear to you is not clear to me, and apparently to others.

You are the one trying to get people to accept the idea as revolutionary, therefore it is your responsibility to make cogent arguments and respond clearly to questions. What you are doing instead is the True Believer shuffle of deflection and blaming the listener.

Yes, you are doomed to this cycle of fruitless discussion because you either will not or cannot learn how these types of discussions are supposed to work, and you have chosen audiences that tend to require similar rules of discourse.

If you want to present information to people, you have to do it in a way they will listen to, which many have specifically told you how to do that, or you need to find an audience that doesn't have these types of expectations for intellectual discourse, namely the Woos.

[LadyShea]

Dupe

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;925072]It is possible the structure changes in reaction to the environment working on congenital predispositions, and it is probable that we have no idea yet what genetic dispositions and what types of environmental stimuli interact in what ways to cause the changes.



However, that's a lot of maybe and we don't know, and yet you assert "creates a new condition of the environment prevents mental illness in general."

Yes, it does and yes it will. The reason I am so sure is because the environmenal changes that take place effect the formative years. That is when personality is developing. Without the combination of genetics with environment, the sociopathic and psychopathic behavior cannot form. This is different from being born with a genetic mutation that causes physical deformities.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At most you can claim that the concepts could possibly prevent mental illness, but we have no reason to believe that.

Incorrect. This is where your not taking the time to read the book (let alone study it thoroughly) makes it impossible for us to have a give and take conversation. I can't force you to read the book (where many of your questions not only would be answered but the questions you do have would be more pertinent), so I guess this is where our conversation will end because everything I say from here on in will have the same retort, "Well there's no reason to believe that what he has discovered is true." Do you see the no-win situation I'm in? I don't think you do, and it's okay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dupe

What does that mean?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I am being defensive because this objection [i.e. the total absence of evidence for the fantastic claims made in the book] has been the common theme in my experience with these type forums.

Have you considered that you might avoid this "theme" by providing some evidence for the claims you've made (or, I suppose, the claims the author has made and you are evangelizing)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I linked to your posting of the book on someone else's forum. I gave you sound advice on how to prevent hostility and suspicion in your introductions.

Go to Blogger, sign up for free, and post the book.

I'm not just giving the book away. If someone finds it online, great. But I'm also selling it to make back some of my out-of-pocket costs and maybe be able to get a Starbucks coffee once in awhile. lol But I am creating a website where people can ask questions and the answers will be posted.

I have to constantly meet everyone's demands, without them having read any of the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody has asked you to prove anything. All anyone has asked you is to answer questions and paraphrase and describe the concept. This is how people present new ideas and theories. If they know the material inside and out they have no problem defending it, tailoring their explanations to their audience, and inserting it into hypotheticals to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

Forums are limited unless they have read someone's work and can discuss it. I will guarantee you that the people who discuss the famous philosophers have read their works. How else could they offer an objective opinion?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have read a fairly large portion of the book and the concept is not clear. It's a lot of assertion.

There are no assertions. If you read large portions of the book, as you say, I gave you the pages to start. Why can't you tell me what pages 46-59 are about? Is it that hard?

This is an unfair expectation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The pretend expectation you think we have of your providing empirical proof is unfair yes. The very real expectations we have that you can present it and defend it is not unfair. That is expected from everyone from students to attorneys to doctors to theologians to philosophers to business people.

It's not that I can't answer your questions; it's that I can tell by the questions you ask that you have not done the required reading for us to have a discussion. If you have, then I will repeat, give me your feedback on pages 46-59.

Yes, I have studied the book, and yes I know that this man has a discovery. If you can't meet me halfway by going to the book itself to get most of your answers, then the discussion is, sorry to say, doomed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not finding the answers in the book. The concept which is very clear to you is not clear to me, and apparently to others.

When you say the book isn't clear to you and apparently to others, who are these others? Let them come forward. It sounds like a cop out to me but maybe I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one trying to get people to accept the idea as revolutionary, therefore it is your responsibility to make cogent arguments and respond clearly to questions. What you are doing instead is the True Believer shuffle of deflection and blaming the listener.

I'm certainly not deflecting or blaming the listener. I do see a problem in that people expect me to deliver what I cannot unless the text is read. How can anyone have a decent discussion when the material is not read. Help me here?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, you are doomed to this cycle of fruitless discussion because you either will not or cannot learn how these types of discussions are supposed to work, and you have chosen audiences that tend to require similar rules of discourse.

You are right. These forums have definite rules, some of which are impossible to abide by unless it is about recycling the same old ideas. Unless one has read a philosopher and carefully scrutinized his intentions, thoughts, and meanings, how can anyone be objective in their critique of said work. It astounds me that you and others tell me that what I'm asking for is not at all reasonable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you want to present information to people, you have to do it in a way they will listen to, which many have specifically told you how to do that, or you need to find an audience that doesn't have these types of expectations for intellectual discourse, namely the Woos.

No woos here. If no one wants to read 13 pages and come back with questions that make it worthwhile for me to hang around, then I'm sorry to say, we'll have to part ways.

[LadyShea]

From 2003

But nobody is listening to me. Everybody is making me sound like a nutbar; but I'm not. This is not a joke. I cannot promise to stay here permanently although everyone seems to have a change of heart about me; or they are just too bored for words. I don't have a clue what's going on.

Janis, I am telling you, explicitly, how to talk so people will listen. I communicate with humans for a living, and (forgive me while I toot my own horn here a minute) I have earned a certain level of respect here at and other places around the net because I communicate clearly. If you don't want to listen to me (or the myriad others who have told you the same thing), then that's your choice, however I predict you will spend another decade spinning your wheels if you do not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that mean?

I accidentally duplicated my post.

Without the combination of genetics with environment, the sociopathic and psychopathic behavior cannot form.

You cannot know that. Scientists don't even know that. You believe it, only.