Quote:
|
: an observation can be either a remark, or it can be something someone observed. The first can be just about anything: I can make the observation to you that I thought yesterdays meatloaf was particularly fine. The second one requires something to observe: they are always observations of physical things.
|
What's your point?[/QUOTE]
*sigh* you mix them up, obviously.
Quote:
Quote:
|
He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
That is an impossibility. You can see behaviours, or other physical phenomena. You cannot directly observe conditioning, as it is a psychological phenomenon. You can observe behaviour and then raise the hypothesis that conditioning occurs. You would have to test that hypothesis before you go on, thought.
|
Well sorry, he didn't raise this hypothesis. He didn't have to. It was not hypothetical. He already knew from his observations which premises were spot on. I know you hate when I say this, but it's true Vivisectus. So face it and surrender that you are not right.
|
:lolfruit:
There you go again with your "observations", confusing yourself hopelessly. As was already pointed out, you cannot
observe conditioning. All you can observe is behaviour. You would have to be a mind-reader to actually observe conditioning.
You use "observations" as a sort of magic word, to denote an almost mystical divining of absolute truth that requires no evidence, no testing, and not even a reasonable explanation.
That is for mystics and other religious folks. It has nothing to do with reason.
And you kind of prove this when you retort: "You are just going to have to surrender because it is just true"... without even attempting to give it any sort of plausibility. I have to take it on faith that your father was right about this, without evidence.
Quote:
Quote:
|
He saw how this conditioning occurs.
|
To do this you would quite literally need to be a mind-reader. It cannot be done. What you can do is observe behaviour, especially if in this case you observed a lot of developing infants, and then see if the data you have collected matches your hypothesis that this is what occurs.
Quote:
|
Descriptors are projected onto people with certain facial structures.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So the two of you claim. I see no evidence to suggest it is true. Worse: I do not even see any reason to assume it is plausible. All I see is your claim that it is so.
|
No, don't say the two of us claim. This is his claim, got it, and there are reasons for it.
|
Have it as you want: it remains completely unsupported.
Quote:
Quote:
|
A child keeps hearing positive or negative inflections when that person is identified. This process begins at a very early age and it occurs over and over again, so by the time a child is 4 or 5 (or maybe even younger), he can see, with his very eyes, the difference between an "ugly" individual or a "pretty" individual. The truth is people ae not ugly or beautiful, just different, and these words which have hurt so many are going to become obsolete out of necessity. Why would anyone want to use words that not only are inaccurate symbols, but hurt so many of our youth because they don't feel they measure up? In the new world these words will never be used.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
All of this is a repetition of the same claim. All you have done is repeated what it is you believe. I know perfectly well what it is you believe: I just pointed out that I cannot for the life of me spot any reason to believe it is true!
This is the problem with the book. At no point did he feel any need to fact-check, test, prove, or support his ideas. He can either have been ignorant of the fact that in any even remotely scientific work, this is an absolute requirement, or he can have simply felt that there was no need for it, and that his self-proclaimed authority as a genius should be enough.
|
Vivisectus, give me a break, okay? You keep saying this over and over and over again. I will concede if he is wrong, believe me I will. But you have not investigated this knowledge whatsoever. You are contesting it prematurely. What am I supposed to do?
|
If there is no reason to believe something is true, then it should be rejected. This entire book hinges on conscience working the way the book says it does, but there is not even a case for it, let alone any evidence.
He said the book goes in logical steps, each step as undeniable as 1+1 = 2. But it doesn't. There is only his say-so that conscience works that way. Because of this, anything after chapter 2 is complete speculation.
[quote][quote="Vivisectus"]Tell me - if you were asked to change the entire organisation of your countries society, would you be happy to do so on the say-so of someone,
Then it would be kind of important to include something
more than just someone's say-so, don't you think? The book does not have it: it fails to even make a case for conscience working the way he said.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
just because that person assures you he is a grade-a brainbox and has spent a lot of time on his system? That would just be silly, right? The guy could be dead wrong.
|
ABSOLUTELY!!!
|
Especially if he has already shown his ignorance by talking about molecules of light and the nerves in the eye not being afferent.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
And yet that is exactly what your father expected the US to do. He even tried to sue the president to get this done. Despite the fact that the key part of this book - the assumption that conscience works the way he says it does - is completely unsupported.
|
It is not true that he expected people to just say he's right. That is the opposite of what he did. He wrote an entire book to show people why their actions are preventing the very thing they have been praying for. If they don't give him a chance to prove it, what on earth can I do except to move on to others who will, at the very least, give him a sincere audience, which this thread has not done regardless of how many hits it has gotten.
|
It is true, because he forgot to include a reason to assume his idea would work. That is not anyone else's fault, that is his own oversight. And without any reason to assume it would work, all there is is his say-so.
You can blame it on bias as much as ever you want, but that does not change the fact that
you do not know why we should assume it works that way either. And if anything, you are biased in his favour, at the very least you are certainly not biased against him.
By the same token, you do not have any idea how efferent sight is supposed to work either, other than "the brain sort of looks out somehow".
The problem is not people not giving him a fair chance. It is the fact that there are enormous gaping holes in the book. Nothing is proven, checked, or even made plausible. It is all just claimed.
Look, if you really feel I am wrong, then point out the evidence. Show me why I should think conscience works the way it is described in the book. Describe the mechanism of efferent sight. The fact is
you just do not know any of these things, but you just believe him despite all this.
You have already admitted that you are not aware of why we should believe conscience works as described in the book, and that you do not know how efferent sight supposedly works. I guess that is the fault of biased meanies too?
All you are doing is sticking your head in the sand. Either say "This is my belief!" and have it as a religion, or show me a rational reason to believe he was correct.