A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that's why I'm not staying for long.

And yet you most certainly will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe no one else is interested except for these few lingerers. This is such a wonderful book it still shocks me that people are so cocksure that he has discovered nothing of value that they won't even attempt to read it.

We have read it. That's why we're sure that he didn't discover anything of value.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just makes me more determined to get to the right group who will give him the time of day.

And how will you do that, given that you've said you won't be going to any new forums?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to a new thread, and I'm waiting on my proof. I had to resubmit it again, and I'm very happy with it. When I start marketing, I won't have time to come here.

You continually resubmit your manuscript precisely so that you will never have to start marketing.

[Stephen Maturin]

If the ear was a sense organ, then sound from the external world is traveling toward the ear, striking it, and sending signals to the brain. In that event, humans should be able to echolocate, just as other mammals can. Humans can't echolocate, so it necessarily follows that the ear is not a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

On what evidence or facts do you base that "should"? Where does that "should" come from?

If the eyes are a sense organ, that would mean that the light from the external world is traveling toward the eye, striking it, and sending signals to the brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the eyes are not a sense organ, light from the external world still travels and strikes the eye, correct? The eyes still contain photoreceptors (rods and cones) to that react to light, correct? Signals still travel along the optic nerve in efferent vision, since nerves carry signals and you acknowledge that the optic nerve exists. So what is the difference between sense organ and non sense organ in this sentence?

The dog should be able to recognize his master if this is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why should they? This is a huge leap that you haven't explained.

What do you mean why should they? Why shouldn't they if light if signals are being relayed to the brain for recognition.

Isn't that what all the empirical tests are trying to prove?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The tests are trying to answer the question "Can dogs recognize human faces?"

I am talking about identifying individual features (features they should be able to recognize), not just human faces.

And to say that a dog's brain may have evolved to where the visual part of the brain is less developed (as Spacemonkey suggested) doesn't add up either because dogs have good vision in general (even night vision), even though their sense of smell is more acute.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the eyes are a sense organ, why does it follow that would dogs have evolved the ability to visually recognize individual human faces from photographs at all? Does it help them survive or reproduce? If not, then why would this ability be selected for?

That's what Spacemonkey suggested, but it seems to me that sight is important in this species otherwise they wouldn't see as clear as they do, even at a distance. It's being able to interpret what they see, and if the light is traveling toward them, according to afferent vision it should be easy to recognize their master's face, wouldn't ya think?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no reason whatsoever to think they should or should not have this ability and you are still failing to provide a reason that you think this. That they might actually have it is a separate question, I want to know why you think they should and what eyes being a sense organ has to do with recognition at all.

It has everything to do it. Dogs can immediately identify their master from their sense of smell. They can immediately identify their master from his voice. They can immediately identify the taste of certain foods. They can immediately feel the sense of touch. But they cannot identify their master from sight alone if the other senses are not there to assist him. Doesn't that seem at all strange to you, or are you in such denial that you can't even consider that something is different with the eyes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you most certainly will.

I will stay as long as I want, and I will go when I feel it's time, just like I did before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe no one else is interested except for these few lingerers. This is such a wonderful book it still shocks me that people are so cocksure that he has discovered nothing of value that they won't even attempt to read it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We have read it. That's why we're sure that he didn't discover anything of value.

Then leave already. I don't know why you're spending all your waking hours with me.

He actually has something very important of value, and it doesn't matter what you think because you are not going be able to stop the Golden Age from commencing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just makes me more determined to get to the right group who will give him the time of day.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how will you do that, given that you've said you won't be going to any new forums?

Group doesn't have to mean an online forum. And I wouldn't tell you where I'm going anyway.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to a new thread, and I'm waiting on my proof. I had to resubmit it again, and I'm very happy with it. When I start marketing, I won't have time to come here.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You continually resubmit your manuscript precisely so that you will never have to start marketing.

There you go again with your cockamainie theories about why I do things. I thought you didn't like it when I tried to guess your motivations, but it's okay if you do it.

[LadyShea]

You are a weasel still. Good god.

What do you mean why should they? Why shouldn't they if light if signals are being relayed to the brain for recognition.

I am not saying they should or shouldn't. You made the assertion that dogs should have this ability if the eyes are a sense organ. Hows about you offer your reasons for coming to that conclusion? Support your claims.

That's what Spacemonkey suggested, but it seems to me that sight is important in this species otherwise they wouldn't see as clear as they do, even at a distance.

What are you talking about? I am not saying anything about their ability to see or the quality of their sight. Recognition is a cognitive function not a visual function. There are humans who can see perfectly well but are unable to recognize individual faces due to a brain problem, not an eye problem.

But they cannot identify their master from sight alone if the other senses are not there to assist him.

This is an assertion you have not supported with evidence.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will stay as long as I want, and I will go when I feel it's time, just like I did before.

Then leave already. I don't know why you're spending all your waking hours with me.

He actually has something very important of value, and it doesn't matter what you think because you are not going be able to stop the Golden Age from commencing.

Group doesn't have to mean an online forum. And I wouldn't tell you where I'm going anyway.

There you go again with your cockamainie theories about why I do things. I thought you didn't like it when I tried to guess your motivations, but it's okay if you do it.

Mmhmm... so why can't you comprehend that photons cannot come from somewhere they were never located?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will stay as long as I want, and I will go when I feel it's time, just like I did before.

Before what? Have you ever been able to leave a forum on your own power? Do you actually think that you have any chance at all of stopping people's negative assessment of your dad?

Here is the legacy you have single handedly created for your dad. If you had never bothered to post on the web then results for Lessans would have returned his personal accomplishments and the love of his family. Now he comes across as a moron, thanks to his loving daughter. I wouldn't wish a daughter like you on any father. Get help peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If the ear was a sense organ, then sound from the external world is traveling toward the ear, striking it, and sending signals to the brain. In that event, humans should be able to echolocate, just as other mammals can. Humans can't echolocate, so it necessarily follows that the ear is not a sense organ.

Sorry, but Humans can echolocate, just not very well. Have you ever heard a sound and turned your head to locate the direction that the sound was comeing from, That is echolocation. There was an episode of 'Truth or Consenquences' where a contestant was seated and blindfolded and asked to determine the direction of a small bell without turning her head. She had great dificulty till she was able to turn her head to track the sound, and then it was quite easy. Humans do Echolocate both in direction and distance, but not as accurately as some other animals.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do it. Dogs can immediately identify their master from their sense of smell. They can immediately identify their master from his voice. They can immediately identify the taste of certain foods. They can immediately feel the sense of touch. But they cannot identify their master from sight alone if the other senses are not there to assist him.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this assertion, only Lessans claim and no proof.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will stay as long as I want, and I will go when I feel it's time, just like I did before.

You will leave when you find another forum to waste your time on, be sure and leave a forwarding address. Anyone making odds.

[LadyShea]

Have you ever permanently left a forum voluntarily?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously, look what happened when I put it online. It was treated like a piece of junk. No more.

Right. People who had access to the book and read it treated it like a piece of junk, because that is what happens when someone actually has an opportunity to read the book. The same thing will happen with people who pay money for an actual physical copy of the book. The only difference will be that they will also feel like they have been cheated out of their money.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's easy for people to be suggestible to things that are based on nonsense.

It is true that some people are very suggestible. However, if people, in general, were as suggestible as you believe, then at least one person who has read the book would have found it convincing. Apparently people are not quite as foolish as you think they are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I had no one to check behind me...

That is a big part of your problem right there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If the ear was a sense organ, then sound from the external world is traveling toward the ear, striking it, and sending signals to the brain. In that event, humans should be able to echolocate, just as other mammals can. Humans can't echolocate, so it necessarily follows that the ear is not a sense organ.

Why should they? They don't need to develop this ability unless they are blind. In the case of humans, eyesight is dominant. In the animal kingdom, echolocation is extremely important for survival.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Conclusive enough to convince people who actually know what they are talking about. But hey! Why bother with tiresome science. Too much like hard work. Far better to just make stuff up and not bother to provide any evidence at all. That way you can pretend you are an Important Discoverer without having to deal with tedious reality.

This kind of answer is so ignorant I don't know what to say. You have no idea how much work went into this discovery, none. You think this stuff was made up just for the fun of it. After all this time, it's really sad that you still won't let go of your false impression of who this man was. He was nothing like what you are describing. The careful observations, the intense study that was required, the reasoning that followed, the going over and over his conclusions to make sure they were absolutely accurate belies your accusations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know free will can be neither proven nor disproven, and neither can determinism. They aren't testable in any way. I have been saying that to you for over a year.

I don't care what you have been saying LadyShea for over a year. You don't get the last word on this topic. Have you ever considered that you might not know as much as you think you know? How arrogant you are. It amazes me every time you open your mouth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what was your point? Do you think either determinism or free will can be proven or disproven?

Free will cannot be proven for the reasons that were given. That does not mean determinism cannot be proven true. Obviously, you either didn't read this part, or you failed to grasp its significance.

p. 30 “I’m not in the mood to argue that point but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have
just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free yet a
moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is
definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was
a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing
your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge
that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid
the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate,
discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s
ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking
with you, son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will
be driven from our lives.”

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not
far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts
pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is
God’s will.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proving determinism false would not prove free will true...they are concepts with many possible understandings and definitions.

There could be many possible understandings and definitions, but remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You can define something any way you want, but that doesn't mean it reflects anything real, therefore it will have no usefulness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When words represent concepts rather than concrete things definitions mean everything. You can't demonstrate or display or hold or touch free will or determinism. They are not concrete things. They aren't "real" to use your language. In this case you can only explain what you mean using words. If you have a different definition for words than the people you are talking to, then you are not conveying your meaning at all. That's not useful

I'm not talking about the symbol. I'm talking about whether that symbol actually represents something real. If it does, then you can use any symbol as long as both parties understand the meaning of the word in context, but if the symbol does not represent reality, then it doesn't matter what symbol is being used, the representation is inaccurate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why should they? They don't need to develop this ability unless they are blind. In the case of humans, eyesight is dominant. In the animal kingdom, echolocation is extremely important for survival.

Dogs wouldn't need to visually differentiate between individual human faces in order to survive, so why should they have this ability if the eyes are a sense organ?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will cannot be proven for the reasons that were given. That does not mean determinism cannot be proven true. Obviously, you either didn't read this part, or you failed to grasp its significance.

Determinism cannot be proven or disproven because it is a concept with various meanings and definitions.

Originally Posted by Lessans

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”


“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”


“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false.

Lessans says that determinism can be proven true, but that's just an assertion. He offers no evidence to support that claim at all. Concepts with multiple meanings and understandings cannot be proven or disproven.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking about the symbol. I'm talking about whether that symbol actually represents something real. If it does, then you can use any symbol as long as both parties understand the meaning of the word in context, but if the symbol does not represent reality, then it doesn't matter what symbol is being used, the representation is inaccurate.

My point stands...proving determinism false would not prove free will true because neither can be proven or disproven at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you ever permanently left a forum voluntarily?

Yes, Peacegirl did leave the forum just before FF and she didn't go back after she was posting here. What is really odd is that there were a few people there who seemed to think her ideas had some merit, but positive responses were not what she wanted, so she went for the negative attention.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Mmhmm... so why can't you comprehend that photons cannot come from somewhere they were never located?

What is your problem Spacemonkey? You are starting off with a wrong premise, so you cannot expect to come to a conclusion that is correct. Light travels, but you're not considering the difference between the afferent model versus the efferent model in relation to light, so I give up. I am bored with this discussion. I have more important things to discuss: world peace.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea how much work went into this discovery, none.

The careful observations, the intense study that was required, the reasoning that followed, the going over and over his conclusions to make sure they were absolutely accurate belies your accusations.

Once one has started the wrong way with one mistake after another, The hard work is irrevelant, you are just compounding the original error.

You still have not revealed what he observed, and what he was studying. Often once a mistake is made it will still look correct no matter how many times you go over it and recheck your work. That is why you have someone else read the work to check for mistakes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know free will can be neither proven nor disproven, and neither can determinism. They aren't testable in any way. I have been saying that to you for over a year.

I don't care what you have been saying LadyShea for over a year. You don't get the last word on this topic. Have you ever considered that you might not know as much as you think you know? How arrogant you are. It amazes me every time you open your mouth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what was your point? Do you think either determinism or free will can be proven or disproven?

Free will cannot be proven for the reasons that were given. That does not mean determinism cannot be proven true. Obviously, you either didn't read this part, or you failed to grasp its significance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism cannot be proven or disproven because it is a concept with various meanings and definitions.

Completely wrong. The reason he used death over life is because determinism over free will is the same concept. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time. These are exact opposites, but you have been so confused with words that you actually believe that you can have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will at the same time. It's impossible. The various definitions only contribute to your confusion and why I can't get through to you at all.

Originally Posted by Lessans

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”


“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”


“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans says that determinism can be proven true, but that's just an assertion. He offers no evidence to support that claim at all. Concepts with multiple meanings and understandings cannot be proven or disproven.

You never grasped why the law of greater satisfaction is not an assertion, so you keep accusing him of this as if you know what you're talking about. You are making yourself look foolish. Listen up: If a definition does not represent reality, IT IS NOT USEFUL. You are so hard headed because you are determined to prove Lessans wrong (and will not be able to do this because he wasn't wrong), you cannot get out of your own way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proving determinism false would not prove free will true...they are concepts with many possible understandings and definitions.

There could be many possible understandings and definitions, but remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You can define something any way you want, but that doesn't mean it reflects anything real, therefore it will have no usefulness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When words represent concepts rather than concrete things definitions mean everything. You can't demonstrate or display or hold or touch free will or determinism. They are not concrete things. They aren't "real" to use your language. In this case you can only explain what you mean using words. If you have a different definition for words than the people you are talking to, then you are not conveying your meaning at all. That's not useful

Hello? Isn't that what I just said?

I'm not talking about the symbol. I'm talking about whether that symbol actually represents something real. If it does, then you can use any symbol as long as both parties understand the meaning of the word in context, but if the symbol does not represent reality, then it doesn't matter what symbol is being used, the representation is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My point stands...proving determinism false would not prove free will true because neither can be proven or disproven at all.

And my point stands that if you were capable of careful reasoning, you would see that this reasoning is very accurate. You are just throwing around words and thinking that your rebuttal is more accurate than Lessans' extremely astute observations. You are arguing with someone who was as capable as Einstein was, in his own right. I know you don't believe this, which is why I really have no desire to talk to you any further unless you can admit that you may be wrong. That your ability to determine what is true and what isn't may not be as up to par as you think.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. It's like a mathematician arguing with someone who is just learning his math facts.

Careful, the arrogance you inherrited from your father, is showing again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is your problem Spacemonkey? You are starting off with a wrong premise, so you cannot expect to come to a conclusion that is correct. Light travels, but you're not considering the difference between the afferent model versus the efferent model in relation to light, so I give up. I am bored with this discussion. I have more important things to discuss: world peace.

The only premise I've started from is your own, so if it is wrong then it's your own damn fault. I've started from YOUR premise that the light at the retina at 12:00 came from the Sun and was previously located there. That leads to a direct contradiction because there is no possible time when this light could have been located at the Sun. That means your account is contradictory and wrong, but you continue to evade the point because you lack any trace of intellectual honesty.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where your reasoning is limited, and I'm not going to argue with someone who does not see why it is very possible to prove determinism true. I refuse to go on because you don't get it at all. It's like a mathematician arguing with someone who is just learning his math facts.

Or arguing with a deluded daughter who is still trying to learn (or better, trying not to learn) basic epistemology and logic.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This kind of answer is so ignorant I don't know what to say. You have no idea how much work went into this discovery, none. You think this stuff was made up just for the fun of it. After all this time, it's really sad that you still won't let go of your false impression of who this man was. He was nothing like what you are describing. The careful observations, the intense study that was required, the reasoning that followed, the going over and over his conclusions to make sure they were absolutely accurate belies your accusations.

You are right about one thing: I do not know what went into this "discovery" at all. Nor do you.

How did he reach his conclusions about human conscience? We simply do not know.

This is because the book does not bother with actual science: we are not told WHAT was supposedly carefully observed. We are not told WHAT was "intensely studied", what methodology was applied, what the results of the observations where and how they were interpreted.

You don't have a clue either. The only difference is that when he told you he had studied and observed, like, really super hard, you simply believed him and left it at that.

If he had actually done proper research he would have had to support what he claimed. But neither he nor you are that interested in tedious reality. Neither of you bother to actually learn about what you are talking about. Your father never bothered to learn the basics about physics, or psychology, or how eyes actually work.

Much easier to just build these towering dream-castles on impossibly narrow foundations and not bother with anything that might remind him of his regrettable lack of knowledge.