A revolution in thought - Page 1189

LadyShea · #**29701** 07-19-2013, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

p. 498 Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

Replace all pronouns with proper nouns (stick with A, B, and C or give names like Alison, Bob, and Cary) and see if it works to convey the same thing.

Don't you see, it won't work because using proper names would indicate Alison is now Cary, or what have you. It would not be YOU, it would be someone else, which is the opposite of what he is trying to get across. He used the appropriate language, trust me on this.

Then I was correct and his whole "discovery" is about pronouns...it is a word game and nothing more. That is what I have been trying to tell you, if it's about pronouns, it is completely meaningless.

The word YOU must be replaceable with a proper noun, the name of the person being referred to, or it has no meaning. Is Alison You? Is Cary You? Is peacegirl You? Who the fuck is YOU, exactly?

LadyShea · #**29702** 07-19-2013, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

Did you read your own link?

Quote:

the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space.

Additionally, I already mentioned that the nature of time is under much discussion in the scientific community...which davidm is well aware of and has never denied.

Are you kidding me? He is very threatened by this new understanding. If time is not a dimension, his whole worldview falls apart. Now he's going to call me more names, just watch. I know him like the back of my hand.

You are very wrong in that. He is not threatened nor is his worldview in any danger by the well known ongoing scientific discussions on the nature of time. You are projecting.

LadyShea · #**29703** 07-19-2013, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

peacegirl · #**29704** 07-19-2013, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

Did you read your own link?

Quote:

the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space.

Additionally, I already mentioned that the nature of time is under much discussion in the scientific community...which davidm is well aware of and has never denied.

Are you kidding me? He is very threatened by this new understanding. If time is not a dimension, his whole worldview falls apart. Now he's going to call me more names, just watch. I know him like the back of my hand.

You are very wrong in that. He is not threatened nor is his worldview in any danger by the well known ongoing scientific discussions on the nature of time. You are projecting.

I'm not projecting. It is true that his worldview is very threatened by the idea that time may not be a 4th dimension.

peacegirl · #**29705** 07-19-2013, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

p. 498 Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

Replace all pronouns with proper nouns (stick with A, B, and C or give names like Alison, Bob, and Cary) and see if it works to convey the same thing.

Don't you see, it won't work because using proper names would indicate Alison is now Cary, or what have you. It would not be YOU, it would be someone else, which is the opposite of what he is trying to get across. He used the appropriate language, trust me on this.

Then I was correct and his whole "discovery" is about pronouns...it is a word game and nothing more. That is what I have been trying to tell you, if it's about pronouns, it is completely meaningless.

The word YOU must be replaceable with a proper noun, the name of the person being referred to, or it has no meaning. Is Alison You? Is Cary You? Is peacegirl You? Who the fuck is YOU, exactly?

You have not studied his observations carefully; you read a few excerpts and now you think you're in the position to criticize it.

LadyShea · #**29706** 07-19-2013, 04:07 AM

Quote:

I'm not projecting.

Of course you are. You have your and your father's live's work tied to a specific view of time being correct. Nobody else here has a worldview based on it.

Quote:

It is true that his worldview is very threatened by the idea that time may not be a 4th dimension.

Nope, davidm's life would not be affected if the nature of time turns out to be something other than dimensional.

peacegirl · #**29707** 07-19-2013, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Christina, please think carefully about this. How do you know this is gibberish? Do you understand the discovery? Tell me the truth.

I'm so glad that LS just posted this because you should go read it again. The word gibberish came to mind the first time that I read it for all of the reasons that LS just reminded you of.

I know that you don't remember me but I was there for your IIDB thread, had no preconceived notions about you or your father or his work and it was just as frustrating then as it is now. You seem to think that there are only 2 choices of what to do on these boards which are learning and teaching but those are a products of discussions on a discussion board and not one-sided lectures. I noticed this discussion between you and LS in her post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.

Have I misunderstood this all along and you wrote that fake dialogue and self-aggrandizing stuff and they aren't your dad's own words yet you refuse to change them? You could actually take that shit out without altering the sacred text? OMFG please say that it isn't so.

Quote:

Don't just say what people want to hear, or repeat what everyone else says; that this discovery must be worthless because of how many years I've been online without any success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

See, that in itself is insulting. Why would you assume that I would only say or repeat what others have said? In my opinion the discovery is worthless because what isn't factually incorrect or only trivially true is downright silly and illogical. It isn't even a discovery, just an idea.

So tell me what you know. You can't, because you don't know what the discovery is. All you keep doing is repeating what everyone else says. You are so bias from the last forum that you cannot be objective whatsoever.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "so" and "no". As far as the name peacegirl, I'm still a girl at heart. :yup:

I tried using the name peacewoman but it didn't have the same appeal. I could always change it in the future.

It's not about how you feel at heart because no one can see your heart or particularly cares how you feel when you're advocating for something. It's about being effective and creating a first impression that someone will take seriously. Peacewoman won't help you out either once you get away from forums where all of the men are very intelligent, in fact it will open you up to a whole new ugly level of abuse. It also sounds like a hippie name. If you're contacting individuals you should use your real name of course and just find some forum name that doesn't sound frivolous or cutesy like your middle name or something. Just because everyone else gets to have cool names and user titles doesn't mean that you should because you're trying to use these forums as a public podium.

I have used my real name on forums. Do you actually think I would use a pseudonym when writing a letter, or talking to someone personally? :glare:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I was tempted to go find that crackpot index thing and walk you through it with your dad's work but I don't remember where it is and the word crackpot is going to show up on almost every page. You'll screech "noooooooooo you're soooooooooooooooooo wrong!!!!!!!" (the extra o's make you sound like a shrill teen and lose the exclamation points) but even if everyone is indeed wrong maybe you'll see why it might have been nice to avoid doing some of that stuff in order not to appear to be a crackpot.

I've seen that index and it doesn't impress me in the least. Anyone could fit those descriptions, and still not be a crackpot. Furthermore, I'm not perfect in the way I express myself, I have feelings, I'm not a robot. You shouldn't use the fact that I get emotional at times to judge me so harshly. You aren't in my shoes Christina, and you don't know what it feels like to be picked on day after day when you know you have a genuine discovery to share with the world.

peacegirl · #**29708** 07-19-2013, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I'm not projecting.

Of course you are. You have your and your father's live's work tied to a specific view of time being correct. Nobody else here has a worldview based on it.

David does for sure. I don't know about everyone else.

Quote:

It is true that his worldview is very threatened by the idea that time may not be a 4th dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, davidm's life would not be affected if the nature of time turns out to be something other than dimensional.

Why are you suddenly speaking for David? Did the cat get his tongue? :eek:

LadyShea · #**29709** 07-19-2013, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

p. 498 Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

Replace all pronouns with proper nouns (stick with A, B, and C or give names like Alison, Bob, and Cary) and see if it works to convey the same thing.

Don't you see, it won't work because using proper names would indicate Alison is now Cary, or what have you. It would not be YOU, it would be someone else, which is the opposite of what he is trying to get across. He used the appropriate language, trust me on this.

Then I was correct and his whole "discovery" is about pronouns...it is a word game and nothing more. That is what I have been trying to tell you, if it's about pronouns, it is completely meaningless.

The word YOU must be replaceable with a proper noun, the name of the person being referred to, or it has no meaning. Is Alison You? Is Cary You? Is peacegirl You? Who the fuck is YOU, exactly?

I'm not discussing this chapter anymore. It was a mistake to have even started. You have not studied his observations carefully; you read a few excerpts and now you think you're in the position to criticize it. You are not, so don't act like you can intelligently debate it because you can't. Your questions are not sincere for if they were I wouldn't feel this defensive.

You feel defensive because you can't explain it without using pronouns, which means you can't respond to my charge that his whole arument is dependent on word play, and word play specifically in English.

And I can't study it carefully because you've never offered me the chapter. I can only analyze what you post.

LadyShea · #**29710** 07-19-2013, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I'm not projecting.

Of course you are. You have your and your father's live's work tied to a specific view of time being correct. Nobody else here has a worldview based on it.

David does for sure. I don't know about everyone else.

What makes you think that? His livelihood is not based on the nature of time, nor does he have any kind of time-based religion he follows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

It is true that his worldview is very threatened by the idea that time may not be a 4th dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, davidm's life would not be affected if the nature of time turns out to be something other than dimensional.

Why are you suddenly speaking for David? Did the cat get his tongue? :eek:

Doesn't matter if it's davidm or Spacemoneky or me, you projectile vomit this same accusation out p. frequently.

Nobody besides you is emotionally attached to, or mentally dependent upon, any of the theories they speak about. Everyone here, besides you, will happily follow the evidence wherever it leads-even if that is in the opposite direction than they expected- without trauma.

LadyShea · #**29711** 07-19-2013, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't in my shoes Christina, and you don't know what it feels like to be picked on day after day when you know you have a genuine discovery to share with the world.

Who is forcing you to be here, where you are "picked on day after day"? Who is preventing you sharing the discovery elsewhere in the big world?

Are you a martyr or a masochist? You choose to be here, so complaining about it makes you seem unhinged.

ChristinaM · #**29712** 07-19-2013, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've seen that index and it doesn't impress me in the least. Anyone could fit those descriptions, and still not be a crackpot. Furthermore, I'm not perfect in the way I express myself, I have feelings, I'm not a robot. You shouldn't use the fact that I get emotional at times to judge me so harshly.

It's not about you. It's about the getting people to read the book and your drama queen routine isn't helping. Do you know who Mr. Bill from Saturday Night Live was? People laughed but they probably wouldn't read a book on his recommendation.

Quote:

You aren't in my shoes Christina, and you don't know what it feels like to be picked on day after day when you know you have a genuine discovery to share with the world.

Try convincing a Chamber of Commerce that the solution to 'bums' eating from trash cans, sleeping in the parks, pissing all over the place and pushing shopping carts around might be to give them food, shelter, bathrooms and lockers. I definitely know what it's like to face a tough audience who has already decided that you're wrong and want to destroy civilization as they know it before they've even heard you speak. But you're correct in that I don't know what it's like to spend a decade getting laughed at on forums because that isn't something I would allow myself to do. If I'm sincere in wanting to accomplish something and my tactics don't work then I change them and come up with another strategy. Insisting that it be done my way even when it doesn't work is just self-indulgent and gets in the way.

You missed this part of my post before. Can you answer it now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.

Have I misunderstood this all along and you wrote that fake dialogue and self-aggrandizing stuff and they aren't your dad's own words yet you refuse to change them? You could actually take that shit out without altering the sacred text? OMFG please say that it isn't so.

Vivisectus · #**29713** 07-19-2013, 07:06 AM

[quote=Vivisectus;1142171]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

It may be true that our bodies get recycled or used for fertilizer, or become nutrients for others, but this still doesn't explain a greater truth; that YOU, not the same individual, will always be here to say "I wonder why I was born at this time in history, and not some other time" as long as mankind is able to reproduce himself.

When populations grow beyond the size they were before, where do the extra "I's" come from?

Extra "I"s? I don't understand what you mean.

Well, if the population grows, only a part of the current population can be made up of people who were the same I but had a different identity. Let us say that in 1900 there are 100 people, but in 1920 there are 150.

Where did the 50 extra "I"'s come from if they did not keep going? And is there a difference between new "I"'s and recycled ones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, when extinction events dramatically reduce the size of the human population (as they have done in the past), where do the extra "I's" go?

Again, I don't know what you mean? I believe you are thinking that the "I"s get replaced from a previous "I", which means there would be leftovers. That's not how it works.

Ok, so how does it work and what happens to the surplus ones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, what exactly is it that makes a consciousness "I"? If there is no memory, or indeed no causal link at all between a future and a present "I", then what is it that makes that future I the same I as the one that exists now? What distinguishes it from a completely different "I"?

What distinguishes it as a completely different "I" is the fact that it is a completely different "I". You are still trying to connect "I"s, which is not what Lessans is saying. This is not about not remembering the past YOU. There is no relationship between any "I" and the YOU that you are now.

Ok, so it is not memories. But what does distinguish an "I" that was another "I" before from one of the brand new ones that never existed before?

Any update on this?

Angakuk · #**29714** 07-19-2013, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. peacegirl was rude and insulting from literally her first day here -- to people who had been nothing but polite and helpful up until then.

So it's more than a little hypocritical of her to lecture others on civility.

I apologize to anyone who thinks I insulted them, but the truth is I reacted the way I did throughout my time here because I felt attacked and demeaned. I would never go out of my way to insult someone. It's just not in me to do that. As I said earlier, this group has brought out the worst in me.

Once again it is everyone else's fault, never yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

So what happens to those people that speak a language that does not use personal pronouns? Do they even have a consciousness?

peacegirl · #**29715** 07-19-2013, 12:18 PM

[quote=LadyShea;1142273]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

Did you read your own link?

Quote:

the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space.

Really?

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

peacegirl · #**29716** 07-19-2013, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No one here has ever prevented you from saying whatever you want to say.

Yes they have, and now it's too late.

How have they done that? Have they edited or censored your posts? Has someone come around to your house and broken all your fingers so you couldn't post anymore? Just how has anyone here prevented you from saying whatever you want to say?

If it is true, as Lessans claims, that no one can make you do what don't want to do, then isn't the correlary, no one can prevent you from doing what you really want to do , equally true.

It seems obvious to me that you derive greater satisfaction from complaining about how people are stopping you from doing what you claim you want to do than you do from actually going ahead and doing it.

It's not that I'm being physically stopped, but I am being psychologically stopped because the feedback I am getting provides me very little incentive to continue on.

peacegirl · #**29717** 07-19-2013, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing how you have completely disregarded everything he has written with a very smug attitude.

Nothing amazing about it. What he has written I find easily disregarded. And I don't consider myself smug so much as matter of fact. However, seeing as how you consider Lessans self aggrandizement in his writing the mark of a humble man, I don't trust you to understand attitudes at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what makes this experience the most difficult for me, and why I am turned off to the scientific community

LOL, I am not part of the scientific community, and this is a tone argument, which is fallacious reasoning. You wouldn't be "turned on" by science no matter how I presented it.

the person who is saying, “I would agree with you/support you/support your cause if you were nicer about it” has no intention of ever agreeing or supporting in any way

Tone Argument as Logical Fallacy | But Not the Armadillo

I am not relying on a tone argument in support of this discovery. Don't you think I know that how nice someone is has no bearing on anything? You must think I'm really stupid LadyShea.

Spacemonkey · #**29718** 07-19-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop telling me I'm weaseling?

No. When you weasel instead of answering I will point out that you are weaseling. You are a self-confessed weasel, and you are once again weaseling. If you don't like this being pointed out then stop doing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you are numerically 100 and not 101 is because there is no numerical difference between the YOU that was 100 who just died, and the YOU that is now being born, which is not 101 (as if you're still here), but 100.

That's not a supporting reason. You've just repeated what I asked you to show his reasoning for. Did Lessans not actually support this point with any reasoning? Is this just another assertion from him? Or is the problem just that you don't understand what his reasoning was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our Posterity

p. 499 Now that mom and dad have you they decide to have another
child, and when it is born it is not you because you already exist.
Soon mom gives birth to a total of ten. Then several years later you
get married and give birth to two children, making a total of 14 in
your family. Before long there are 50 family members in all. After
reaching a ripe old age of 100 years you drop dead from heart failure,
so this body, this bubble of consciousness is gone which makes it
impossible for you to say that the next child born is him or her
because this relation must pass through your consciousness which is
no longer here.

If you, the 50th member of your family said ‘I’ just
before your death, and the remaining members of your family are still
alive at the time that you died; and if it is impossible to be born and
not say ‘I’ because everything must be seen through your
consciousness, the next infant born cannot possibly be him or her,
number 51, but YOU, number 50. In other words, since your family
just lost YOU, which decreased the population to 49, and since these
remaining 49 members are not you because they have their own
consciousness, but they still want YOU, when you are born YOU will
not be him or her, number 51, but you, number 50, who will grow,
develop and become conscious of your existence.

Where is the reasoning here? He points out that it is impossible for you to be reborn while you are still alive, but then simply asserts without any supporting reasoning that once you die the next born individual will be you.

Where is his reasoning to support this claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you not listening? I told you I'm doing the best I can but I am not going to continue the discussion on death.

What a crock of shit. Refusing to even continue the conversation is obviously not doing the best that you can to explain things or answer questions.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**29719** 07-19-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? That's another weaseling non-answer. Do you not actually know what Lessans' reasoning was on this point? Why did he think the subsequent consciousness would be numerically the same as a previous one?

Why are you refusing to discuss this? Why are the only options for you weaseling and evasion or ending the discussion?

There's nothing more I can say, just as there's nothing more I can say about light and sight, and there's nothing more I can say about determinism.

Why is there nothing more you can say? Didn't you just claim to understand this material? Why can't you answer questions about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, there's a lot more I can say about determinism and how a no blame society will change the landscape of our world, but you wouldn't let me continue.

That's not true. As always, YOU were the one who insisted on changing the subject. Have you not noticed how no matter which subject we're on, you're always desperately trying to change the subject to something else instead of answering our questions about it?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**29720** 07-19-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course that's true, but the word "I" is not just an individual thing, as Lessans explained. It holds the potential consciousness of each person as they are born and see themselves as separate individuals, just like a leaf in the spring of the year.

The word "I" is not an individual thing, nor can it hold any potential consciousness. It is simply a word - a self-referential pronoun used to fix reference to the speaker using the term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to read the whole chapter over and over again.

Will you post the whole chapter so that we can actually do this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's taken me years to understand as much as I do...

What on Earth makes you think you understand it? Certainly not your ability to explain it without contradicting yourself.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**29721** 07-19-2013, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter. You have already dismissed it as nonsense, and therefore it will be nonsense to you. Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

peacegirl · #**29722** 07-19-2013, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I'm not projecting.

Of course you are. You have your and your father's live's work tied to a specific view of time being correct. Nobody else here has a worldview based on it.

David does for sure. I don't know about everyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think that? His livelihood is not based on the nature of time, nor does he have any kind of time-based religion he follows.

This has nothing to do with his livelihood. It has to do with his deeply held beliefs, and it upsets him terribly to think that his worldview (which has given him comfort obviously) could be mistaken.

Quote:

It is true that his worldview is very threatened by the idea that time may not be a 4th dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, davidm's life would not be affected if the nature of time turns out to be something other than dimensional.

Quote:

Why are you suddenly speaking for David? Did the cat get his tongue? :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Doesn't matter if it's davidm or Spacemoneky or me, you projectile vomit this same accusation out p. frequently.

But you are speaking for him. Why are you doing this? David has never addressed this legitimate refutation. He believes time has a dimension of its own, which is the very thing being questioned by well-respected physicists. He conveniently skips out (as if we don't notice) and then comes back when he thinks the topic is forgotten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody besides you is emotionally attached to, or mentally dependent upon, any of the theories they speak about. Everyone here, besides you, will happily follow the evidence wherever it leads-even if that is in the opposite direction than they expected- without trauma.

I cannot help that I am emotionally attached to Lessans (he was my father after all), but this has no bearing on the validity of what he is offering, so stop using it. You projectile vomit this same accusation out LS frequently.

Spacemonkey · #**29723** 07-19-2013, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter.

So then what is it that's preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

You don't think it might also have something to do with your complete refusal to answer questions or even attempt to explain things?

LadyShea · #**29724** 07-19-2013, 12:53 PM

[quote=peacegirl;1142349]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

Did you read your own link?

Quote:

the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space.

Really?

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

The article is saying that rather than 3 dimensions of space plus one dimension of time, that there are 4 dimensions of spacetime. They are positing time as not a separate physical thing but how we measure change. Exactly what I said to you some pages back.

Quote:

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change.

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

LadyShea · #**29725** 07-19-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Don't you think I know that how nice someone is has no bearing on anything? You must think I'm really stupid LadyShea.

Then why did you say my attitude is the reason you are turned off by the scientific community?