A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Maybe we should just do science the Lessans way:

Step 1: Decide what you would like to be true.

Step 2: Declare it to be true.

Step 3: Sit back and wait for everyone to recognize as for the visionary you truly are.

If anyone asks for evidence, insist that you've made "astute observations," which provide absolute, irrefutable proof of your claims. Even though science does not work that way. Adamantly refuse to provide documentation that these "astute observations" ever occurred at all, much less that you accounted for things like observer bias. Also, refuse to ever say what, exactly, those alleged "astute observations" actually were.

If anyone brings up the inconvenient fact that there are literally mountains of evidence which flatly contradict your claims, declare that "something else must be going on," and try to change the subject. Above all, don't forget to berate anyone who doesn't accept your wholly-unsupported claims on your mere say-so as being "close-minded." Because, obviously, anyone who is more interested in the actual evidence than in the wholly unsupported claims of someone who was demonstrably and admittedly completely ignorant of the relevant science is just being "close-minded."

When all else fails, whine about how you're being "persecuted" by people who keep asking you to provide some evidence for your claims -- or even a clear and non-contradictory explanation of them. Be sure to make lots of laughably-false claims about Einstein, Edison, and Mendel, while you're at it. Insist that time will prove you right. Somehow.

***

And to think: all these years, I've been doing it the hard way.

But isn't that the way science has been done all these years? ? ? ? ? ? ? Quantum Physics is surely proof of that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL and here we go with the histrionics. You are not a martyr. You come here voluntarily. You managed to stay away for a while this time, yet here you are again. You must like it here, and like being "whipped"

You have an answer for everything LadyShea, but you're wrong. I am not being histrionic. I'm telling it like I see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I'm surprised that you have succumbed to this madness Ceptimus. You were one of the few that I counted on to be neutral.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Maybe we should just do science the Lessans way:

Step 1: Decide what you would like to be true.

Step 2: Declare it to be true.

Step 3: Sit back and wait for everyone to recognize as for the visionary you truly are.

If anyone asks for evidence, insist that you've made "astute observations," which provide absolute, irrefutable proof of your claims. Even though science does not work that way. Adamantly refuse to provide documentation that these "astute observations" ever occurred at all, much less that you accounted for things like observer bias. Also, refuse to ever say what, exactly, those alleged "astute observations" actually were.

He showed exactly where his observations originated Lone Ranger. And he explained what is going on with the eyes based on those observations.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If anyone brings up the inconvenient fact that there are literally mountains of evidence which flatly contradict your claims, declare that "something else must be going on,"

Obviously, your mind is made up that he must be wrong because it appears that all the evidence points to afferent vision. But appearances can be misleading. There's no sense discussing this any further. Why does this thread always end up this way? I didn't bring this topic up again.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

and try to change the subject. Above all, don't forget to berate anyone who doesn't accept your wholly-unsupported claims on your mere say-so as being "close-minded." Because, obviously, anyone who is more interested in the actual evidence than in the wholly unsupported claims of someone who was demonstrably and admittedly completely ignorant of the relevant science is just being "close-minded."

I have said numerous times that I don't expect anyone to believe what I'm saying at face value, but to wait until further testing is done. People say the tests have been done. I say they haven't, not with Lessans' claim in mind. This testing may take another hundred years or it may never happen at all. But to just handwave it away because you believe there is no evidence supporting it, is erroneous.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When all else fails, whine about how you're being "persecuted" by people who keep asking you to provide some evidence for your claims -- or even a clear and non-contradictory explanation of them. Be sure to make lots of laughably-false claims about Einstein, Edison, and Mendel, while you're at it. Insist that time will prove you right. Somehow.

For 3 years I have tried to offer his explanation as to why he believed the eyes functioned differently than the other senses. What else can I say other than time will tell?

[The Lone Ranger]

Considering that you've repeatedly stated that you have no intention of familiarizing yourself with the evidence against Lessans' claims, that's pretty hypocritical. Even by your standards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Considering that you've repeatedly stated that you have no intention of familiarizing yourself with the evidence against Lessans' claims, that's pretty hypocritical. Even by your standards.

I know all about the evidence against Lessans' claims; the moons of Jupiter, the time/light delay, the afferent structure of nerve endings, The Hubble Deep Field, etc.

[The Lone Ranger]

Liar. In your more honest moments, you've outright stated that you have no intention of learning about the evidence against Lessans' claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know all about the evidence against Lessans' claims; the moons of Jupiter, the light/delay calculation, the afferent structure of nerve endings, etc.

You only know enough about them to know that they disprove your fathers ideas, so you hand wave them away without even looking at them in any kind of depth. All of the evidence completely disproves Lessans and you know it, it's just your stubborn refusal to accept reality that gets in the way.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

All Hail, All Hail, All Hail the master fisherman, the one who is the absolute master baiter.

..........

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm telling it like I see it.

That I can believe, you are telling it as you see it. The only problem is that you are seeing everything through the lens of your fathers book, and nothing can convince you to take off the glasses of falsehood, that is your fathers book, and see reality as it is.


How many people need to tell you that you are wrong? 6 billion, 7 billion, or will you still stubbornly insist that in spite of everything, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

..........

Yes holding tissues so the master can clean up, unless it's in the mashed potatoes, and then we take them to Peacegirls party.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does this thread always end up this way?

Because of you, Peacegirl. You are not well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't bring this topic up again.

Sure you did. Right after coming back to say that you were not here to restart the discussion, you restarted the discussion. Just as you did the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar. In your more honest moments, you've outright stated that you have no intention of learning about the evidence against Lessans' claims.

I know the evidence against Lessans' claim, but it's still not foolproof in my opinion no matter how airtight it seems to you. I will not let go of my father's claim due to your belief that the evidence proves him wrong. If that's your goal, to get me to concede, you might as well throw in the towel right now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because of you, Peacegirl. You are not well.

Sure you did. Right after coming back to say that you were not here to restart the discussion, you restarted the discussion. Just as you did the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that...

I was not the first one who brought this discussion up again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know the evidence against Lessans' claim, but it's still not foolproof in my opinion no matter how airtight it seems to you.

Do you have any rational basis for your criticisms of the evidence, or is it entirely based on that it disagrees with Lessans?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you have any rational basis for your criticisms of the evidence, or is it entirely based on that it disagrees with Lessans?

I've been accused of this all along. People take for granted that my allegiance to my father's claim is all faith based (which is understandable) and that the evidence proves him wrong. I wholly disagree not because I was his daughter, but because I believe there is merit to his claims. What more can I say?

[LadyShea]

I didn't ask if you think there is merit to his claims, that's a given. I am asking on what rational, non-faith basis you continue to criticize the variety of evidence that indicates he was wrong. "Something else might be going on" is not a rational criticism. "I believe deeply that something else has more merit" is not a rational criticism.

The evidence can be examined on its own, compared against other evidence, and the methodology analyzed, right? Why do you never do that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't ask if you think there is merit to his claims, that's a given. I am asking on what rational, non-faith basis you continue to criticize the variety of evidence that indicates he was wrong. "Something else might be going on" is not a rational criticism. "I believe deeply that something else has more merit" is not a rational criticism.

If that is all I said in defense of his claim, that would be irrational because there would be no rationale to justify it. But there IS a rationale. I am not criticizing the variety of evidence against him. I understand the rationale that scientists are using to defend their position. If I didn't know there was an alternate model that refutes the established theory, I would believe the same thing because the evidence appears logical. The non-faith basis upon which I am relying are from observations Lessans made regarding how we become conditioned, which does not happen with the other senses. You know this already.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The evidence can be examined on its own, compared against other evidence, and the methodology analyzed, right? Why do you never do that?

What do you mean why do I never do that? I have done as much as I can. I believe Lessans was right when he described how the brain works in relation to words (which led him to this finding), just like I believe Lessans was right when he described how conscience works. These observations were not based on the scientific method of empirical testing, which can be misleading.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-faith basis upon which I am relying is based on the observations Lessans made regarding how we become conditioned which does not happen with the other senses. You know this already.

I believe Lessans was right when he described how the brain works in relation to words (which led him to this finding),
that does not mean that his observations were false.

And this was another of Lessans major errors. He did not understand how we can become conditioned. It is an internal process and his mistake was to try to explain it as an external process.

It has also been demonstrated that conditioning happens with all the senses in much the same way. The classic example of conditioning involved hearing, therefore disproving Lessan's claim that conditioning does not happen with the other senses.
Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-faith basis upon which I am relying is based on the observations Lessans made regarding how we become conditioned which does not happen with the other senses. You know this already.

No, this is only one of your unsupported false claims that you have made repeatedly. What everyone else knows is that conditioning happens through all the senses.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not the first one who brought this discussion up again.

Sure you were.

You are not well, Peacegirl. This is not sane behaviour.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been accused of this all along. People take for granted that my allegiance to my father's claim is all faith based (which is understandable) and that the evidence proves him wrong. I wholly disagree not because I was his daughter, but because I believe there is merit to his claims. What more can I say?

Which amply demonstrates the fact that you lie to yourself as much as you lie to everyone else.

People don't "take for granted that [your] allegiance to [your] father's claim is all faith based". They couldn't, because you tried to keep that information under wraps for as long as you could get away with it, remember? You did it here, you did it at IIDB, and IIRC you did it at Graveyard and Project Reason as well. People you discuss this with come to the conclusion that you "believe based on faith" rather than "understand based on reason" because you can't/won't explain Lessan's ideas systematically and logically (or even in your own words), you can't/won't respond to challenges without handwaving, cherrypicking and/or fit-pitching, and you can't/won't produce even a sliver of evidence to counter the centuries of observation and resultant useful technology that indicate that he was, quite simply, wrong.

In life, your father was his own worst enemy. Since his death, you are.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Which amply demonstrates the fact that you lie to yourself as much as you lie to everyone else.

People don't "take for granted that [your] allegiance to [your] father's claim is all faith based". They couldn't, because you tried to keep that information under wraps for as long as you could get away with it, remember? You did it here, you did it at IIDB, and IIRC you did it at Graveyard and Project Reason as well. People you discuss this with come to the conclusion that you "believe based on faith" rather than "understand based on reason" because you can't/won't explain Lessan's ideas systematically and logically (or even in your own words), you can't/won't respond to challenges without handwaving, cherrypicking and/or fit-pitching, and you can't/won't produce even a sliver of evidence to counter the centuries of observation and resultant useful technology that indicate that he was, quite simply, wrong.

In life, your father was his own worst enemy. Since his death, you are.

I am not sure how long you've been in this forum, but I have explained his ideas systematically and logically, and also in my own words. I have explained very clearly why man's will is not free. We have no free will (compatibilst or libertarian) and Lessans has proven this beyond a shadow of doubt. I have also explained in my own words Lessans' observations regarding the senses, and why the eyes do not function like the other four. We can become conditioned by words in relation to the eyes, but we cannot become conditioned by words in relation to the other senses. Because we never understood a projecting function of the brain, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production. This knowledge will change our entire vocabulary by removing words that are not symbolic of reality, and hurt people in the process. This has nothing to do with the advances in technology because the knowledge of the eyes does not interfere with the progress that has been made using light. I've done exactly what people have asked me to do, but they come back with comments like: "this is an assertion", "this is a modal fallacy", "this is a tautology", "this is defies the laws of physics", etc. I've been called every name in the book for no good reason. It's plain to see that until science steps in and takes these claims seriously, this bashing will never end.