A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Lessans work riddled with fallacies I'm afraid. DavidM is correct when he says that Lessans confuses a necessary truth with a contingent truth.

If you say that what happened must be what had to to happen because it is what happened, you are not describing something that happened because of necessity. Lessans does not recognize this and treats it as a necessary truth. He then adds another fallacy when he says that if you cannot disprove something, the opposite must be true - to which the common response is: then disprove the existence Russells Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Possibly he added a third fallacy, even though it is not explicit. He seems to hint that because blame often accompanies bad deeds and justifications, they are therefor caused by them. It is classic post hoc ergo propter hoc, but since he does not actually support his assertion that blame is a condition for justification and the ability to do unprovoked evil in any way, we cannot be sure what his reasoning around it is exactly.

His theory of sight is particularly odd. We know and have measured the delay between what happens and when we see it. This means that light is indeed what the eye detects and creates a picture from - it is not us projecting an idea. Except for empirical evidence that disproves it, this theory is also heavily flawed internally - if all we saw was a projection of a "photograph" (what are we using as a medium for that initial photograph by the way?) then we would not be able to distinguish between multiple instances of what we have internalized - if I saw 3 daffodils, my brain would project 3 identical instances of the daffodil idea - not show me 3 objects which I internally label as flowers, trumpet-shaped, yellow, and finally give the label Daffodil.

There is also the problem of the false dichotomy - all deeds are labelled Bad, Good or Neutral. Reality, however, does not work this way. Stoning a blasphemer is good for a religious fanatic, and letting him live is bad. For other people it is the other way around - especially for the blasphemer in question. creating farms is good for landowners, but bad for local hunter-gatherers. It is good when considered from the point of view of a country that needs more food, bad from the point of view of a world that wants to preserve natural wildlife that only exists there. All these degrees of bad and good are also not equal, depending on your position. It is VERY bad for the blasphemer, for instance, while in the other case the Green-party voter may not see it as quite the end of the world.

In Lessans world there is no room for such subtleties - and this is because the Golden Age is an Age when the world is populated with people who think exactly like Lessans. Review his ideas about relationships and sex, and you will see that at this stage the world being described is filled with Lessans-drones living out their predetermined paths without a single deviation.

The whole system is a fallacy-sundae, but nevertheless the writer has no problem putting himself on a par with some of the greatest philosophers (and, for some obscure reason, Durant?) and religious figures, including Buddha and Jesus.

The complete lack of recognition from the scientific community must have stung somewhat, as he spends 20 (!) pages going on about how scientists are dogmatic, are not open minded, and have an agenda to keep out anything that might change their point of view. One has to wonder what kind of undeniable truth needs such a lengthy preemptive defense before it even begins to explain its position!

Ironically Peacegirl - as far as I know Lessans only disciple - has refused to change her mind about anything in the book, even when it is shown to be based on logical fallacies or biological impossibilities.

Santayana once lamented that the age of the system-builders in Philosophy is over. These ideas are an excellent example of what is wrong with some of these wide-ranging philosophies - they try to build cathedrals of thought on very, very narrow foundations. When they hit problems that their system cannot deal with, they tend to attempt to simply describe reality in such a way that it appears to fit their ideas, in stead of coming up with ideas that fit reality.

To surmise - what we have here is a man who severely overestimated his own powers as a thinker and as a writer. His system is riddled with problems right from the start, which he seems not to have spotted despite spending years writing and thinking about it. The language is rather grandiose and condescending - the attempts at using a sort of Socratic dialogue with himself as Socrates are especially cringe-worthy.

It comes as no surprise that he ended up with no followers except one person whom he simply conditioned to agree with him no matter what. There is a reason the revolution never happened, and it never, ever will.

[peacegirl]

[quote=wildernesse;935006]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As you read the book, you would get more out of it. There is so much information that could help a person in his own life (it's not just a blueprint of a new world to come), that it's very unfortunate if people wouldn't read it for that reason alone -- even if they don't understand or agree with the two-sided equation. I can't force anyone to read this book with serious intent. Not after davidm ruined it for this author. How could anyone take this work seriously after what he did to it?

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Actually, the more you post of the book, the better idea I get of the author. I feel sorry for him, because he does not seem to have had a very happy personal life or have broadened his horizons very much.

I have known some people like this--intelligent people whose worlds were fairly small. They were not exposed to many ideas through education or travel, and often through insecurity did not seek out greater knowledge of the world. And they are often naive.

I don't think his world was small. He was well traveled. I don't know where you got that idea. He also was in the army for many years and received a favorable discharge. At one point, half of his unit was killed. He happened to stay in that day, for whatever reason, and his life was spared. Early on, he took an aptitude test and got the highest mark they had ever seen. They said he would succeed at whatever he chose to do in life.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Specifically, though, what you have posted about families and relationships in the Golden Age is repulsive and ignorant. You do not seem to realize how far removed these ideas are from families and relationships that already function based on mutual respect and understanding of things like child development.

That is because reading the posts I put online would make this part of the book look like it came out of the dark ages. The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. For example, the recognition that corporal punishment is unhealthy is definitely in keeping with a no blame environment. Also, it is not healthy for a parent to dictate what direction a child should go. Years ago parents chose what field a child should go into, which caused a lot of unhappiness. In the new world, no parent would ever tell a child that his choices are wrong. The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Early on, he took an aptitude test and got the highest mark they had ever seen. They said he would succeed at whatever he chose to do in life.

The ASVAB is not a crystal ball. I, too, had a very high score on it, and the Air Force recruiter was extremely pleased to flatter me once he saw my scores.

My astute observation is that your father was an ignorant man. It is undeniable and a mathematical fact.

That is because reading the posts I put online would make this part of the book look like it came out of the dark ages.

You are choosing to make the book look bad, then. No one to blame but yourself.

The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book.

You are wrong and peddling lies. There really isn't another word for it at this point.

The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on.

This is a lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans work riddled with fallacies I'm afraid. DavidM is correct when he says that Lessans confuses a necessary truth with a contingent truth.

If you say that what happened must be what had to to happen because it is what happened, you are not describing something that happened because of necessity. Lessans does not recognize this and treats it as a necessary truth. He then adds another fallacy when he says that if you cannot disprove something, the opposite must be true - to which the common response is: then disprove the existence Russells Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

He did not say that if you cannot disprove something, the opposite must be true. He said that if something cannot be proven true, there still exists a possibility that the opposite can be proven true. Do you see how you are interpreting what he saying incorrectly? But it is a necessary truth if what has happened has already happened. It could not have been otherwise. It is not a necessary truth that something has to happen before it happens. I'm sorry if you don't get this part, but that does not make him wrong in any sense of the word. I am only suggesting that you don't throw in the towel prematurely.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Possibly he added a third fallacy, even though it is not explicit. He seems to hint that because blame often accompanies bad deeds and justifications, they are therefor caused by them.

No, bad deeds are not caused by blame. Blame gives one the opportunity to go ahead with bad deeds if one is already predisposed to doing bad deeds.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is classic post hoc ergo propter hoc, but since he does not actually support his assertion that blame is a condition for justification and the ability to do unprovoked evil in any way, we cannot be sure what his reasoning around it is exactly.

He supports his claim only through astute observation. I also said that the cause of someone's actions is not always clear. Most of the killings that make world news (and seem to be without justification) are people who want to get back at society. They are retaliating against perceived or real harm done to them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

His theory of sight is particularly odd. We know and have measured the delay between what happens and when we see it. This means that light is indeed what the eye detects and creates a picture from - it is not us projecting an idea. Except for empirical evidence that disproves it, this theory is also heavily flawed internally - if all we saw was a projection of a "photograph" (what are we using as a medium for that initial photograph by the way?) then we would not be able to distinguish between multiple instances of what we have internalized - if I saw 3 daffodils, my brain would project 3 identical instances of the daffodil idea - not show me 3 objects which I internally label as flowers, trumpet-shaped, yellow, and finally give the label Daffodil.

Light is what allows us to see objects in the real world which gives us the ability to project onto a screen of undeniable substance values that are not real, but appear to be. The brain is not projecting 3 identical instances of the daffodil idea; it is seeing 3 daffodils in the real world. It is the word 'beautiful' that is a false projection onto a real screen of undeniable substance that gives the appearance of being real, but it is not so. Values do not exist apart from the person who is doing the valuing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is also the problem of the false dichotomy - all deeds are labelled Bad, Good or Neutral. Reality, however, does not work this way. Stoning a blasphemer is good for a religious fanatic, and letting him live is bad. For other people it is the other way around - especially for the blasphemer in question. creating farms is good for landowners, but bad for local hunter-gatherers. It is good when considered from the point of view of a country that needs more food, bad from the point of view of a world that wants to preserve natural wildlife that only exists there. All these degrees of bad and good are also not equal, depending on your position. It is VERY bad for the blasphemer, for instance, while in the other case the Green-party voter may not see it as quite the end of the world.

He was the first one to say that everything is relative. Don't you remember that part? Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death? What is good for one is not good for another. This is obvious and does not conflict with any of his arguments.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In Lessans world there is no room for such subtleties - and this is because the Golden Age is an Age when the world is populated with people who think exactly like Lessans. Review his ideas about relationships and sex, and you will see that at this stage the world being described is filled with Lessans-drones living out their predetermined paths without a single deviation.

Nooooo, you are failing to understand the most important element of this whole thing. We are free to do anything we want, so if you want to have a harem, go do it. No one is going to stop you from doing anything you feel is better for yourself. Did you read the entire chapter on premarital relations? I can see where this looks archaic, probably because of the words he used. Remember, it was back in 1959, but the concept is still correct. You refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt by keeping an open mind. Could you give me an example of what turned you off? What do you believe that you wouldn't be able to do in the new world that you can do in this world?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The whole system is a fallacy-sundae, but nevertheless the writer has no problem putting himself on a par with some of the greatest philosophers (and, for some obscure reason, Durant?) and religious figures, including Buddha and Jesus.

No, he did not. He was an unassuming man. In all my life with him, he never boasted about any of his accomplishments. He was quiet. The only thing he did for enjoyment was hang out at the pool hall with his pool buddies. They all loved him because he never used large words to show off, even though he worked on his manuscript in the poolroom. He was a 9 ball champ but he never hustled anyone. He was not anything close to what you are describing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The complete lack of recognition from the scientific community must have stung somewhat, as he spends 20 (!) pages going on about how scientists are dogmatic, are not open minded, and have an agenda to keep out anything that might change their point of view. One has to wonder what kind of undeniable truth needs such a lengthy preemptive defense before it even begins to explain its position!

That was partially my fault because I combined all of his books together and made the introduction especially long. So blame me, not him. The truth is he was unable to reach anyone who would give him the time of day. They assumed, because he was not a member of a leading university, that he had nothing of value. They wouldn't even open the cover because it was an unsolicited manuscript. They did not want to take the risk and invest in an unknown book and an unknown author.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ironically Peacegirl - as far as I know Lessans only disciple - has refused to change her mind about anything in the book, even when it is shown to be based on logical fallacies or biological impossibilities.

I told you that he would have agreed that he was wrong if he was wrong. He had no problem with that. If he was wrong about the sun exploding and seeing the object immediately, then he would have admitted it. I told you I'm not sure, but this does not in and of itself make the rest of his discovery regarding the eyes, wrong. Why can't you keep an open mind? I am not trying to get you to agree unless more studies are done.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Santayana once lamented that the age of the system-builders in Philosophy is over. These ideas are an excellent example of what is wrong with some of these wide-ranging philosophies - they try to build cathedrals of thought on very, very narrow foundations. When they hit problems that their system cannot deal with, they tend to attempt to simply describe reality in such a way that it appears to fit their ideas, in stead of coming up with ideas that fit reality.

Actually, that is not what Lessans is doing. That is what davidm is doing. He is trying to fit what Lessans' definition into the definitions that already exist in philosophy, and when they don't, he gets mad and says Lessans is wrong. I know more than him because I know all of the definitions and he doesn't. So what! He then laughs at a contradiction that doesn't even exist. For him to say that Lessans' statement: One is compelled, of his own free will...is a contradiction proves to me that he does not understand the first thing about Lessans' definition of determinism, which more accurately describes reality than any of the other definitions put forth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To surmise - what we have here is a man who severely overestimated his own powers as a thinker and as a writer. His system is riddled with problems right from the start, which he seems not to have spotted despite spending years writing and thinking about it. The language is rather grandiose and condescending - the attempts at using a sort of Socratic dialogue with himself as Socrates are especially cringe-worthy.

It comes as no surprise that he ended up with no followers except one person whom he simply conditioned to agree with him no matter what. There is a reason the revolution never happened, and it never, ever will.

Some of his books were in prose, but I chose to use dialogue because it better answers questions that I know people will ask. He had no followers because the book was never widely distributed. A handful of people, if that, actually read this book. You say his book is riddled with problems, and I still am trying to get you to specifically tell me what those problems are. Give me specifics. If you say he is wrong about man's will because man does not move in the direction of greater satisfaction, I can't help you here. BTW, his entire 7th chapter regarding the medical profession was named after Socrates. He gives credit where it's due, and he appreciated Socrates wisdom, especially when he said he knew that he didn't know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

The ASVAB is not a crystal ball. I, too, had a very high score on it, and the Air Force recruiter was extremely pleased to flatter me once he saw my scores.

My astute observation is that your father was an ignorant man. It is undeniable and a mathematical fact.

You are choosing to make the book look bad, then. No one to blame but yourself.

You are wrong and peddling lies. There really isn't another word for it at this point.

This is a lie.

You know what Wildernesse, if that's all you have to say, without giving any reasons, then please don't say anything at all. Your accusations tell me more about you than anything about Lessans.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[Seymour Lessans] burned his first set of printed books (thousands) in the fireplace (I remember vividly) because he wasn't satisfied.

So history does indeed repeat itself. First there was the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, then there was the holocaust of wisdom quoted above. During the latter event a collective cry of anguish rose from the wounded souls of the hebephrenic around the world. I observed that phenomenon, which makes my statement scientific, mathematical and undeniably true.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what Wildernesse, if that's all you have to say, without giving any reasons, then please don't say anything at all. Your accusations tell me more about you than anything about Lessans.

That is quite the double standard. If we aren't going to be allowed to post without giving any reasons, then your posting is going to fall off precipitously.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what Wildernesse, if that's all you have to say, without giving any reasons, . . .

Because you have choosen to ignore the reasons does not mean the reasons were not given. No one else has to labor under your willful ignorance.

. . . then please don't say anything at all.

YOU do not want your ignorance exposed? Ceased promoting it Otherwise, stop crying and whining about how people will not buy your fairy tales. You clearly cannot defend them.

Your accusations tell me more about you than anything about Lessans.

Yes, that Wildernesse is not, like Lessans, willfully ignorant. She has also been known to wear shoes and, occasionally, leave the kitchen.













However, sometimes I doubt her commitment to Sparkle Motion. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

That is quite the double standard. If we aren't going to be allowed to post without giving any reasons, then your posting is going to fall off precipitously.

I have given reasons, and I will continue to show that his reasoning is accurate. You, on the other hand, are simply calling me a liar without justification. But you feel justified because you think I'm lying, so that's your way of getting back at me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Because you have choosen to ignore the reasons does not mean the reasons were not given. No one else has to labor under your willful ignorance.

They are not fairy tales. The reasons that were given were not adequate.

. . . then please don't say anything at all.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

YOU do not want your ignorance exposed? Ceased promoting it Otherwise, stop crying and whining about how people will not buy your fairy tales. You clearly cannot defend them.

Yes, I can defend them. I'm not whining or crying that people won't buy into fairy tales. If they don't see the validity, or don't agree, they're entitled to think what they want, but this does not prove he is wrong. If you need empirical testing, that's fine. Call it an assertion, I don't care. I just hope people don't give up.

Your accusations tell me more about you than anything about Lessans.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Yes, that Wildernesse is not, like Lessans, willfully ignorant. She has also been known to wear shoes and, occasionally, leave the kitchen.

Come on Doctor X, lighten up, he was giving these as examples. He wasn't saying that this is how it has to be. That is the antithesis of what this book stands for.

When the newlyweds are finally able to move into their new
home, the wife will know immediately that the house and the
meals are her domain (unless another arrangement is made), while
he will know that earning a living is his responsibility which will
put him in charge of the money. Regardless of who brings in the
paycheck, there will be an equal balance of power and respect and
each will be compelled to show their love by doing everything they
possibly can to make the other happy.

If the man wants to stay
home and the woman work, no one will be telling them that this is
wrong. Therefore, the desire to make a living or take care of the
children will be determined by the individual couple and how they
choose to work things out between them. The purpose of this book
is not to argue for or against women’s liberation; nor is it meant to
assign rigid roles to the sexes. The only purpose is to demonstrate
that when a man and woman decide what role they designate for
themselves, and it is mutually agreed upon, and they also know
there will be no blame if they should fail to live up to their own
agreement, there is no satisfaction to be gained from neglecting
what is clearly their responsibility.

In most cases the mother will
desire to stay home with the baby, therefore, it will be the
husband’s responsibility to earn a living and handle all the money,
but whatever they arrange will be their personal business.
Although the husband is the only one working, she knows that he
would never tell her that it is her duty to do certain things such as
prepare the meals, keep the house in order, etc., as this is a
judgment of what is right for her, just as she would never tell him
to get a job, where or when to work, or to give her money.

She
gives him no advice whatever because she knows that such an
action on her part would be a judgment of what is right for him
which tacitly blames his own desire. More importantly, it would
reveal a lack of love which she wants to prevent since a display of
love through her actions, not her words, is the only source of her
own security. If the children are in school, she may wish to take a
job and bring in extra money to help her husband support the
family and would desire this all the more because of the realization
that it could help take pressure off of her husband even though she
knows he would never ask her to do this, or blame her in any way
if she chose not to.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not fairy tales. The reasons that were given were not adequate.

Ipse dixit but incorrect. That you bury your head in the sands of the banks of the Rivers DeNile remains your imperfection.

Yes, I can defend them.

Yet you have not.

I'm not whining or crying

You are.

If they don't see the validity, . . .

The eye is a sense organ.

I just hope people don't give up.

They will. You are, I am saddened to reveal to you, neither special nor unique. Others before you have tried to keep alive patently false cults.

Let Me Wager: your children take less interest in this than you. You certainly seem to be a singular proponent, for no one else supports you enough to post. If you cannot get anyone else to post on Al Gore's Interwebs in support, you will generate quite the unspectacular revolution. Your grandchildren have no interest in this. They will be polite--as we all are to our elders and their often eccentric fascination with JFK conspiracies and the like. We ask them to retell the stories and listen with feigned patience because, well, they did listen to our kindergarten complains and clean up after us when we were wee.

But they will not pursue it.

And it will pass soon after you, for you lack the charisma to attract unquestioning followers.

Matty? Are you familiar with the saying, "Beware of an old man in a hurry?"

--The Rt. Hon. Francis Urquhart, M.P.

Come on Doctor X, lighten up, he was giving these as examples.

You are the one who is behaving "heavy handed."

--J.D.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given reasons, and I will continue to show that his reasoning is accurate. You, on the other hand, are simply calling me a liar without justification. But you feel justified because you think I'm lying, so that's your way of getting back at me.

No, you have not. You cannot continue to show something that you have not even begun to show. You have failed to provide a single reason in nearly 70 pages that anyone should believe a word that you say or take you seriously. You simply say that facts are not true, but take offense when I say that the non-facts you provide are not true.

I don't need any justification to call your assertions false and lies (since you have to know they are false by now), just like I don't need justification to say that the sky is blue or that I am currently sitting down. I am observing reality in each scenario, which according to your own standard is undeniable proof. How can you be upset with me, when I am doing the same thing that you are promoting?

[Vivisectus]

But it is a necessary truth if what has happened has already happened.

A contingent truth - NOT a necessary truth. This is the whole fallacy thing we were discussing?

No, bad deeds are not caused by blame. Blame gives one the opportunity to go ahead with bad deeds if one is already predisposed to doing bad deeds.

... which, if we decide not to be pedantic about it, means that blame is a condition for bad deeds. You have used that dodge several times already.

He supports his claim only through astute observation. I also said that the cause of someone's actions is not always clear. Most of the killings that make world news (and seem to be without justification) are people who want to get back at society. They are retaliating against perceived or real harm done to them.

... or not. Without anything to back it up, they are just assertions. I could say firemen are a condition for fires - if I dont show how or why, it is just that - an assertion.

He was the first one to say that everything is relative. Don't you remember that part? Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death? What is good for one is not good for another. This is obvious and does not conflict with any of his arguments.

Yes it does - and hugely! - because a neutral or good act in one frame of reference can be a first blow in another. There is no such

Nooooo, you are failing to understand the most important element of this whole thing. We are free to do anything we want, so if you want to have a harem, go do it. No one is going to stop you from doing anything you feel is better for yourself. Did you read the entire chapter on premarital relations? I can see where this looks archaic, probably because of the words he used. Remember, it was back in 1959, but the concept is still correct. You refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt by keeping an open mind. Could you give me an example of what turned you off? What do you believe that you wouldn't be able to do in the new world that you can do in this world?

There is no turnoff - just a sense of the ridiculous as the lessans-clones progress is being described.

No, he did not. He was an unassuming man. In all my life with him, he never boasted about any of his accomplishments. He was quiet. The only thing he did for enjoyment was hang out at the pool hall with his pool buddies. They all loved him because he never used large words to show off, even though he worked on his manuscript in the poolroom. He was a 9 ball champ but he never hustled anyone. He was not anything close to what you are describing.

It is in his books though. He may have had unassuming habits, but his ideas are anything but modest.

That was partially my fault because I combined all of his books together and made the introduction especially long. So blame me, not him. The truth is he was unable to reach anyone who would give him the time of day. They assumed, because he was not a member of a leading university, that he had nothing of value. They wouldn't even open the cover because it was an unsolicited manuscript. They did not want to take the risk and invest in an unknown book and an unknown author.

You have done him no favors and make him look like he is trying to make anyone who disagrees with him look like close-minded, biased and having an agenda. But as you just redacted, this must have been there already.

I told you that he would have agreed that he was wrong if he was wrong. He had no problem with that. If he was wrong about the sun exploding and seeing the object immediately, then he would have admitted it. I told you I'm not sure, but this does not in and of itself make the rest of his discovery regarding the eyes, wrong. Why can't you keep an open mind? I am not trying to get you to agree unless more studies are done.

It shows how far on a limb he will go with absolutely no evidence, and makes him look dense.

Actually, that is not what Lessans is doing. That is what davidm is doing. He is trying to fit what Lessans' definition into the definitions that already exist in philosophy, and when they don't, he gets mad and says Lessans is wrong. I know more than him because I know all of the definitions and he doesn't. So what! He then laughs at a contradiction that doesn't even exist. For him to say that Lessans' statement: One is compelled, of his own free will...is a contradiction proves to me that he does not understand the first thing about Lessans' definition of determinism, which more accurately describes reality than any of the other definitions put forth.

That has nothing to do with what I am referring to - Lessans is making a system that spans over everything from a narrow basis. He starts with determinism and ends up with a code of behavior for mankind. Along the way he alters reality to make it fit his theories.

Some of his books were in prose, but I chose to use dialogue because it better answers questions that I know people will ask. He had no followers because the book was never widely distributed. A handful of people, if that, actually read this book. You say his book is riddled with problems, and I still am trying to get you to specifically tell me what those problems are. Give me specifics. If you say he is wrong about man's will because man does not move in the direction of greater satisfaction, I can't help you here. BTW, his entire 7th chapter regarding the medical profession was named after Socrates. He gives credit where it's due, and he appreciated Socrates wisdom, especially when he said he knew that he didn't know.

[/QUOTE]

I did, but I never even got past the first objection, which you never dealt with. You just say "It is an astute observation" and consider your point proven. Review my point about firemen and fires. I could say that is an astute observation, and simply true, and that I know consider my point proven. That is what you are doing when you insist that blame is a condition for justification and evil.

The proving a negative I retract by the way - I seem to have misread that part.

[DaveT]

I like how, on page 576 or 577, Lessans explains everything:

I only went to the 7th grade.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, how many times do I have to repeat that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Yes, empirical evidence will prove that he was right all along. But to disregard this entire book and say it's rubbish, is so foolhardy that I don't know how to proceed. Instead of taking a more open-minded approach (especially when you haven't proven him wrong even if you call it an assertion), you give up. This is not what I imagine a true scientist to be.

I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on the internet.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let it go David. You are not god, or maybe I missed something.

You are a person who thinks he can decipher truth from fiction, but you are way off in your judgement. Let other people have a turn, okay?

I wasn't aware that I was stopping anyone else from posting. Unfortunately for you, all those other posters disagree with you.

I believe the reason this is so hard for you is actually because of your training. You are filled with definitions that mean nothing when it comes to reality, but you can't let them go, not even for a second, in order to try to understand a different take.

Yes, I suppose that's true. For example, my definition of an eye is "a sense organ that enables us to see." What a silly fucker I've been, believing something like that because of my training!

I actually have no idea where this in any way describes a contingent truth. That just shows me right there how off the radar screen you are in your analysis of this knowledge.

No, it shows how ignorant you and your father are. You know nothing about logic, philosophy or science. You mean to tell me you don't understand the difference between necessary and contingent truth?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is a necessary truth if what has happened has already happened. It could not have been otherwise. It is not a necessary truth that something has to happen before it happens.

Wow, you are so confused.

It could not have been otherwise? So it could not have been otherwise that JFK was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963? And yet, in the very next sentence, you contradict your own argument, saying that it is not a necessary truth that something has to happen before it happens! So it could have been otherwise that JFK was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. Which is it, peacegirl? This is precisely the same kind of muddled meaninglessness that pervades the author's book. You are a good disciple, it would seem.

[davidm]

But it is a necessary truth if what has happened has already happened.

Let's get clear on this. The above statement is incorrect.

It is only true that the past cannot be altered. That does not mean that the past is necessary.

Necessary truths are those propositions that are true at all possible worlds. It is a necessary truth that all bachelors are unmarried, that 2+2=4, and that one cannot square a circle. There is no possible world at which the above propositions fail to hold.

It is obviously not true at all possible worlds that JFK is assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

No, you have not. You cannot continue to show something that you have not even begun to show. You have failed to provide a single reason in nearly 70 pages that anyone should believe a word that you say or take you seriously. You simply say that facts are not true, but take offense when I say that the non-facts you provide are not true.

I don't need any justification to call your assertions false and lies (since you have to know they are false by now), just like I don't need justification to say that the sky is blue or that I am currently sitting down. I am observing reality in each scenario, which according to your own standard is undeniable proof. How can you be upset with me, when I am doing the same thing that you are promoting?

A lie is purposeful deceit. It does not apply here at all. In this case you are retaliating against Lessans' purported claims of truth because you think they're mere assertions, nothing more. Your justification is that I am ruining the name of science so you feel entitled to strike back at me. No, I did not say observing a scenario is undeniable proof. Undeniable proof of what? His observations were over many years of voracious reading. From his reading (which included reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times) he came to certain conclusions about the nature of conscience. From his careful observations, he accurately described how conscience works and how it could be made stronger or weaker.

You blame me for 70 pages of nonsense, when I asked people to cooperate so we could move forward. You are not doing the same thing as me because your proof is one scenario; Lessans carefully observed thousands of instances. As far as the senses, I am offering a different model based on Lessans' observations. I don't see that his claims are false by now. That's probably what's aggravating you. I haven't caved and given in from the pressure. If you think I'm beyond reason, so be it. It's not up to you to rehabilitate me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, you are so confused.

It could not have been otherwise? So it could not have been otherwise that JFK was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963? And yet, in the very next sentence, you contradict your own argument, saying that it is not a necessary truth that something has to happen before it happens! So it could have been otherwise that JFK was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. Which is it, peacegirl? This is precisely the same kind of muddled meaninglessness that pervades the author's book. You are a good disciple, it would seem.

If someone is contemplating killing someone but he hasn't yet, it is still a choice between two alternatives. At that point in time, there is nothing causing him to kill unless that choice gives him greater satisfaction. He is considering the different scenarios, consequences, benefits and risks. It hasn't happened yet so it doesn't have to happen by necessity. Once he chooses to kill, and follows through, this gave him the greatest satisfaction of the alternatives that were present. If he decides not to, then the influencing factors involved in his decision led him in a different direction for satisfaction. What is so hard about this davidm? There is no muddled anything in this book except the block that you seem to have.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Let's get clear on this. The above statement is incorrect.

It is only true that the past cannot be altered. That does not mean that the past is necessary.

Necessary truths are those propositions that are true at all possible worlds. It is a necessary truth that all bachelors are unmarried, that 2+2=4, and that one cannot square a circle. There is no possible world at which the above propositions fail to hold.

It is obviously not true at all possible worlds that JFK is assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.

I don't see where the past isn't necessary. It already happened so it had to happen based on the same exact circumstances. If I was born all over again, and the environment was exactly the same, my choices would be exactly the same. If any of the determinants (or the factors) leading up to a person's choices were altered, then you would not get the same result. It is absolutely true that at all possible worlds (unless those worlds have different environmental influences), JFK would be assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A lie is purposeful deceit. It does not apply here at all. In this case you are retaliating against Lessans' purported claims of truth because you think they're mere assertions, nothing more.

No. I am not retaliating, I am simply responding. You may not like what I am saying, but that is up to you.

And I am not talking about Lessans' assertions, I am talking about yours. You are the one saying "The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. " and "The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on. " Several of the other posters here have provided examples of experiments as well as discussed what we know on various different points that have shown Lessans to be ignorant of science and wrong. It is not true what you are saying about this book.

Your justification is that I am ruining the name of science so you feel entitled to strike back at me.

Where have I ever said that? I do not think you are ruining the name of science. I do not think what you are doing has any relation to science, but that isn't bothering science one bit.

No, I did not say observing a scenario is undeniable proof. Undeniable proof of what? His observations were over many years of voracious reading. From his reading (which included reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times) he came to certain conclusions about the nature of conscience. From his careful observations, he accurately described how conscience works and how it could be made stronger or weaker.

And my observations are not made based on many years of voracious reading? I have read Anne of Green Gables far more than 7 times in my life. When you say "accurately described how conscience works" you are not being truthful, because you have not shown that this is the case. You have provided no reasons to make this bald statement believable. It is just puffery. A good, strong paragraph would have deleted the last sentence, and included some details or description of what his conclusions are and how they led from his reading.

You blame me for 70 pages of nonsense, when I asked people to cooperate so we could move forward.

It is not the other posters' fault that you fail to provide details, reasons, or address their concerns. Plus, you are not constrained by anyone here, you could just keep up a monologue outlining the ideas.

You are not doing the same thing as me because your proof is one scenario; Lessans carefully observed thousands of instances. As far as the senses, I am offering a different model based on Lessans' observations. I don't see that his claims are false by now. That's probably what's aggravating you. I haven't caved and given in from the pressure. If you think I'm beyond reason, so be it. It's not up to you to rehabilitate me.

Ok. Let's be clear. I am talking about what YOU are saying about Lessans' ideas, when you say things like ""The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. " and "The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on. " and "accurately described how conscience works". Those assertions are made by YOU, and they are provided without reason and in opposition to evidence provided by other posters here on this board. Your claims about Lessans' work are false, or at the very least overblown.

Re-evaluating your ideas based on new evidence is not caving, btw. We don't want you to accept our ideas because there are more of us or we are emphatic or repetitive. Rebutting our ideas with reasonable conclusions that show that your ideas are not in conflict with other evidence would not be caving, either.

[Stephen Maturin]

From pages 566-67 of the Sacred Text:

Then on August 13, 1979 a lawsuit, number 792103 was filed in Washington, D.C. at the United States District Court against President Carter by me. As I look back on my complaint it was equivalent to suing a psychiatrist for not allowing me to show him that his profession is coming to an end because he really doesn’t know what he is doing. Word for word, the complaint goes as follows:

The United States Government:

Because Jimmy Carter refused to grant an audience for the purpose of demonstrating how a scientific discovery can now unite all nations in a harmonious agreement that will break the vicious cycle of inflation and solve to everybody’s satisfaction the problems that are costing the people billions of dollars in rising prices and excessive taxes, and because this refusal violates my rights and his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States which obviously includes doing everything in his power to solve these problems even to the extent of allowing someone outside the political arena to show him the answer, I, Seymour Lessans, representing the taxpayers who want to see a permanent solution, am taking Jimmy Carter to court as the only alternative to prove before 12 top ranking scientists, not political scientists, that his failure to faithfully execute his oath of office by investigating this discovery is a crime of the greatest magnitude and reason enough for the people who hired him and pay his salary to remove him from office. However, such removal is wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that no political party has the knowledge to cope with these complex problems. Therefore, if Mr. Carter will allow a demonstration in his office within 60 days from the date of this complaint, there will be no need to go to court and he will be completely amazed and pleased with the solution even though it renders obsolete the age of politics, an age of opinions and promises by politicians who are voted into office only because we didn’t know what else to do.

Such unmitigated horseshit is a major reason people with legitimate civil claims have such a hard time getting a fair shake in court nowadays. [Thanks] for the breathtakingly frivolous litigation.

Can you imagine Jimmy Carter’s reaction when he was notified of this lawsuit?

I can't imagine anyone wasting a single, solitary second of the President of the United States' time on such preposterous silliness. If by chance Carter was informed, his reaction was probably something along the lines of

After that our political leaders had two choices; to believe that I was a genius or a crackpot. Did I really give them a choice?

Why no, no you didn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Ipse dixit but incorrect. That you bury your head in the sands of the banks of the Rivers DeNile remains your imperfection.

Yet you have not.

You are.

The eye is a sense organ.

They will. You are, I am saddened to reveal to you, neither special nor unique. Others before you have tried to keep alive patently false cults.

Let Me Wager: your children take less interest in this than you. You certainly seem to be a singular proponent, for no one else supports you enough to post. If you cannot get anyone else to post on Al Gore's Interwebs in support, you will generate quite the unspectacular revolution. Your grandchildren have no interest in this. They will be polite--as we all are to our elders and their often eccentric fascination with JFK conspiracies and the like. We ask them to retell the stories and listen with feigned patience because, well, they did listen to our kindergarten complains and clean up after us when we were wee.

But they will not pursue it.

And it will pass soon after you, for you lack the charisma to attract unquestioning followers.

You are the one who is behaving "heavy handed."

--J.D.

My children have their own lives. They are busy people with their own children. I would never expect, nor my father, for them to give up their interests, desires, and goals, for the sake of this knowledge, no matter how earth shattering this knowledge is. That being said, if anything happened to me I am sure they would carry the ball in whatever way they could because they have no doubt that their grandfather made a discovery.

[Doctor X]

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Not directed to correct Stephen but to highlight--again--for the Noble Readership--the level of pathology behind this nonsense. Kudos to Stephen for dredging up this trenchant exemplar of the narcisstic . . . narcissistic . . . madness:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

From pages 566-67 of the Sacred Text:

You get more coherence from people screaming on the side of the street about contrails and 9/11.

. . . and because this refusal violates my rights and his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States

Refusing to pay heed to every crank that comes calling is not part of the job.

which obviously includes doing everything in his power to solve these problems. . . .

Yet another commentator on Constitutional offices who never read the US Constitution! Buy, you know, he was happy to blather about neurophysiology with a less-than-4th grade education. . . .

even to the extent of allowing someone outside the political arena to show him the answer, I, Seymour Lessans, . . . .

"They LAUGHED at my theories in Berlin!"

. . . representing the taxpayers who want to see a permanent solution, am taking Jimmy Carter to court as the only alternative to prove before 12 top ranking scientists, . . .

Since when did Federal Courts employ scientists as judges? I will note, en passant, that this mental breakdown occurred prior to the current rules that require one to establish scientific evidence is actually valid science prior to introducing it as evidence--no longer can you call your "Expert Witness Earl" who will then bloviate about how the Government [Tm.--Ed.] is seeding the clouds with psychotic rain to make you believe it was Al Quada that was behind 9/11--rather that, of course, the Jews!--that Obama is human, and that Lessans is a crackpot. This I know from an extensive legal background which includes reading all of the Rumpole novels and [CENSORED--Ed.] to the various ADAs on Law and Order. So I know what I am writing about.



THIS

show spoiler

IS MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY!!

Unless, you are mulebear, in which case:

show spoiler

unless:

show spoiler

CHEKCMATE APPIESTS!!![Get on with it.--Ed.]

Right . . . yes . . . anyways

. . . that his failure to faithfully execute his oath of office by investigating this discovery. . . .

I am unaware of where investigation of "discoveries" is innumerated in the job description of the POTUS.

Enough of the madness . . . MADNESS!

[Thanks] for the breathtakingly frivolous litigation.

I can't imagine anyone wasting a single, solitary second of the President of the United States' time on such preposterous silliness. If by chance Carter was informed, his reaction was probably something along the lines of

When I was wee [Cue Sounds of Winter Winds Blowing through the Cold, Sterile, Wasteland.--Ed.], and Reagan was facing re-election--and before Time magazine decided to go completely irrelevant--it ran an article on REPUBLICAN opposition to Reagan in the primaries. I remember one guy whose platform was "to acquire Canada and annex Mexico!"

I am sure I do not need to remind the Noble Readership of the Libertarian Presidential candidate who claimed he would abolish all gun control--apparently the ability of the POTUS to overturn acts of Congress--and SCOTUS decisions!--is hidden in a fold in the US Constitution--as well as force every Senator and Congressman to attend his incoherent lectures on constitutional law. You might as well hear me pontificate on Cricket!








Though I at least know about the leg-before-wicket-rule.







I win.



--J.D.