A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Real-time seeing flatly contradicts the theory of relativity. If the theory of relativity is wrong, E=MC squared fails to hold and there are no nuclear weapons, GPS devices don't work, high-energy physics demonstrations of the success of SR (see muon decay) would be impossible, and on and on. Physics and chemistry would have to be wrong, and we would all have to be self-deluded, because it has been conclusively shown that the optic system is afferent and not efferent. The Hubble telescope would not work the way it does if real time seeing were true. And on and on. All of this has been pointed out to you for hundreds of pages.

And you have the goddamned gall to lie yet again?

Your imagination David has gone completely haywire. The connections between me and you are lost, so there's no reason to communicate unless there is a commonality to this conversation. And so far I have found none.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You could have a college degree, and then become mentally incapacitated in such a way that means you are no longer able to use the reasoning you might have had that allowed you to obtain the degree. You could have a degenerative brain disease, or have suffered a traumatic brain injury, or have a severe substance abuse problem, or have some kind of mental illness. So I disagree that it has to be willful or that the person would be aware of how their mental capacity has diminished.

Lawyer Speak!

But yes you are right, Counselor, I stand corrected.

[The Lone Ranger]

Well, as davidm correctly points out, one of the central tenets of Relativity Theory is that real-time seeing is impossible under any circumstances. So if Lessans is correct, then Relativity Theory is wrong.

The problem is that a great deal of our modern technology absolutely depends upon Relativity Theory to function. As explained earlier, for example, neither GPS systems nor nuclear weapon (nor nuclear power plants) would work if Relativity Theory was wrong.

Plus, Relativity Theory describes a great deal of the Universe around us. Since E=mc2 is one of the central points of Relativity Theory, if the theory were wrong, it's not just nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors that wouldn't work. Since stars depend on E=mc2 to produce their energy, stars wouldn't work as they do if Relativity Theory were wrong. And if that were the case, it's more or less certain that neither the Earth in particular nor the Universe as a whole would be able to support life.


I should clarify one thing. That Relativity Theory rules out real-time seeing and that E=mc2 are not separate parts of Relativity Theory. As Einstein explains, real-time seeing is impossible because E=mc2 -- among other reasons. So the two concepts are inseparable, because if we can see in real time, then E does not = mc2. And if that were the case, the Universe would be very, very different -- and we would almost-certainly not be here.

[The Lone Ranger]

I had an acquaintance in college who was absolutely brilliant. A truly fine intellect.

Then, in the Summer between our Freshman and Sophomore years, he suffered brain trauma in a motorcycle accident. He remembered that he used to be really smart, but his injury made it very difficult for him to learn anything new. This was immensely frustrating to him.

People started avoiding him because it was uncomfortable to be in his presence. Not just because of his constant depression, but because he developed serious impulse-control problems, and would often blurt out what he was thinking, even when it was inappropriate to do so.

I felt sorry for him, and so made something of a point to talk with him occasionally, because virtually no one else did.

One day he asked me, "Michael, are you my friend?" I replied, "Of course I am." He smiled and thanked me, and indeed, he looked happier in that moment than I'd ever seen him. He told me that I was his only friend.

I had been lying. Truthfully, I could barely stand to spend time with him, but I felt sorry for him because he was so obviously lonely. That is why I spent time with him, not because I considered him a friend.

Sometime over the weekend, he committed suicide.


I've long wondered if he'd still be around if perhaps I'd made more of an effort to make him feel like he had people who cared for/about him .....

[LadyShea]

Um no it wouldn't be an odd or a strange coincidence, not at all, unless you have no idea how light behaves or you vastly underestimate how much stuff there is in the Universe, in all possible directions, emitting electromagnetic radiation.

No, you don't get it at all if you conclude that this was somehow a strange serendipity.

Imagine a pond and imagine it is hailing. When a hailstone hits the water it causes surface ripples, radiating in all directions right? If there are several hundred or thousand hailstones falling, the whole surface of the pond is intersecting ripples, correct? The hailstones are EMR emitting objects and the ripples are the EMR (aka light). With me so far?

Now, paint a dot (representing Hubble) on a ping pong ball (representing Earth), and throw the ping pong ball in the water. Does it matter which direction the dot is facing for it to detect a ripple from somewhere in the pond? Provided it is still hailing does it matter exactly when you throw in the ping pong ball for it to detect ripples?

The ripples are just like light in the Universe, it doesn't matter what direction we point the Hubble, it will receive photons from something in that direction. The further away that "something" is, the fewer photons are reaching the detector because some have been deflected or absorbed on their way, therefore the long exposure time is necessary to collect enough light to decode into an image

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want to thank the administrator who started this forum. I don't think enough credit is given. This administrator envisioned a fair discourse, and that is what is happening as we speak. Yes, it's difficult to be objective, and that is what this wonderful forum is all about. No one loves to be attacked, but if this is necessary for honest discourse, so be it. I am grateful for this chance to represent Lessans, and may this help bring us that much closer to a safer and more livable world.

That would be livius drusus and viscousmemories. You may want to PM them your thanks as I don't believe either are reading this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl and Lessans argue for some nebulous sort of direct relationship between the brain and the object that is being seen. They seem to think that the ancient Greeks were right and that sight is something that comes from the brain and goes outward. How it is possible that any information travels without any particles travelling is not explained. Detection is occurring without anything carrying that information to the brain, through an unknown process.

There is nothing nebulous about what he described is going on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is not made very clear really, because on the one hand they argue we project that which we have been conditioned to see on to a "screen of undeniable essence" (or was it substance?), the nature of which is also not explained.

It was explained very thoroughly how this projection occurs. Here it is again.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.
When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.

A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.
If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking
any person who should open the fence at night were to have two
senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected assuming that no
relation was developed as to his owner’s gait (because this could also
be used to identify), he would actually have amnesia, and even though
he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate he would have
no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having
already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie
projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very
complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder
through our ears and the other three senses, and a camera through
our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie
projector.

As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are
projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in
relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes
are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in front of this
telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are
projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world and if these
words do not accurately symbolize, as with ‘five senses,’ man will
actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words
correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual differences
and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who
do not know the words. To understand this better let us observe my
granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. As her eyes
are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word dog rapidly in her ear.
When she turns away I stop. This will be continued until she looks
for him when hearing the word which indicates that a relation between
this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph
taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a
particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns
more and more words such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she
becomes conscious of these differences which no one can deny because
they are seen through words or slides that circumscribe accurately
these various bits of substance.

This is exactly how we learn words
only I am speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree,
car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth,
eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed. She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter
can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs
because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her
mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these
names and words her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized
and when she sees these differences again she projects the word or
name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is
formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or
words we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I assume it is a philosophical concept rather than a physical one. Apparently we learn what to project onto this screen from our other senses, but here too the language is extremely vague. Oddly enough, we apparently learn to project "ugly" unto certain sets of features from hearing someone say it in a negative tone of voice over and over, in combination with seeing those features.

This makes no sense to you?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How we know what to project is not covered. Perhaps we directly observe basic shapes, and then supply the detail from our conditioning, or something.

We are able to project words that have no basis in reality onto a screen of undeniable substance (such as trees, chairs, houses, dogs, cats, cars, etc.) because of how the eyes work. What is so difficult?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On the other hand, it is argued that when we see over great distances, there is no time-delay, and we see what is actually there. This is were we run into some real issues, as Lessans made some very definite statements regarding the nature of sight that directly contradict special relativity. He either did not notice this or felt there was no need to actually deal with special relativity, as he doesn't mention it.

So explain how efferent vision is so disgraceful because it conflicts with special relativity, instead of just repeating that there is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When you read the text, you find out that the only reason he came up with this outlandish explanation is that he is trying to remove all possibility of hurt from reality, and in his opinion a lot of hurt is caused by value-judgements. He could have dealt with this by simply saying that we often assign certain values to certain things based on our cultural conditioning, and that the value we assign does not have an objective reality, but he does not do this.

Yes, he could have dealt with the hurt caused by value-judgments by saying that it is part of our cultural conditioning, but there is a method as to how this takes place, so why shouldn't he have explained what is going on?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oddly enough, Lessans seems to feel that we all think beauty has an almost physical reality, and is not just a subjective valuation. In order to dispel it, he says that everything we see is conditioned, and that sight as we understand it does not exist.

Where in the world does he say that sight doesn't exist Vivisectus? And where does he say that beauty has a physical reality other than the physical conditioning that causes this illusion?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To rid the world of the evils of value-judgements, he proposes we banish the use of words such as "Beautiful", which he says implies that that which is not "Beautiful" must then be ugly, which causes hurt and feelings of inferiority. Tellingly, "Intelligent" and "Educated" are to be done away with too.

He did say that the word beautiful implies that someone is ugly, otherwise the word wouldn't have much meaning. To have one is to imply the other. To be rich implies someone is poor. If everyone is rich, do you need the word rich? To be tall implies someone is short. If everyone is of a certain height, do we need the word tall? To be happy implies someone is sad. If everyone is happy, do we need the word happy? Get it?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What is not explained is how we are then to retain any standards. When I asked this question regarding music, for instance, I was told that "A musician that can play up to a certain standard would be encouraged to try to play professionally" or something along those lines. How this differs from making a subjective value judgement that is almost identical to calling someone pretty based on your personal preferences is not explained. After all, that standard also does not have an objective reality, and implies that such a thing as "sub-standard" exists, which could lead to people feeling they are inferior musicians.

The only difference is that we can't become conditioned by what we naturally like or dislike. There is a standard musicians use to determine the quality of a performance based on resonance, pitch, and timbre, but that doesn't change the fact that hearing is afferent, therefore you cannot become conditioned by words in the way you can become conditioned where sight is concerned.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Asking these questions and raising these objections is a sure sign of on of several things according to Peacegirl:

1: You did not read the text
2: You do not understand the text
3: Enraged by the challenge to what you thought you knew, you are being willfully ignorant and are refusing to learn from the text.

The possibility that the text is wrong is never entertained.

Not true. I've read the book from beginning to end, more than anyone has done in here, yet you tell me I'm willfully ignorant. What am I willfully ignorant of? The fact that I disagree with the status quo?

[LadyShea]

So explain how efferent vision is so disgraceful because it conflicts with special relativity, instead of just repeating that there is a contradiction.

It's been explained over and over. The most recent just today if you scroll up. Here is the post though

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. What am I willfully ignorant of?

Everything that is not in your fathers book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They aren't stars, and yes, all the Hubble did was spend 10 days collecting light coming from a seemingly empty part of the night sky.

Wouldn't it be? Just at the time the Hubble happens to spend 10 days collecting light in that empty part of the sky doesn't sound coincidental?

I get that. That would make it even more coincidental that the light from these galaxies showed up in that small window of time that Hubble was collecting light in that empty part of the night sky.

There is no coincidence, the light didn't 'just happen to arrive while Hubble was looking', as if someone turned them on and then off again just for the Hubble. The light from those galaxies has been arriving for millions of years and will continue to arrive for more millions of years. The light from the stars and galaxies do not just turn on when someone happens to turn a telescope in their direction or look up at the night sky.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To be fair, she thinks she has the answer to war, poverty, and unhappiness. Lessans Golden Age is a perfect world.

I wish you wouldn't call it Lessans' Golden Age. Just because he saw certain principles that will catapult us in this direction doesn't mean the Golden Age belongs to him anymore than computers belong to Steve Jobs.

[LadyShea]

It doesn't currently exist except in his book, and there as his speculative imagining of how things would be if his principles were implemented. Therefore it is his, Lessans', Golden Age.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your imagination David has gone completely haywire.

The connections between me and you are lost, so there's no reason to communicate unless there is a commonality to this conversation. And so far I have found none.

Did you miss this post?

Can you, or can you not, address the points raised in that post by The Lone Ranger, which are precisely the same points that I have raised?

For you to say, after all the material that has been presented to you, that you cannot see why Lessans' claims contradict science and technology, can only be a lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In my opinion this puzzle is a 'Red Herring' ment to divert attention from the real issues, I had a solution but she moved the goal posts by clarifing (or changing) the rules as it went along. I lost interest, another person had a good solution, but it didn't exactly match what peacegirl claimed she had and she denied its accuracy. I don't think peacegirl can recognize a solution unless it is the exact set of combinations she claims to have, which is doubtful. There are probably several solutions but Peacegirl will never admit to any of them.

There can't be several solutions to this specific puzzle anymore than there can be several solutions to 1+1=2. And please don't tell me there is more than one solution to 1+1=2 or I'll tear my pigtail out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I would like a citation for a court case in which a person was given life imprisonment using the preponderance of evidence as the burden of proof. You say this often occurs, so you should have no problem doing so.

I don't have time right now. I'm lagging behind. But go to the Innocence Project and I'm sure you'll find a lot of cases where a preponderance of circumstantial evidence falsely convicted someone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I only said "No she refuses to". The rest was N.A. but you have it attributed to me.

Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not yet. But it does show that electrically stimulating the optic nerve, in the same way as it would be stimulated by light hitting the retina, is translated into visual information. Rather compelling, really.

If this technology brought back vision by stimulating the optic nerve and allowing a person to gain visual acuity (meaning he sees what everyone else sees; not just shadows and patterns), that would be a strong indication that we see afferently. If clinical studies showed no visual restoration or acuity, it would indicate that either the product is not perfected, or that stimulating the optic nerve does not to lead to sight because there is another mechanism going on.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There can't be several solutions to this specific puzzle anymore than there can be several solutions to 1+1=2. And please don't tell me there is more than one solution to 1+1=2 or I'll tear my pigtail out.

Yes, there can be multiple solutions to this particular puzzle. Most "combination" math puzzles have multiple solutions because they involve a whole lot of combination possibilities.

1+1=2 isn't a puzzle, nor is a problem with a solution at all. It's an equation, already solved. But the 1+1 part is only one of infinite combinations that would add up to 2.

Ceptimus' solution fulfills the terms of the puzzle as stated, but he didn't use DEF, as I believe Lessans did. Does the solution below not fulfill the terms of the puzzle? Is it identical to Lessans?

ABC ADE AFG AHI AJK
ALM ANO BDF BEG BHJ
BIK BLN BMO CDG CEF
CHK CIJ CLO CMN DHL
DIM DJN DKO EHM EIL
EJO EKN FHN FIO FJL
FKM GHO GIN GJM GKL

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Much of this post was attributed to me, and you even addressed me, but it was N.A. that said it.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Please correct it.

It's too late to change it. I hope people realize who I meant to address.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you read the whole thing? What do you think description and analysis refers to? Description of what?

A clear description of how conscience works and a clear description of why man's will is not free.

The people studied, the variables, the instruments, the design, findings and conclusions

Lessans never mentioned his subjects, variables, instruments, design, or findings...just his conclusions

None of this to be found in Lessans work

Lessans gave us no data, at all, nor did he have a design

You know he didn't use this methodology, but that doesn't mean his observations and reasoning were inaccurate. This law that he discovered could not have been discovered this way. I'm not going to let you get away with this LadyShea because you are painting a terrible picture of this man's accomplishments and it's going to turn people away from a very important work.

He gave a clear description of his observations regarding conscience and how it functions. He also described very clearly why man's will is not free and the reasoning behind it. Unfortunately, no one has the book in front of them, and for people who never had a chance to read Chapter One and Two, there is no way this conversation is going to make sense. Therefore, I am going to need to keep posting excerpts, even if they're out of order, or else this thread will turn into an attack on Lessans and I'll have no ammunition to come back with.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation pp. 66-68

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who
doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my
ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man
should not be blamed for anything he does which is true only when
man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know,
he is compelled to blame by his very nature.

Christ also received
incursions of thought from this same principle which compelled him
to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the
cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in
the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them
when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what
they were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the other
cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.

But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you
how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to
retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to do
either he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and by
turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is
given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws
of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic
principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is
not going to accomplish the impossible.

It is not going to prevent
man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes matters worse
for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow.
Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form
of retaliation for this is a source of satisfaction which is the direction
life is compelled to take. Therefore this knowledge cannot possibly
prevent the hate and blame which man has been compelled to live with
all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other
forms of hurt, yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied for man
is truly not to blame for anything he does notwithstanding, so a still
deeper analysis is required.

Down through history no one has ever
known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit
the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is
absolutely no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all
forms of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into
existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this
knowledge can be brought to light.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because
of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man
responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was
never found if it lies hidden beyond this point?

If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. “If he committed crimes, society was to blame;
if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a
cog in generating him.” It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing
what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law
and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of
the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction,
or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know he didn't use this methodology, but that doesn't mean his observations and reasoning were inaccurate. This law that he discovered could not have been discovered this way. I'm not going to let you get away with this LadyShea because you are painting a terrible picture of this man's accomplishments and it's going to turn people away from a very important work.

You were the one who used that paper to try to prove your point that nothing else is expected in a scholarly work.

It is not my fault you cherry-picked 3 words from a single sentence in the introduction and called it good. You should be more thorough in your source vetting to make sure it doesn't actually work against you, as it did in this case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, there can be multiple solutions to this particular puzzle. Most "combination" math puzzles have multiple solutions because they involve a whole lot of combination possibilities.

1+1=2 isn't a puzzle, nor is a problem with a solution at all. It's an equation, already solved. But the 1+1 part is only one of infinite combinations that would add up to 2.

You can represent 1 with different symbols, but what other combinations add up to two other than 1+1?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Ceptimus' solution fulfills the terms of the puzzle as stated, but he didn't use DEF, as I believe Lessans did. Does the solution below not fulfill the terms of the puzzle? Is it identical to Lessans?

ABC ADE AFG AHI AJK
ALM ANO BDF BEG BHJ
BIK BLN BMO CDG CEF
CHK CIJ CLO CMN DHL
DIM DJN DKO EHM EIL
EJO EKN FHN FIO FJL
FKM GHO GIN GJM GKL

No, it is not identical. None of the combinations work, as far as I can tell.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were the one who used that paper to try to prove your point that nothing else is expected in a scholarly work.

It is not my fault you cherry-picked 3 words from a single sentence in the introduction and called it good. You should be more thorough in your source vetting to make sure it doesn't actually work against you, as it did in this case.

You're right; it worked against me. The point I wanted to make is that astute observation and sound reasoning count for something and to dismiss this work as if it's all conjecture is not giving him a fair shake.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There can't be several solutions to this specific puzzle anymore than there can be several solutions to 1+1=2. And please don't tell me there is more than one solution to 1+1=2 or I'll tear my pigtail out.

Well if Lessans was an actual mathematician, amateur or otherwise he would have supplied a proof to that effect.

But I gotta say peacegirl, you are desperate. If Lessans' authority on his human insights rests on his credentials as a mathematician then you got nothing. Because solving a puzzle is not mathematics unless you do it mathematically, which means you gotta show your work. And a list of letters is not it.

Also it doesn't help at all that you can't seem to even state the problem. It makes it look like you have just another unsubstantiated claim in a very long list of unsubstantiated claims.

BTW, it looks like you have your quotes all mixed up. I didn't make that post you attribute to me.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans used it correctly in terms of direction, even though he was not referring to muscles. I don't know what other word he could have used that would have described what he was talking about. Why can't you keep an open mind instead of being so rigid with definitions? If he is right, this would be a 4th definition. At this juncture, I think it's important to post this excerpt again for clarification.

peacegirl, I'm not being a stickler about definitions, I'm trying to figure out what the hell you mean when you use a particular word. Since you and Lessans are self taught you have your own meanings of word which I do not share. So your statements sound like gibberish. It is like the language that twins sometimes develop when they are young. They can understand each other completely but it sounds like babble to everyone else.

If you have a genuine interest in actual communication of whatever ideas you think Lessans had then you are gonna have to make your meanings clear.

For example, "efferent vision". In scientific language common to the scientific community that phrase is an oxymoron. The two words don't go together. It would be like saying that C# on a piano sounds like bananas. It is a nonsense thing to say.

Vision is an act of sensing. It is the gathering of information, it is not the generation of information. So it is an input, not an output. So the phrase "efferent vision" makes no sense. The phrase "efferent vision" might make sense if you were trying to convince everyone here of mind control. An "efferent vision" would be a vision that you project into someone else's mind. Then in that sense from the senders mind it would be efferent. But I haven't seen you suggest anything of the sort, and if you did you would really catch some flack here.

So I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you have some kind of meaning there but the words you have chosen don't fit because you and Lessans don't know any better because you are self taught.

But trying to get you to actually explain the concept appears to be futile. It's as if you don't have a clue. That it's all just bull shit.

For someone who claims that they want to get the information out, you suck at it.

And quoting Lessans is no help. He is not here to explain himself. All he has is you. An you are not doing it at all.