Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9026  
Old 04-27-2012, 07:58 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

*Bump*

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Again, this thread is going nowhere.
So... WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not discussing the actual meat of the discovery.
You've said repeatedly that you don't want to discuss the meat of his non-discovery. Or had you forgotten that again?
I did say that. And I meant it unless there are new questions. It's like I'm beating a dead horse with this group in particular.
:lol:

She wants new questions, because she can't answer any of the old questions!

Hey, try answering this question for once:


Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!


:derp:

Well?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?
:lol:
Reply With Quote
  #9027  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:03 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos...without exception.

Neutrinos travel slightly under the speed of light, so they would be subject to a travel delay while seeing the supernova would happen without the delay.

This is not the case.
In case you are unable to understand the words of real working scientists, peacegirl, I simplified it for you above
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (04-27-2012), thedoc (04-27-2012)
  #9028  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
If we see in real time, why does the slow moving debris (in the form of neutrinos) from distant supernovae reach us at the same time as we see it happen?
Maybe it's a warning that a supernova is about to occur so what we are seeing is the actual explosion.
What does that even mean?

If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos...without exception.

Neutrinos travel slightly under the speed of light, so they would be subject to a travel delay while seeing the supernova would happen without the delay.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the speed of neutrinos, therefore it is premature to use this as evidence in favor of afferent vision.

Neutrinos still faster than light in latest version of experiment | Science | guardian.co.uk

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Let me ask you this. If only the visible spectrum is subject to real time seeing, would that necessarily mean that we could see something before we are able to detect the non-visible light? If only the brain and eyes are efferent, then the light speed delay would apply to that light the brain can't see through the eyes.
White light, or the full visible spectrum, travels at a finite speed so it takes time for that light to be detected, just as it takes time to detect non-visible light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
For example another supernova. If Lessans was correct and your model based on his idea was valid, we would see the supernova immediately, but we would not be able to detect the ultraviolet, infrared, gamma rays, etc. until they traveled to our detectors, correct?
That would be a great way to determine distance, a simple formula using the time we see something and the time the non-visible electromagnetic radiation reached us.
I think that's true because light energy is always traveling at a finite speed. That's like saying we would see the Sun explode instantly but it would take 8.3 minutes for the energy from the Sun to reach Earth.
Reply With Quote
  #9029  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:22 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the speed of neutrinos, therefore it is premature to use this as evidence in favor of afferent vision.

Neutrinos still faster than light in latest version of experiment | Science | guardian.co.uk

LOL, we know they do not travel instantaneously, meaning they do not teleport. The controversy surrounds nanoseconds only.

We know they travel right around the speed of light, so my point stands and you're just weaseling.

Quote:
If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos (because the neutrinos do travel)...without exception.

Last edited by LadyShea; 04-27-2012 at 08:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9030  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:30 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...because I don't believe the brain works as a sense organ.
Why not? In order to preserve this belief, you are having to make up conspiracies operating across the entire cosmos. And you only have this belief because Lessans told you it was true.
That is not true Dragar. You give me no credit and that's why you won't even consider the possibility that science is wrong.
Of course it's true. You can't provide any reason to believe your claims about from Lessans say-so. So again, you're just making excuses and trying to play this out like you're some sort of victim.

To paraphrase someone famous, I think you are confusing our pointing out that you're completely and hopelessly wrong with persecution.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-27-2012)
  #9031  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:31 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Let me ask you this. If only the visible spectrum is subject to real time seeing, would that necessarily mean that we could see something before we are able to detect the non-visible light? If only the brain and eyes are efferent, then the light speed delay would apply to that light the brain can't see through the eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
White light, or the full visible spectrum, travels at a finite speed so it takes time for that light to be detected, just as it takes time to detect non-visible light.
If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons from that supernova. Decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (04-27-2012)
  #9032  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:33 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Does anyone on this thread understand that it is completely useless to explain anything to Peacegirl, because she is either incapable of understanding or refuses to understand what is being stated?
Reply With Quote
  #9033  
Old 04-27-2012, 09:01 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Does anyone on this thread understand that it is completely useless to explain anything to Peacegirl, because she is either incapable of understanding or refuses to understand what is being stated?
Of course. She is brain damaged. Just recently she brought up, yet again, her incredibly stupid claim that delayed seeing via light has not been tested on earth, and that light at earthly distances would travel "too fast" for us to see. She even put in a :popcorn: after saying this shit, as though she felt she had brought up a key point.

How many times have both of these false claims been refuted, and careful explanations given to her about why they are wrong? Twenty times? Fifty times? a thousand times? And, how long do you want to bet it will be, before Goldfish Brain yet again makes these "points," as if no one had ever addressed them?

She nuts, obviously. Just like deez nuts -----> :deeznuts:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
thedoc (04-27-2012)
  #9034  
Old 04-27-2012, 09:04 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Does anyone on this thread understand that it is completely useless to explain anything to Peacegirl, because she is either incapable of understanding or refuses to understand what is being stated?
She made an attempt to respond, and included a link to a relevant article. That means she had to look something up. That's progress

BTW, peacegirl, those measurements were found to have probably been skewed by a faulty cable and flawed timing in a master clock. It was always thought to be an error and that's why they put it out there to be looked at by other scientists.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (04-29-2012), Dragar (04-27-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-27-2012), thedoc (04-27-2012)
  #9035  
Old 04-27-2012, 09:10 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Actually, I think that's kind of insulting.

Goldfish can learn. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true of peacegirl, but there's always hope.


Nonetheless, I think that it's occasionally useful to point out some of the truly outrageous implications of the Lessans/peacegirl "model" -- like the necessity of believing that the entire freaking Universe is somehow conspiring to trick us pathetic Earthlings into thinking that we see in delayed time.

You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.



Just on the off chance that some lurker might stumble upon the thread and not immediately realize the extent of the insanity ...


Cheers,

Michael
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-27-2012), Dragar (04-27-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-27-2012), thedoc (04-27-2012)
  #9036  
Old 04-27-2012, 09:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the speed of neutrinos, therefore it is premature to use this as evidence in favor of afferent vision.

Neutrinos still faster than light in latest version of experiment | Science | guardian.co.uk

LOL, we know they do not travel instantaneously, meaning they do not teleport. The controversy surrounds nanoseconds only.

We know they travel right around the speed of light, so my point stands and you're just weaseling.

Quote:
If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos (because the neutrinos do travel)...without exception.
That's like seeing solar flares at the same time radio waves are being detected. It's true that we would detect light, but to say that this light travels with an image or pattern of an event (that contains substance) although the event has been gone for millions of years is exactly what is being disputed. I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.
Reply With Quote
  #9037  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:06 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.
Weasel.

When a supernova occurs when would we see it with our eyeballs or through a telescope, according to efferent vision? It is my understanding of Lessans claims that you believe we would see it instantly at the same time it occurs, without having to await the traveling light to reach Earth. Is my understanding of this aspect of efferent vision correct?

Seeing Columbus discovering America from a distance of 520 light years away is not empirically testable, so will always be a useless example. Seeing a supernova is empirically testable because we can see them with our eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #9038  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Actually, I think that's kind of insulting.

Goldfish can learn. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true of peacegirl, but there's always hope.


Nonetheless, I think that it's occasionally useful to point out some of the truly outrageous implications of the Lessans/peacegirl "model" -- like the necessity of believing that the entire freaking Universe is somehow conspiring to trick us pathetic Earthlings into thinking that we see in delayed time.

You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.
Why can't you even contemplate the idea that scientists could have made an understandable mistake. There is no conspiracy Lone Ranger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Just on the off chance that some lurker might stumble upon the thread and not immediately realize the extent of the insanity ...


Cheers,

Michael
:fuming: :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #9039  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
That's like seeing solar flares at the same time radio waves are being detected. It's true that we would detect light, but to say that this light travels with an image or pattern of an event (that contains substance) although the event has been gone for millions of years is exactly what is being disputed. I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.
Weasel.

When a supernova occurs when would we see it with our eyeballs or through a telescope, according to efferent vision? It is my understanding of Lessans claims that you believe we would see it instantly at the same time it occurs, without having to await the traveling light to reach Earth. Is my understanding of this aspect of efferent vision correct?
You should know the answer to this. Yes, that's right. As long as there is light surrounding the event, and it is large enough to be seen with a telescope or by the naked eye, we would be able to see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision. But white visible light is always traveling at a finite speed. Therefore, just because we can see in real time doesn't mean that efferent vision changes the world of physics.
Reply With Quote
  #9040  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:12 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Actually, I think that's kind of insulting.

Goldfish can learn. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true of peacegirl, but there's always hope.


Nonetheless, I think that it's occasionally useful to point out some of the truly outrageous implications of the Lessans/peacegirl "model" -- like the necessity of believing that the entire freaking Universe is somehow conspiring to trick us pathetic Earthlings into thinking that we see in delayed time.

You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.
Why can't you even contemplate the idea that scientists could have made an understandable mistake. There is no conspiracy Lone Ranger.
:lol:

An "understandable mistake" involving mountains of evidence from independent fields of study stretching back hundreds of years, all pointing the same result and showing that Lessans' ideas are completely wrong, and indeed cannot possibly be correct.

Yes, an "understand mistake." More good thinking on your part, little Ms. Dippy Brains! :pat:

Now you better hurry up and make those last-minute corrections before going to press! :drool:
Reply With Quote
  #9041  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:23 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
That's like seeing solar flares at the same time radio waves are being detected. It's true that we would detect light, but to say that this light travels with an image or pattern of an event (that contains substance) although the event has been gone for millions of years is exactly what is being disputed. I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.
Weasel.

When a supernova occurs when would we see it with our eyeballs or through a telescope, according to efferent vision? It is my understanding of Lessans claims that you believe we would see it instantly at the same time it occurs, without having to await the traveling light to reach Earth. Is my understanding of this aspect of efferent vision correct?
You should know the answer to this. Yes, that's right. As long as there is light surrounding the event, and it is large enough to be seen with a telescope or by the naked eye, we would be able to see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.
So in your world, we should see events instantly - before the light reaches us.

But we don't! Uh-oh, you're wrong again!
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #9042  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:32 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
That's like seeing solar flares at the same time radio waves are being detected. It's true that we would detect light, but to say that this light travels with an image or pattern of an event (that contains substance) although the event has been gone for millions of years is exactly what is being disputed. I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.
Weasel.

When a supernova occurs when would we see it with our eyeballs or through a telescope, according to efferent vision? It is my understanding of Lessans claims that you believe we would see it instantly at the same time it occurs, without having to await the traveling light to reach Earth. Is my understanding of this aspect of efferent vision correct?
Yes, that's right. As long as there is light surrounding the event, and it is large enough to be seen with a telescope or by the naked eye, we would be able to see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.
Then, if that's true, we would see supernova, instantly, many years before we could possibly detect the photons or neutrinos that are traveling from that event.

That doesn't happen, ever. Efferent vision disproved.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (04-27-2012)
  #9043  
Old 04-27-2012, 11:16 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.
Cheers,
Michael

I don't know about that, can you imagine how boreing it would be just floating around in space, alone, very far away from anyone else. And with the distances involved conversation would be very slow. Any kind of amusment to break up the boredom would be welcome. Yeah, I can see the stars and planets doing that.
Reply With Quote
  #9044  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:09 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, in between reading the book and making any last minute corrections, I'm bored, and I'm not ready to start another thread in another forum. But it won't be long before I go, so don't worry.
So you really were just full of it whenever you claimed you would never go to another forum and start all of this over again? Also, mere boredom doesn't explain your continued presence here. I wouldn't stick a needle in my eye just because I was bored. There would have to be something in it for me - some kind of motivation. So what is yours? Why are you still choosing to come here and post in an environment where no-one values your claims and everyone thinks you are crazy? I'm not asking you because I don't know. I'm asking because I want you to ask yourself. Have you even thought about why you keep persisting in this pointless endeavor?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9045  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:19 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Your mind is broken, Peacegirl, and your memory impairment is leading you around in circles. For example...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I answered your questions over and over about photons traveling until I realized that, given your premise that light bounces and travels with the pattern forever and ever, even if the object is no longer there, your conclusion will be valid but not sound.
Do you remember making this response before? Do you remember what my counter to this is? If I were to respond, my counter would still be the same as it has been the last hundred times you've tried this response. So do you know what that counter is? Can you remember it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
As far as you asking me to defend his presuppositions, I'm not answering you because he didn't presuppose anything. For example, if I am accurately describing something I see and am trying to explain it to you, there are no presuppositions.
Again, do you remember employing this response before? Do you remember my counter to it? Tell me what you think I'm likely to say in response to this point.

You keep bringing up the same refuted responses over and over again, each time apparently oblivious to having raised them before and having had them shot down before. It's hard to tell how much of it is due to the crazy and how much to the memory impairment. But in either case it is clear that you are in need of help. What you are doing is not healthy.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9046  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:31 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It doesn't matter where the photons are.
But it does. There has to be some consistent story about the behavior of photons on your account, if that account is to be possible. Yet you cannot provide one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The issue is whether the eyes are efferent.
But if the eyes are afferent and real time, then cameras must operate in real-time too. And that means you have to be able to explain where the travelling photons are at various times in order for this to be possible. But you can't. Whenever you try you just contradict yourself. The problems do not arise from any afferent assumptions, but purely from premises that YOU specifically agree to when asked about them. So the eyes cannot possibly be afferent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.
And I want answers to my questions. But seeing as how I have nothing to apologize for, and how you prefer to dishonestly weasel in addition to being completely delusional, I guess we're both going to be disappointed.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9047  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:35 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
On what grounds should we accept the following premises to be true without being required to accept them on faith, trust, your word, assertions, or undocumented observations?

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.
The very first thing you need to do is read Chapter Two. He explains the two-sided equation in detail which allows us to see that, under the changed conditions, man cannot derive greater satisfaction in striking a first blow knowing in advance that they will be excused for that which cannot be justified.
Chapter Two doesn't support these points. These are the unsupported presuppositions of the chapter. You know this already. This is why you gave up and refused to present or discuss the chapter, remember? Or do you not remember?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9048  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:11 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Can you imagine how boreing it would be to be Peacegirl, locked inside that tiny intellect that is encompased by Lessans book, not ever having even a glimpse of the real world?
Reply With Quote
  #9049  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:45 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Can you imagine how boreing it would be to be Peacegirl, locked inside that tiny intellect that is encompased by Lessans book, not ever having even a glimpse of the real world?
I don't think peacegirl is bored at all. Each reset for her is a whole new adventure even though she has repeated it hundreds of times. It's the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-28-2012)
  #9050  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:17 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Help Scientists Hunt for Exploding Stars | Wired Science | Wired.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.70349 seconds with 14 queries