A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really tried to give you another chance, but you keep blowing it. Back to ignore.

Sorry you don't like the choices, but there is no way that Lessans was right. That just leaves the other three choices.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I recall correctly, the summary of chapter 10 that is in question was part of an "unauthorized" review of the book that was posted at Amazon.com (I think peacegirl's words were that he "put that up behind my back"). Why a review would require authorization is something peacegirl has never adequately explained. In any case, she appeared to be seriously put out about the whole thing and said that he got it all wrong anyway.

Peacegirl seems to be of the opinion that she should be in complete control of everything related to the book. Those reviews were posted by independent readers who expressed their opinion and not that of Peacegirls. If you will note her attitude on this forum, it is as if she thinks she is the teacher and we are all young children just waithing to be spoon fed this wouderful information. The questions and criticism must be very frustrating for her, expecting to just hand it out to an eager and appreciative class.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl seems to be of the opinion that she should be in complete control of everything related to the book. Those reviews were posted by independent readers who expressed their opinion and not that of Peacegirls. If you will note her attitude on this forum, it is as if she thinks she is the teacher and we are all young children just waithing to be spoon fed this wouderful information. The questions and criticism must be very frustrating for her, expecting to just hand it out to an eager and appreciative class.

It is tragic in a way. Here is a person who holds Lessans as sacred and is compelled to spread the word, but when she does is shocked at the response she gets and must withdraw the book because she can't stand the response. She then spends the rest of her life driven to get the word out but unable to do so because she can't allow people to disrespect Lessans. The more she tries the more conflicted she becomes. Heading to oblivion in her crazed state.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I recall correctly, the summary of chapter 10 that is in question was part of an "unauthorized" review of the book that was posted at Amazon.com (I think peacegirl's words were that he "put that up behind my back"). Why a review would require authorization is something peacegirl has never adequately explained. In any case, she appeared to be seriously put out about the whole thing and said that he got it all wrong anyway.

Are you really here to understand or to invalidate the book because you're threatened? I didn't require him to authorize the review. I just knew immediately that he went behind my back (he misrepresented the content) like David would do, because both of these people are so invested in their worldview, that anything that comes against it is evil in their eyes, and they will react accordingly. No surprise at all.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl seems to be of the opinion that she should be in complete control of everything related to the book. Those reviews were posted by independent readers who expressed their opinion and not that of Peacegirls. If you will note her attitude on this forum, it is as if she thinks she is the teacher and we are all young children just waithing to be spoon fed this wouderful information. The questions and criticism must be very frustrating for her, expecting to just hand it out to an eager and appreciative class.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is tragic in a way. Here is a person who holds Lessans as sacred and is compelled to spread the word, but when she does is shocked at the response she gets and must withdraw the book because she can't stand the response. She then spends the rest of her life driven to get the word out but unable to do so because she can't allow people to disrespect Lessans. The more she tries the more conflicted she becomes. Heading to oblivion in her crazed state.

I'm confused right now. Are you speaking right now Angakuk, because if you are, there's a MAJOR problem here. This sounds more like thedoc than you. Just checking because it's hard to know who is speaking. Maybe others don't get confused. I DO. I DARE YOU TO USE IT AGAINST ME.

[LadyShea]

How is posting a review on a public review space like Amazon "going behind your back"? If you sell any copies readers might post reviews, because that's what the review system is for.

Will all reviewers be "going behind your back"?

[LadyShea]

The last quote beginning with the words "It is tragic in a way" was naturalist.atheist

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe others don't get confused. I DO.

Now that's impressive: two gargantuan threads boiled down and thoroughly summarized in seven words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl seems to be of the opinion that she should be in complete control of everything related to the book. Those reviews were posted by independent readers who expressed their opinion and not that of Peacegirls. If you will note her attitude on this forum, it is as if she thinks she is the teacher and we are all young children just waithing to be spoon fed this wouderful information. The questions and criticism must be very frustrating for her, expecting to just hand it out to an eager and appreciative class.

And this is coming from someone who thinks he understands the book. You actually think Lessans is saying that people should become doctors without a license and shouldn't be trained? You can't be for real.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is posting a review on a public review space like Amazon "going behind your back"? If you sell any copies readers might post reviews, because that's what the review system is for.

Will all reviewers be "going behind your back"?

No LadyShea. He said he was going to do one thing, and then he did another. He went behind my back. On top of that, he did not read the book so it's not a fair representation of what the book is about. He mentioned force and detractors, which is a dead giveaway because there's no mention of this in the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Now that's impressive: two gargantuan threads boiled down and thoroughly summarized in seven words.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. He said he was going to do one thing, and then he did another. He went behind my back. On top of that, he did not read the book so it's not a fair representation of what the book is about. He mentioned force and detractors, which is a dead giveaway because there's no mention of this in the book.

Really LadyShea, it's not fair. Nobody has read the book, no even peacegirl. (Well she has, but forgot all the parts she didn't like.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

On top of that, he did not read the book so it's not a fair representation of what the book is about. He mentioned force and detractors, which is a dead giveaway because there's no mention of this in the book.

I don't know that guy but let's look at his review shall we?

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

This is true.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

True

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

True

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

Again true, you have stated many times the only real test is implementing the principles worldwide...Lessans "proof of the pudding".

And Lessans stated: we must enact an international law during the transition that will punish severely any non-citizens who choose to violate it. which appears to be a mention of force and detractors

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

True

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

I don't know about this, since I was not able to read the last chapter in it's entirety and you have refused to discuss it.

So, this reviewer seems pretty spot on to me

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

On top of that, he did not read the book so it's not a fair representation of what the book is about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He mentioned force and detractors, which is a dead giveaway because there's no mention of this in the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know that guy but let's look at his review shall we?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Be my guest.

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is true.

No, this is his interpretation. There was no self-glorification whatsoever. That's not who this man was, as I've said plenty of times.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

True

True, according to those who don't understand his proof, of whom you are one.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

True

Absolutely false! He had read all there was to know on determinism before he made his discovery. The discovery on the eyes came later and it was an indirect observation.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again true, you have stated many times the only real test is implementing the principles worldwide...Lessans "proof of the pudding".

I also said it could be tested on a smaller scale, but it won't be easy to set up. It can be done though. In other words, this knowledge is falsifiable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And Lessans stated: we must enact an international law during the transition that will punish severely any non-citizens who choose to violate it. which appears to be a mention of force and detractors

No, he was only talking about people that would take advantage of others by raising prices which would harm the populace. If you haven't noticed, in this world we punish people who do that; it's called stealing. The people he was referring to are non-citizens and are still under the control their country. It if became an international law (an agreement between all governments of the world) during the transitional period, people would be punished just like any person who breaks the law until the transition was complete. This would allow the last vestige of a failing economy to be replaced by a successful economy where not only can no one become a loser, but they can only increase their standard of living. And, not only this, all poverty would be wiped out. Wouldn't you like that LadyShea?

If he had read the book, he would have known that people will enter the new world of their own accord. It's right there in black and white.

Although we must enter this new world of our own volition because no
force will be used, the comparison of what we now have with what is
now possible gives us no choice because our will is not free to move
against what we believe is better for ourselves. This will compel us to
desire studying for the examination (which will only require the very
basic understanding of these principles) so we can become citizens as
quickly as possible after the transition has been officially launched.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

True

Not true. It's very difficult to know who is right, even though you think it's a slam dunk. I still bet on my father because his reasoning is sound.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know about this, since I was not able to read the last chapter in it's entirety and you have refused to discuss it.

So, this reviewer seems pretty spot on to me

He was completely off base when he said that one of those other you's are now I's. he had no conception of what Lessans was even talking about. Again, I can tell he did not read this chapter; he only got these ideas from the discussion, and this proved fatal.

[LadyShea]

He was not self-glorifying, so he's wrong.

He was self glorifying in the book, as has been pointed out to you countless times.

Absolutely false! He had read all there was to know on determinism before he made his discovery. The discovery on the eyes came later and it was an indirect observation.

His ideas on determinism did not constitute a testable hypothesis. This is true
His ideas on conscience did not constitute a testable hypothesis. This is true

Sight and light is very testable, has been tested and Lessans made completely inaccurate statements about the anatomy of the eye, for one glaring problem (he said it had no afferent structures, remember?). If he researched physics or sight or anatomy it wasn't at all apparent from his writing, so this criticism is also very true.

So far the reviewer is correct in all ways.

No, he was only talking about people that would take advantage of others by raising prices which would harm the populace. We punish people who do that; it's called stealing. These people are still under the control of their country. They would be punished just like any person who would break the law.

If he had read the book, he would have known that people enter the new world of their own accord.

We do not punish people who raise prices. Price increases are not called stealing anywhere that I am aware of.

Lessans proposed new laws and harsh punishments for those who want to remain capitalist and make money, and therefore choose to not become citizens. That's called coercion.

Not true. It's very difficult to know who is right, even though you think it's a slam dunk. I still bet on my father because his reasoning is sound.

It's only difficult for you, and you are unable to personally determine the truth unless you choose to do empirical testing and publish the results yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was self glorifying in the book, as has been pointed out to you countless times.

No he wasn't being self-glorifying LadyShea. You are interpreting it that way because you don't believe he was right. If he turns out to be right, you wouldn't think of him this way, and you know it.

Absolutely false! He had read all there was to know on determinism before he made his discovery. The discovery on the eyes came later and it was an indirect observation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His ideas on determinism did not constitute a testable hypothesis. This is true
His ideas on conscience did not constitute a testable hypothesis. This is true

No, this is so far removed from the truth that it is making me nauseous. I know positively that man's will is not free. We move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it will be proven one day that we cannot hurt others under certain conditions because our will is not free to move in the direction that will give us less satisfaction, not more.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sight and light is very testable, has been tested and Lessans made completely inaccurate statements about the anatomy of the eye, for one glaring problem (he said it had no afferent structures, remember?). If he researched physics or sight or anatomy it wasn't at all apparent from his writing, so this criticism is also very true.

He didn't say there were no afferent structures. This is what he said, and if he turns out to be right, then this is a correct statement.

The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So far the reviewer is correct in all ways.

How in the world can you say that except that he agrees with you, and that's no surprise. He comes from the same mold.

No, he was only talking about people that would take advantage of others by raising prices which would harm the populace. We punish people who do that; it's called stealing. These people are still under the control of their country. They would be punished just like any person who would break the law.

If he had read the book, he would have known that people enter the new world of their own accord.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We do not punish people who raise prices. Price increases are not called stealing anywhere that I am aware of.

You have absolutely no understanding whatsoever, so I refuse to continue this part of the discussion. Why don't you read the book LadyShea, and speak when you know what you're actually talking about?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans proposed new laws and harsh punishments for those who want to remain capitalist and make money, and therefore choose to not become citizens. That's called coercion.

Who is doing this? Did you not read what Lessans wrote that there is no coersion whatsoever? You're as bad as thedoc. You are not being rational.

Not true. It's very difficult to know who is right, even though you think it's a slam dunk. I still bet on my father because his reasoning is sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's only difficult for you, and you are unable to personally determine the truth unless you choose to do empirical testing and publish the results yourself.

I don't have to do empirical testing, because the proof is there in the book, although he did say that certain things pertaining to the eyes can be empirically tested. I really hope you study this book one day. You'll see that there's no coersion, no harm, and only good can come from this knowledge. This discovery will be brought to light sooner or later, and I'm not worried because this is not his law; it's God's law meaning these are laws of our nature.

[LadyShea]

Do you understand what a testable hypothesis even is?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not Lessans' law. This is God's law. He said this throughout the book. If you read the book you would know this. But you don't want to because you're afraid he might actually be right.

I quote, "my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific and undeniable; so if you find yourself in disagreement you had better reread that which you disagree...". Lessans is clearly describing his reasoning in this passage. That is practically a textbook example of hubris.

hubris
noun
excessive pride or self-confidence

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you understand what a testable hypothesis even is?

Oh my god, how many times do I have to say that he didn't start out with a hypothesis, or a presupposition? That's not how he came to these conclusions. These conclusions came from astute observation. He began to see patterns of behavior as he read thousands of historical accounts, which led him to these findings. Not everyone could have made these accurate inferences. Together with his reasoning ability, he was able to make this discovery. This is not a hypothesis. There are no guesses or assertions or conjectures anywhere in this book. Not every single truth that is found comes from the methodology of starting out with a hypothesis and then verifying it through testing, although empirical proof is the ultimate judge of truth. You are being extremely narrow in your thinking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I quote, "my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific and undeniable; so if you find yourself in disagreement you had better reread that which you disagree...". Lessans is clearly describing his reasoning in this passage. That is practically a textbook example of hubris.

hubris
noun
excessive pride or self-confidence

No Angakuk, this is not hubris at all. He had a revelation, and he realized what he was up against. He had to come off strong, because no one was listening. Imagine for a second that he is right. Do you have any empathy for what he must have gone through when he knew his discovery was sound, and no one was listening or paying attention? It's still happening.

[LadyShea]

The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

Yes, there is. There are millions of them as you have been told. Did you forget?

[LadyShea]

Then you turn around and agree with me and the reviewer!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a hypothesis.

So if you agree with me, why did you say my statements were false?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And this is coming from someone who thinks he understands the book. You actually think Lessans is saying that people should become doctors without a license and shouldn't be trained?

I really don't remember saying this, could you quote the post number just to be sure it was me. I know how confused you are with who was saying what, which explains a lot of the confusion in the book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually think Lessans is saying that people should become doctors without a license and shouldn't be trained? You can't be for real.

Oh?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will be no one telling you that you can't be a doctor. It will be up to the individual to decide if he has met all the standards because no one will want to take that kind of responsibility. Therefore, the responsibility will lie with the individual who now calls himself a "doctor".

Where does this mention a requirement for a medical license or being trained?

Sounds to me like anyone can learn however much they want in their own way (no being trained) and simply decide to be a doctor and call themselves a doctor, because there is nobody telling them they can't (which seems to imply there is no licensing board or regulations)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh?

Where does this mention a requirement for a medical license or being trained?

Sounds to me like anyone can learn however much they want in their own way (no being trained) and simply decide to be a doctor and call themselves a doctor, because there is nobody telling them they can't (which seems to imply there is no licensing board or regulations)

Exactly, which is why peacegirl needs to take my diagnosis of schizophrenia seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, there is. There are millions of them as you have been told. Did you forget?

I'm sorry, but the structure of the eye and its component parts do not match up in a similar way to the other senses. Why are you depending on other people to state your case, LadyShea? Is Lone Ranger a god because he's a professor in the field of biology? Think back to Nageli, for the sake of truth. You are not the one doing the research; you're just stating what other people say. This is no different than anyone who depends on others for their answers. Can't you do better than that in a free thought forum where everyone's knowledge counts? You are dismissing me just because I'm not one of you. Don't even try to argue your case because you already showed your true colors, or should I say your true ignorance.