A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If Lessans book had the power to change anything it would have already happened. It hasn't happened so the book is a dud and you are out of your mind.

Well, it seems that the book does have some power, 2 threads on this forum and how many other forums for almost a decade, and no sign that she will stop. The book has definitly changed Peacegirl's life.

[Vivisectus]

The book itself never held anyone's attention I think.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Funny: I have used myself in the same way and I saw something entirely different.

Oh really? Tell me what you saw.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Show the math or retract the claim.

How many times have I said that mathematical, in this context, does not have to do with numbers but is still accurate because it means "undeniable". I will continue to use this word, and I will not retract this claim.

Originally Posted by thedoc

A simple test for anyone who drives on the highway, and you can PM me your answers to avoid embarresment, "What Color is a Yield Sign" This may be getting a bit out of date with younger drivers but it illustrates that people don't always see what is in front of them.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Can you give it a rest now, please?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This group is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that? Hell, no one even links to .

Well this is the last stop. I'll have to go to the woo's, as you call them, to get this knowledge recognized because I can't break through the wall of skepticism in these philosophy forums.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It depends on what you are counting

One family of 8
plus
One family of 3
=11 people

You know what I mean. There are universal laws that exist and we can depend on them because they are consistent and don't change with time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book itself never held anyone's attention I think.

The book hasn't been advertised or distributed so how can it gain anyone's attention Vivisectus when they haven't heard about it? Using these online forums as proof that the book doesn't hold anyone's attention is very misleading.

[LadyShea]

"Universal law" doesn't apply to any aspect of human psychology. Brains/minds are unique to each human as are the experiences and interpretations that form them. You can say many, most, a lot, the majority, or in general at best...and only then from a large sampling of empirically observed behaviors or self reported experiences

[LadyShea]

Are you really asking us to "prove" this to ourselves with our imaginations?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This law doesn't predict psychological states. One can be happy or sad or in between and there is no way we can predict someone's mood, but we can predict that they would never want to hurt another when this universal law becomes a permanent condition of the environment. It is absolutely undeniable that under these changed conditions the desire to strike a first blow could never take place.

Desires, values, and the workings of conscience are psychological states (well, neuropsychological).

I'm trying to get you to see how this law (which could not have been discovered unless we went through the necessary developmental stages) causes a paradigm shift never before seen in the history of mankind.

Who or what decided the necessary developmental stages. Necessary for what? Necessary according to whom?

This is not a joke but it will not be taken seriously if the very philosophers who are needed to confirm this knowledge thumb their noses in absolute defiance before they even understand the undeniable relations involved. I hope you can see why I am so disappointed. This group is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

There are a lot of holes in the ideas. Anyone with a working mind will find them

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Tell me what you saw.

I do not see any difference in my level of conscientiousness at all. The expectation of blame and my take on free will does not seem to have a lot of impact on how careful I am about these things.

When I look inside myself, the idea that it is blame that allows a person to justify making potentially harmful decisions just does not connect with me. I do not see it in myself, or others.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The book hasn't been advertised or distributed so how can it gain anyone's attention Vivisectus when they haven't heard about it? Using these online forums as proof that the book doesn't hold anyone's attention is very misleading.

So far we can say that the conversion rate of people who read it into people who think it is a load of nonsense is pretty much 100%, wouldn't you? Do you seriously think the percentage would be much better with more exposure?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I mean. There are universal laws that exist and we can depend on them because they are consistent and don't change with time.

Actually, I don't think even that is that straightforward. We could say that 1 + 1 = 2 is universal, but that is because that is their definition. 1 + 1 = 2 could be taken to mean "take something and give it a label. Then take another thing, and decide that it is sufficiently equal to the previous thing to be thought of as functionally the same, and give it the same label as the first item even though it is a different thing. You now have two of the items described by that label."

So in this way, even counting is descriptive rather than a universal law with some kind of platonic existence. It is just a way in which we order the world: one of the many shorthands we use to make it easier to deal with our environment.

[thedoc]

The expression 1+1=2 has no meaning in itself, till man assigns some meaning to the terms, and this will only work if others accept that meaning as true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Universal law" doesn't apply to any aspect of human psychology. Brains/minds are unique to each human as are the experiences and interpretations that form them.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can say many, most, a lot, the majority, or in general at best...and only then from a large sampling of empirically observed behaviors or self reported experiences

Stop it right there. There are principles that can be detected from observing a few. We cannot observe every single apple that falls from a tree, but we can make a general observation from the fact that we never see apples fall upwards. You are dismissing his observations because you just can't believe that he was right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far we can say that the conversion rate of people who read it into people who think it is a load of nonsense is pretty much 100%,

Conversion rate? That's like saying the conversion rate of those who were under Hitler proved that Hitler was right because the majority agreed with him. This is a sick analogy, but I have to drive home my point somehow. The truth of this knowledge is not based on these forums, therefore the conversion rate means nothing in so far as the accuracy of Lessans' observations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you seriously think the percentage would be much better with more exposure?

Only if he is correct, for if he is not correct this discovery will never be recognized. Truth always wins in the long run.

[LadyShea]

Stop it right there. There are principles that can be detected from observing a few. We cannot observe every single apple that falls from a tree, but we can make a general observation from the fact that we never see apples fall upwards. You are dismissing his observations because you just can't believe that he was right.

But, as I have explained over and over again, every person can observe apples falling down every time that is an empirical observation.

Nobody has shared Lessans observations, nor can anyone seem to duplicate them because he didn't tell us what or who he observed. He didn't observe behaviors or individuals. You can't compare empirical observations to non-empirical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not see any difference in my level of conscientiousness at all. The expectation of blame and my take on free will does not seem to have a lot of impact on how careful I am about these things.

When I look inside myself, the idea that it is blame that allows a person to justify making potentially harmful decisions just does not connect with me. I do not see it in myself, or others.

That is because you don't think this way, but for those who do, it becomes a cat and mouse game to see who wins.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But, as I have explained over and over again, every person can observe apples falling down every time that is an empirical observation.

LadyShea, just because the observation was just below the radar of what the average person could see doesn't make it wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody has shared Lessans observations, nor can anyone seem to duplicate them because he didn't tell us what or who he observed. He didn't observe behaviors or individuals.

Are you kidding me? He read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times because he was beginning to see patterns in behavior that we couldn't see from just one lonely apple falling from one lonely tree. Seriously LadyShea, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't compare empirical observations to non-empirical.

But his knowledge came from actual observations. I don't understand you because you are totally dismissing what I have shared with you this entire time.

[LadyShea]

What you have shared with me amounts to ideas and assertions.

You can call them observations all you want, but he didn't record specific behaviors he observed in specific people.

He made some inferences and interpretations from what he more informally "observed" in his day to day life. That is not scientifically verifiable. That is not proof. It is only convincing if others are already inclined to agree with those interpretations. Basically, it's all Lessans' opinion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well, it seems that the book does have some power, 2 threads on this forum and how many other forums for almost a decade, and no sign that she will stop. The book has definitly changed Peacegirl's life.

It's because people keep feeding attention to this dishonest little narcissist. It's long past time to cut off her oxygen supply. "In my pants" is the best reply to anything she says from now on. "Potato," "Did Lessans take the brown acid?" and "Moons of Jupiter" are also good options.

[LadyShea]

My observation is that Lessans books and your arguments share many more traits with religious/spiritual apologetics than with anything resembling science.

There's nothing wrong with religion or spirituality, but it isn't what it isn't. Even if we allow that Lessans offered support for his assertions (by means of his reasoning), it isn't at all convincing support. You have stated the only way to get evidence is to implement his ideas worldwide, or use our imaginations, which is simply crazy talk.

Lessans may have been correct about some aspects he wrote about...there is room in the Universe for even the highly improbable...but I think his reasoning was poor, his writing skills were poor, and you are unable to hold a rational discussion so are a poor spokesperson.

My analysis of the situation does not mean I am angry, protective of a worldview, or reacting emotionally. I am the most flexible person you will probably meet. You have failed to make Lessans case.

[LadyShea]

He read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times because he was beginning to see patterns in behavior

Are you kidding me? How did he determine he was seeing patterns in general human behavior rather than the patterns in Edward Gibbon's thinking via his interpretations of historic events?

Historical analysis is inherently interpretative, and Gibbon was just one guy and certainly not above criticism or controversy.

[Kael]

But he read it 7 times, LadyShea. Ergo, to wit, QED, ect., patterns recognized, All Evil Solved, World Peace Ensured.

The proof is in the eating. But you can't eat ideas, that's just silly. Pudding. Eat some pudding. Chocolate, vanilla, butterscotch, whatever suits you. Tapioca is probably fine too. And there you have it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

Pudding. Eat some pudding.

Do civilized people really eat 'Blood Pudding'?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1008726]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This law doesn't predict psychological states. One can be happy or sad or in between and there is no way we can predict someone's mood, but we can predict that they would never want to hurt another when this universal law becomes a permanent condition of the environment. It is absolutely undeniable that under these changed conditions the desire to strike a first blow could never take place.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Desires, values, and the workings of conscience are psychological states (well, neuropsychological).

Of course desires, vales, and the workings of conscience are psychological states. This is a psychological law. Haven't you been listening at all?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Foreword i

Due to a
fantastic breakthrough, to the discovery of a natural, psychological law
that was hermetically sealed behind a logical theory that 98% of
mankind holds true, the solution to the problem of evil which has
plagued mankind since time immemorial is now within reach. By
applying this natural law, every bit of hurt that exists in human
relations will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth by
something so superior to punishment, as a deterrent, that people the
world over will be prevented from committing those very acts of evil
for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. This
discovery will start an atomic chain reaction of thought more powerful
than anything yet produced because it offers a solution to every
problem of human conduct.

I'm trying to get you to see how this law (which could not have been discovered unless we went through the necessary developmental stages) causes a paradigm shift never before seen in the history of mankind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who or what decided the necessary developmental stages. Necessary for what? Necessary according to whom?

No one decided the necessary developmental stages LadyShea, but if you understood why man's will is not free (which you obviously don't), you would understand why man could never have reached this turning point in history without having gone through the necessary stages of evil that led him to where he is now. As a matter of fact, my father could never have made this discovery without studying history and seeing certain patterns in man's behavior.

This is not a joke but it will not be taken seriously if the very philosophers who are needed to confirm this knowledge thumb their noses in absolute defiance before they even understand the undeniable relations involved. I hope you can see why I am so disappointed. This group is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are a lot of holes in the ideas. Anyone with a working mind will find them

You have a working mind and you haven't found any holes, so you're wrong again.