A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discovery is too important to discuss it nilly-willy.

Another one for the collector.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what Chapter Two is all about. I refuse to condense it and confuse everyone. This discovery is too important to discuss it nilly-willy. This is about content and the best way it can be explained is the way I'm going to explain it.

DAMN! now I need to fire up my old slower computer to access the PDF.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Another one for the collector.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So why do you do it? Why do you keep parading your own mental illness and the incompetence of your father for all to see? How does this work out to be in your direction of greatest satisfaction if it is such "torture" for you?

Although this feels like torture, it gives me greater satisfaction to keep on trying in the hope that people will eventually understand. If my frustration level becomes too great, at that point I will find greater satisfaction in moving on.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Although this feels like torture, it gives me greater satisfaction to keep on trying in the hope that people will eventually understand. If my frustration level becomes too great, at that point I will find greater satisfaction in moving on.

Save yourself the grief and move on. You will accomplish nothing more here than making people think you are crazy and that Lessans was a grade A crackpot.

And after you move on go get help peacegirl.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Save yourself the grief and move on. You will accomplish nothing more here than making people think you are crazy and that Lessans was a grade A crackpot.

Is there anyone besides peacegirl that doesn't think Lessans was a grade A crackpot?

The best thing I can say about him is that he didn't seem to be as dysfunctional as peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Is there anyone besides peacegirl that doesn't think Lessans was a grade A crackpot?

The best thing I can say about him is that he didn't seem to be as dysfunctional as peacegirl.

Peacegirl's book is published in 2006, and we don't know for sure that Lessans tried to sell any of the copies he had printed, we do know that the legal action against the Presidents was real, of course that may have been a publicity stunt to sell books. So whether he was dysfunctional or just a crafty jokester is open to speculation.

[Angakuk]

We have also not had the opportunity to engage him in an internet conversation, therefore we are not qualified to speculate as to what his internet diagnosis might, or might not, be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We have also not had the opportunity to engage him in an internet conversation, therefore we are not qualified to speculate as to what his internet diagnosis might, or might not, be.

Will you lead the seance?

[Angakuk]

Sorry, I skipped that class in seminary.

[But]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Is there anyone besides peacegirl that doesn't think Lessans was a grade A crackpot?

The best thing I can say about him is that he didn't seem to be as dysfunctional as peacegirl.

I think if he was alive today and on this forum his "model" would be finished in, say, less than a hundred pages. His problem was that he got his information from dictionaries and an encyclopedia, didn't quite understand it and made up his own.

Peacegirl, on the other hand, is trapped. She doesn't understand enough about science to understand where she's wrong, she has this strong attachment to her father's words and writings, and had it driven into her head that there will be this great age of world peace, if only she can convince the world of the truth of these words, which express a load of nonsense and which she doesn't even understand herself. She's doomed to carry on with this nonsensical quest forever. If she got distracted by the foolish theories of these scientists that were so fantastically wrong, she alone would be responsible for mankind's missing out on everlasting peace and happiness.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Davidm, you are free to read this thread, or not, as you choose. You are free to post on this thread, or not, as you choose. Others are also free to read or post here, or not as they choose. I do not understand what your problem is, no-one os compelling you to participate in this thread? Keep it or leave it alone, it's your choice 'of your own free will?'

Of course (and I knew I'd get this response). I'm just pointing out how futile all this is. What does anyone actually hope to accomplish here? Does anyone really believe she is going to let go of her delusions? She has bee presented dozens, nay hundreds, of incontrovertible examples of delayed-time seeing; she ignores or lies about all of them. If this thread goes on for another year, or five years of ten years, and if you could look ahead ten years in time, you would find that she, and all of us, are saying the exact same things over and over again. And, you know ... why? I'm just asking.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all so confused I don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Sorry, I skipped that class in seminary.

Thats OK, just do what you do with your regular services, FAKE IT.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A presupposition is an assumption. He made no assumptions. You can use the term to mean that in order for his premises to be true they must meet the following requirements:

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.

I didn't ask you to repeat the claims back to me. I asked you to show me where in his book he offered any support for any of these points. You can't do it, can you?

I'm not saying these were assumptions for him. For all I know he might have had fantastically good reasons for believing these things. But if so, he never shared them. He might have made tons of accurate empirical observations from which he was able to soundly infer the above points. But if so, he never shared them. That means that in the context of his book, these things are presuppositions - things which have to be true for his argument to work, and yet which he gave nobody any reason at all to accept or agree with (and in most cases didn't even himself identify and openly state as premises). They are things which the arguments of his book presuppose without ever arguing for or supporting. If you think otherwise, then you need to show me exactly where he argues for or supports them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what Chapter Two is all about. I refuse to condense it and confuse everyone. This discovery is too important to discuss it nilly-willy. This is about content and the best way it can be explained is the way I'm going to explain it. I'm not going to blow my chance to get people to understand this knowledge just because you demand quick answers.

Are you actually going to explain it? Or are you just going to try (and likely fail) to copypaste the entire chapter for a third time? Do you understand the difference between simply presenting the chapter and actually explaining it? Which do you intend to do? And when are you actually going to start doing either?

The best way to explain something is to identify the key necessary premises and explain why they should be accepted as true. We've already done the first part for you. His necessary premises are those presuppositions I've listed for you above. If you can't give anyone any reason to accept them as true then any further discussion or explanation will be a completely pointless waste of time. So what reasons did Lessans give for believing these things, and where specifically did he give them?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you understand the difference between simply presenting the chapter and actually explaining it?

Of course she doesn't understand this difference. This is a HOLY TEXT! All its explanations are carried within! If you can't see this, then the fault is yours, not hers!

Do you really want to be asking this question of peacegirl ten years from now, when this thread has exceeded a million pages? In that case, who else besides her is nuts? Us?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result ... etc.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course (and I knew I'd get this response). I'm just pointing out how futile all this is. What does anyone actually hope to accomplish here?

Most entertainment is a bit futile if you think about it, you feel good for awhile and then go back to the same old frustrations and boreing job. I'm not sure that anyone except Peacegirl hopes to acomplish anything, except to present the truth to any lurkers on the thread. There is the real danger that some young impressionable reader would think she actually has something worthwhile to say. I said elsewhere that some science is counterintuitive and this is certainly that. It's also so strange as to seem impossable till you understand that it really is impossable. Why don't you save yourself the frustration of reading the thread and everyone trying to convince her, and don't, Unless its a really slow day there and you don't have anything else that you really want to do. I'm sure there are plenty of things that would be better for you to be doing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you really want to be asking this question of peacegirl ten years from now, when this thread has exceeded a million pages?

Sure, that would mean another ten years of hilarity (not to mention a great deal of successful procrastination). But I'd prefer that she find and receive treatment before then.

Originally Posted by davidm

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result ... etc.

Who's expecting any different result?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

In that case, who else besides her is nuts? Us?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result ... etc.

Davidm, you are participating in this forum, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously if you were to deny being stark raving crazy? Just remember 'YOU'RE SPECIAL', just like everyone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We have also not had the opportunity to engage him in an internet conversation, therefore we are not qualified to speculate as to what his internet diagnosis might, or might not, be.

Well, I was just listening to the epilogue of my dad's audio book, and I can't believe how clear it is. I feel like he's in the room. Amazing! I'm really excited about this new mp3. On the CD I'm going to tell people to please not copy, cite, or reproduce the audio book except for personal use. I have worked so hard on this that I deserve to be compensated, but that's not the reason I'm doing this, as thedoc is always insinuating. I'm not going to create digital protections, number one because it's too expensive, and number two, I want to sell the actual CD, not just have it as a download.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, I was just listening to the epilogue of my dad's audio book, and I can't believe how clear it is. I feel like he's in the room. Amazing!

It must be quite emotional for you. I'm sure you miss him a great deal.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really excited about this new mp3. On the CD I'm going to tell people to please not copy, cite, or reproduce the audio book except for personal use. I have worked so hard on this that I deserve to be compensated, but that's not the reason I'm doing this, as thedoc is always insinuating. I'm not going to create digital protections, number one because it's too expensive, and number two, I want to sell the actual CD, not just have it as a download.

From a purely marketing point of view, that's just a really really bad idea. No-one is going to buy a hardcopy MP3 file that has to be shipped to them. It just won't sell. At all. If you want people to purchase it then you'll need host it somewhere where it can be purchased and downloaded online. It's really the only way you could expect to have any kind of success with this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It must be quite emotional for you. I'm sure you miss him a great deal.

From a purely marketing point of view, that's just a really really bad idea. No-one is going to buy a hardcopy MP3 file that has to be shipped to them. It just won't sell. At all. If you want people to purchase it then you'll need host it somewhere where it can be purchased and downloaded online. It's really the only way you could expect to have any kind of success with this.

But Peacegirl had better have her refund policy spelled out in Iron clad terms because there are going to be a lot of people who, on listening to it or even part of it, are going to want their money back.

[seebs]

So did we ever actually get a way to refer to the text? I am still curious about what it says, but I haven't been able to find it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I guess that makes sense. It must be awfully difficult for you to try to ignore questions on two different topics in the same thread. Now you can ignore my questions about efferent vision in the other thread while using this one only for ignoring my questions about Lessans' first non-discovery.

I told you not to use the term non-discovery if you want to converse with me. Don't test me Spacemonkey or you'll be the loser.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A presupposition is an assumption. He made no assumptions. You can use the term to mean that in order for his premises to be true they must meet the following requirements:

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask you to repeat the claims back to me. I asked you to show me where in his book he offered any support for any of these points. You can't do it, can you?

You can't point to one or two sentences, Spacemonkey. The entire chapter is necessary to read for a clear understanding, and I'm not jeopardizing a chance for people to understand this work. So don't keep asking me to show where he offered support for these claims. Believe me, they are there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not saying these were assumptions for him. For all I know he might have had fantastically good reasons for believing these things. But if so, he never shared them. He might have made tons of accurate empirical observations from which he was able to soundly infer the above points. But if so, he never shared them.

What the hell are you talking about? You are acting very ignorant right now.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That means that in the context of his book, these things are presuppositions - things which have to be true for his argument to work, and yet which he gave nobody any reason at all to accept or agree with (and in most cases didn't even himself identify and openly state as premises). They are things which the arguments of his book presuppose without ever arguing for or supporting. If you think otherwise, then you need to show me exactly where he argues for or supports them.

I will say this one last time, he supported his premises and they are undeniable. I will present this book in the way I feel is appropriate. Take it or leave it, but don't tell me how to do it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what Chapter Two is all about. I refuse to condense it and confuse everyone. This discovery is too important to discuss it nilly-willy. This is about content and the best way it can be explained is the way I'm going to explain it. I'm not going to blow my chance to get people to understand this knowledge just because you demand quick answers.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you actually going to explain it? Or are you just going to try (and likely fail) to copypaste the entire chapter for a third time? Do you understand the difference between simply presenting the chapter and actually explaining it? Which do you intend to do? And when are you actually going to start doing either?

I will have a question and answer period, but not before I cut and paste. It's been so long since discussing his first discovery, I might have to start from the very beginning because there are new people here and I want them to understand his definition of determinism so they can follow Chapter Two.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The best way to explain something is to identify the key necessary premises and explain why they should be accepted as true. We've already done the first part for you. His necessary premises are those presuppositions I've listed for you above. If you can't give anyone any reason to accept them as true then any further discussion or explanation will be a completely pointless waste of time. So what reasons did Lessans give for believing these things, and where specifically did he give them?

Forget it Spacemonkey. I will not let you corrupt this book because you want a quick answer. He supported every single one of his premises. There are no presuppositions. I will do it my way, or no way. I can't be any more clear than that.