Free will versus determinism

[peacegirl]

Ok, one bit at a time here: "as long as I have a chance before the book goes to press" So you are spamming! Vanity press, publishing company, not yet published but about to be.... Whichever, that's spamming in my book. (Pun!)

"I think I am going to take out the section on the sun exploding because this really is unimportant . . . " Whooee! I think that most people would tend to think that leaving out an assertion that the sun is going to explode may be somewhat important in assessing the validity of both a very radical and rather unrealistic theory as well as the reader's opinion of the author's rationality.

You can't wait to jump down my throat, can you? There is no asserton that the sun is going to explode. And no, this afterthought does not negate his claim regarding the eyes. His claim regarding the eyes can still be falsified or proved true empirically.

" . . . the eyes are not a sense organ . . . " Yes they are! To state otherwise is to definitely put the whole book in the 'absolute rubbish' catagory. Don't be silly! And don't expect us to be silly enough to waste time debating this with you.

I did not take the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ out of the book bcool. If it turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't necessarily make his other observations wrong by association. Nevertheless, I am not taking this claim out of the book because I don't believe it is wrong.

" . . . why so many words are not symbolic of reality . . . " Every word in the whole book actually.

No, not every word, only words that do not represent reality. The word 'ugly' does not represent anything real except in our realistic imagination.

You said you were leaving. Well?

I didn't say I was leaving. I said I was wavering depending on how people respond. If it was you and me talking, I would have left long ago because you are not interested in learning about this knowledge. You are just trying to prove me wrong at all costs, for whatever reason.

As expected, instead you desperately searched every post for something to argue, to pretend to debate. Round and round in circles... As long as you get the responses you crave no matter what they say, just as long as you get something, anything to give you an excuse to post the same old stuff over and over ad infinitum.

I said you were driven, you're proving it with every word you feverishly type.

Wrong. I am trying to be understanding and if someone is still interested, then I will stick around to answer questions, otherwise I will leave.

I could do what you do: Leave this thread! Now! You don't understand. You're not listening. You're not contributing you just want to argue with me. So leave! Come back when you are able to understand! Go!

__________

I told people to leave if they were here to denounce the book without even reading it, not if they didn't understand something or were not contributing. Show me where I said this. You are putting words in my mouth and you know it. Why are you getting satisfaction out of doing this?

I have a decent head for math, explain the math to me.

If I have to say this one more time, I give up. This equation does not deal with math per se, but it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable. He explained in the introduction that these words were interchangable in the context of this book. He also said that this knowledge can still be scientific without dealing in the 'exact sciences'.

I didn't say he does, I said he does if he's going to be called an established mathematician. Otherwise he's a hobbyist.

Whether he's a hobbyist or someone professional, his mathematical ability was better than many professional mathematicians. He gave the math example in the book to a cousin who had a degree in physics. She couldn't answer it. So that just goes to show that titles mean little when it comes to true talent.

I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to get across. There is nothing coming in on the waves of light apart from the waves of light themselves, which are made of photons, as far as I understand.

When a tree falls, it causes air pressure waves which reach my ears. THEN and only THEN, it becomes a sound in my own subjective experience of reality. The same applies to light. Once the photons reach my eyes, my brain processes the differences in light intensity and colour and starts associating concepts with the various light patterns. Beyond the fact that they are based on different physical events, how are sight and hearing any different?

He did not believe that the photons were impinging on the optic nerve and going to the brain to be configured into an image. Based on his understanding of how words are projected onto a screen, he concluded that objects in the real world are seen directly. Light is a condition, not a cause. His conclusions did not come out of thin air; they were based on an understanding of our relationship with the external world.

 

[mentalfloss]

Whether he's a hobbyist or someone professional, his mathematical ability was better than many professional mathematicians. He gave the math example in the book to a cousin who had a degree in physics. She couldn't answer it. So that just goes to show that titles mean little when it comes to true talent.

I think posts like these are why you are getting a lot of flak. I can't even understand how you can't see that.

 

[peacegirl]

I think posts like these are why you are getting a lot of flak. I can't even understand how you can't see that.

Dexter was making a distinction between his ability as a mathematician because he is a professional and my father was only a hobbyist. The title of 'professional' does not necessarily mean someone has more skill than someone who does not have this title. Obviously, that is what he was getting at or he wouldn't have brought it up.

 

[s_lone]

He did not believe that the photons were impinging on the optic nerve and going to the brain to be configured into an image. Based on his understanding of how words are projected onto a screen, he concluded that objects in the real world are seen directly. Light is a condition, not a cause. His conclusions did not come out of thin air; they were based on an understanding of our relationship with the external world.

Dismissing the fact that I don't agree, why wouldn't he extend the same reasoning to hearing? What's the difference?

Why should I be taken seriously if I was to say something like this: ''I don't believe that air pressure waves impinge on my ear. Based on my understanding of how words are projected onto an aural landscape, I conclude that objects are heard in the real world and heard directly... The only reason there is a delay between light and sound when I watch fireworks from far away is because my ears take longer to reach the explosion than my eyes.''

What I just said makes no sense at all and neither does what Lessans says about sight. Why should I take him seriously?

 

[karrie]

If I have to say this one more time, I give up. This equation does not deal with math per se, but it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable. He explained in the introduction that these words were interchangable in the context of this book. He also said that this knowledge can still be scientific without dealing in the 'exact sciences'.

You are claiming that it IS scientific, that it IS mathematical. Make up your mind. Either show me the math, or stop pretending it's mathematical.

Whether he's a hobbyist or someone professional, his mathematical ability was better than many professional mathematicians. He gave the math example in the book to a cousin who had a degree in physics. She couldn't answer it. So that just goes to show that titles mean little when it comes to true talent.

Show me the math example. And, as his cousin, perhaps she was simply too polite to say what strangers are willing to? If she had a degree in physics, and was looking at his 'equation', I can see where she'd be confused and walk away.

Dexter was making a distinction between his ability as a mathematician because he is a professional and my father was only a hobbyist. The title of 'professional' does not necessarily mean someone has more skill than someone who does not have this title. Obviously, that is what he was getting at or he wouldn't have brought it up.

Actually, it often DOES mean just that. Lessans clearly was pretty cavalier about what 'math' means.

 

[JLM]

I've just one more thought to add to this boring thread- There is no shame in mistakenly being wrong but there is shame once the wrong has been pointed out and deliberately continuing with being wrong.

 

[mentalfloss]

Dexter was making a distinction between his ability as a mathematician because he is a professional and my father was only a hobbyist. The title of 'professional' does not necessarily mean someone has more skill than someone who does not have this title. Obviously, that is what he was getting at or he wouldn't have brought it up.

I thought you said you were actually a friend of the family? Are you really his daughter?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter was making a distinction between his ability as a mathematician because he is a professional and my father was only a hobbyist. The title of 'professional' does not necessarily mean someone has more skill than someone who does not have this title. Obviously, that is what he was getting at or he wouldn't have brought it up.

Those three sentences are, in order, wrong, right, and wrong. YOU brought it up when you claimed he was an established mathematician, which is not true, he wasn't, nobody's ever heard of him in that context, he made no contributions to the field. That's what you have to do to be an established mathematician; you become one of those only when other established mathematicians say you are. I'm not an established mathematician or a professional mathematician either, my major professional training was as a geophysicist, which only means I have to know a lot of mathematics. It was the word "established" I objected to, not Lessans' supposed mathematical abilities, which I suspect are a good deal less than you think they are. People for whom mathematics is largely a mystery are easily impressed by a person who knows a little about it, especially when they've already elevated that person to guru status for other reasons.

 

[peacegirl]

Don't you get it peacegirl.... that's all Lessans has done too, only he's thrown in the words 'theory', and 'mathematical', and 'true' with his opinion, and called it science, without doing anything scientific to back his claims. What's good for the goose as they say.

But he has backed up his claims if you understand his reasoning, which can be tested. Whether you believe this or not, this knowledge will turn out to be true in the end, whether it's now or 100 years from now. It's far from being disproved by anyone on any of these forums, yet people use this as proof that he is wrong.

If it weren't for the fact that this is your father's work I'd have let 'the wolves' tear you to shreds, and banned you off the forum for spamming by now (using our site to advertise something you are trying to sell, incase you're confused about the meaning).

How am I making any money on this? The book is online for free for those who find it. I am giving his work away. The wolves come out as soon as soon as they smell blood (as soon as they feel I have been defeated). Even if people don't know it's my father, they will try to tear me to shreds. They can't wait to give that final kick to make sure I'm down for good.

The fact that you keep putting words in my mouth, and having anticipatory arguments with me, is ridiculous. But, I guess you did learn it well... the whole opening of Lessans' book is an anticipatory argument for anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Not true karrie, he challenges everyone to disagree with him, if they can, but only after they understand these principles. The fact that I say these principles are not being grasped is true. If people still believe that responsibility doesn't go hand in hand with determinism (and therefore the rest of his book can't be right), it is probably because they refuse to put aside the classical definition which is causing a serious stumbling block. In their eyes, this entire book is a contradiction. I can't make headway. Maybe everyone should look at the book as fiction; sort of like the novel 1984. Reading it this way might be more palatable because there won't be this challenge that seems to be putting people on the defensive.

You are claiming that it IS scientific, that it IS mathematical. Make up your mind. Either show me the math, or stop pretending it's mathematical.

definition of mathematical: 1. of mathematics; having something to do with mathematics: Mathematical problems are not always easy 2. exact; accurate: mathematical measurements syn: precise

Show me the math example. And, as his cousin, perhaps she was simply too polite to say what strangers are willing to? If she had a degree in physics, and was looking at his 'equation', I can see where she'd be confused and walk away.

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter. Since he assumed that I did not know the answer, he worked on the problem to find out if he thought it could be solved. After two weeks and feeling inadequate to the task, he responded, "My own personal opinion is that it cannot be done, however, I’m not an expert but my professor is. I’ll give it to him." "By the way," he inquired (using the same fallacious standard as the Harvard graduate), "Did you ever study higher mathematics in one of the universities, and if you didn’t, how far did you go in school?" Once again I replied, "Only to the 7th grade."

Actually, it often DOES mean just that. Lessans clearly was pretty cavalier about what 'math' means.

I don't think so. He was trying to show that the terms mathematical and scientific were synomous with undeniable. The reason this is so difficult is because people are looking for numbers, even though the two-sided equation is mathematical in the sense that it cannot be denied (if he is right).

I thought you said you were actually a friend of the family? Are you really his daughter?

I guess you weren't here yesterday. I think Dexter found an obituary notice about Lessans and my full name was in it. So I had to admit I lied, but I did this only because people would immediately try to use this against me. Now that the cat is out of the bag, what can I say? Yes, I am his daughter. :idea:

Those three sentences are, in order, wrong, right, and wrong. YOU brought it up when you claimed he was an established mathematician, which is not true, he wasn't, nobody's ever heard of him in that context, he made no contributions to the field. That's what you have to do to be an established mathematician; you become one of those only when other established mathematicians say you are. I'm not an established mathematician or a professional mathematician either, my major professional training was as a geophysicist, which only means I have to know a lot of mathematics. It was the word "established" I objected to, not Lessans' supposed mathematical abilities, which I suspect are a good deal less than you think they are. People for whom mathematics is largely a mystery are easily impressed by a person who knows a little about it, especially when they've already elevated that person to guru status for other reasons.

Definition of mathematician: n. a person skilled in mathematics.

He never had any formal training in mathematics but, as I said earlier, he took a formal test that involved a lot of math and he got the highest grade of everyone. That does not prove that he was excellent in math from this one example, but he did have a remarkable ability to figure math problems out. Maybe I should not have used the word "established". Actually, he did make a contribution to the field; it's just that no one knows about it yet. :roll:

If you insist on publishing this Peacegirl, I think you should entirely leave out the part about eyes ''not being a sense organ''. All it leads to is the conclusion that words are not symbolic of reality but you simply don't need to say ''eyes are not a sense organ'' to get to that conclusion.

I say this because this part is exactly where I dropped out of the book completely. And I have a pretty high level tolerance for outrageous claims. So if someone like me dropped out, you can be sure almost everybody will.

I'm not sure. I certainly don't want people to be turned off and not read any more. The reason he believed the eyes are not a sense organ was because of how words work to condition what we see. If images or photons were entering the brain to be decoded, then people would not be conditioned by words only, but that is exactly what is happening. Did you read that part? We are projecting a word that does not correspond to anything in the real world onto a screen of undeniable substance, which gives the illusion that what we are seeing is accurate. A tremendous amount of hurt has come from the idea that there is a true standard of beauty and therefore of ugliness (even though, within the standard, there are opinions as to who is the most beautiful, or the most ugly) in the world. Afterall, don't we see this 'beauty' and therefore this 'ugliness' with our very eyes? Who wants to be thought of as ugly; as an inferior production of the human race? :-( He did not care whether the eyes were a sense organ or not, but he needed to explain why these words were not symbolic of reality and the reason why.

 

[Bcool]

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your inanities and absurdities, nor your ever more rather insultingly obvious tactic of looking for something, anything to respond to not just once but two or three times, posting the same post more than once....

If you feel that it is possible for one to feel "threatened" by words on a screen, then you have serious problems.

If you can't see this for what it is (I've added pic's to make it plainer)

then you're incapable of seeing reason at all:

Post #548

You Quoting me Bcool quoting you:
"I think I am going to take out the section on the sun exploding because this really is unimportant . . . " Whooee! I think that most people would tend to think that leaving out an assertion that the sun is going to explode may be somewhat important in assessing the validity of both a very radical and rather unrealistic theory as well as the reader's opinion of the author's rationality."
​

Quoting you

'peacegirl': "It's up to them to determine whether the author is rational or not. Who said it wasn't up to the reader? Obviously, if the reader finds this knowledge faulty, they will disregard it. So who is stopping them from doing this bcool?"

You're actually asking?

Or just using this for another "debate" hook? If you're seriously asking, then you're exposing yourself even further and making the case for your own lack of abilities to present even a semi-logical postulation of a totally unaccredited theory. IOW, you are stopping them if you remove this obviously non-sensical piece of irrationality, that makes even you pause, from the book you are

spamming.

​

 

[karrie]

But he has backed up his claims if you understand his reasoning, which can be tested. Whether you believe this or not, this knowledge will turn out to be true in the end, whether it's now or 100 years from now. It's far from being disproved by anyone on any of these forums, yet people use this as proof that he is wrong.

Show me one instance, even one, in his book where he backed his opinion up with research, trials, or experimentation.

How am I making any money on this? The book is online for free for those who find it. I am giving his work away. The wolves come out as soon as soon as they smell blood (as soon as they feel I have been defeated). Even if people don't know it's my father, they will try to tear me to shreds. They can't wait to give that final kick to make sure I'm down for good.

I never said you were making money on it, I said you were selling it. The two don't always go hand in hand.

Not true karrie, he challenges everyone to disagree with him, if they can, but only after they understand these principles. The fact that I say these principles are not being grasped is true. If people still believe that responsibility doesn't go hand in hand with determinism (and therefore the rest of his book can't be right), it is probably because they refuse to put aside the classical definition which is causing a serious stumbling block. In their eyes, this entire book is a contradiction. I can't make headway. Maybe everyone should look at the book as fiction; sort of like the novel 1984. Reading it this way might be more palatable because there won't be this challenge that seems to be putting people on the defensive.

So you can argue with his theory so long as you tacitly agree with it. No wonder so many people 'agree' with him in his arguments, if it's the only way to forward the discussion.

definition of mathematical: 1. of mathematics; having something to do with mathematics: Mathematical problems are not always easy 2. exact; accurate: mathematical measurements syn: precise

Yes, in order to be 'mathematical' something has to have more to do with math than simply someone CALLING it an equation.

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter. Since he assumed that I did not know the answer, he worked on the problem to find out if he thought it could be solved. After two weeks and feeling inadequate to the task, he responded, "My own personal opinion is that it cannot be done, however, I’m not an expert but my professor is. I’ll give it to him." "By the way," he inquired (using the same fallacious standard as the Harvard graduate), "Did you ever study higher mathematics in one of the universities, and if you didn’t, how far did you go in school?" Once again I replied, "Only to the 7th grade."

Sorry, but I'm not certain exactly what his parameters are here, if he's expecting that in the 105 squares nothing be repeated, or if he's merely expecting that in the lines, or the groups of three. But I find it neat that he can profess to knowing that someone else felt inadequate. Clarify the parameters of his problem, it sounds like a fun one to work on. Do the letters have to remain in alphabetical order? Because if not, then it is simply to end up with 105 unique 3 letter combinations when selecting from 15 letters.

I don't think so. He was trying to show that the terms mathematical and scientific were synomous with undeniable. The reason this is so difficult is because people are looking for numbers, even though the two-sided equation is mathematical in the sense that it cannot be denied (if he is right).

it can't be denied if it's right? LOL. Do you get the abusrdity of that statement?

I guess you weren't here yesterday. I think Dexter found an obituary notice about Lessans and my full name was in it. So I had to admit I lied, but I did this only because people would immediately try to use this against me. Now that the cat is out of the bag, what can I say? Yes, I am his daughter. :idea:

You do get that professing a good reason for lying doesn't make it less of a lie, right?

 

[s_lone]

I'm not sure. I certainly don't want people to be turned off and not read any more. The reason he believed the eyes are not a sense organ was because of how words work to condition what we see.

But you don't need to believe that sight is not a sense in order to explain how words work to condition what we see. Words also condition what we hear yet hearing is a sense right? If I put on a CD of music you've never heard and I say ''listen to this horribly cheesy music'', this changes your perception of it. If I say ''listen to how beautiful this music is!'', this will also change your perception. Similarly, some pieces of modern music that most people find ugly can be heard as beautiful once one understands the context in which the work was written and if one is sufficiently trained to grasp the more elaborate harmonies.

The point here is that words and concepts condition all our senses. Not only sight, it's not apart from the rest. Saying a girl is ugly or beautiful changes nothing about the way the atoms of her body are assembled together. And saying a piece of music is ugly changes nothing on how the music itself is made. Yes, words often have nothing to do with the actual exterior objective reality, but photons and air pressure waves do.

If images or photons were entering the brain to be decoded, then people would not be conditioned by words only, but that is exactly what is happening.

You are confusing the concept of ''image'' and ''photons''. Photons are an objective aspect of reality. Images are a subjective part of reality.

We are conditioned by words. BUT NOT ONLY WORDS. The reason that you can't stare at the sun at noon isn't because we call the sun ''bright''. It's because it will actually burn your retina if you stare at it too long! Similarly, the reason why you naturally take your hand out of fire is because it burns you, not because we are conditioned to associate the word ''burning'' with fire.

Did you read that part? We are projecting a word that does not correspond to anything in the real world onto a screen of undeniable substance, which gives the illusion that what we are seeing is accurate.

I did read that part and I think Lessans is terribly confused or misinformed on that issue. As I already explained, it is true that words condition the way we look at things. But that's only half of the picture. Our eyes react to actual photons. Remember that we started seeing before we started communicating with spoken language. Language has a huge impact on how sense data is interpreted. But in no way does that mean that sight is any different from the other senses.

A tremendous amount of hurt has come from the idea that there is a true standard of beauty and therefore of ugliness (even though, within the standard, there are opinions as to who is the most beautiful, or the most ugly) in the world. Afterall, don't we see this 'beauty' and therefore this 'ugliness' with our very eyes? Who wants to be thought of as ugly; as an inferior production of the human race? :-( He did not care whether the eyes were a sense organ or not, but he needed to explain why these words were not symbolic of reality and the reason why.

He didn't care about whether the eyes are a sense organ or not yet he says he actually proves that it isn't (and fails miserably). He did care or else he wouldn't have spoken about it. It's really weird because in the end, he really didn't need all that nonsense to explain his point that we should get rid of hurtful words.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... he did have a remarkable ability to figure math problems out. Maybe I should not have used the word "established". Actually, he did make a contribution to the field; it's just that no one knows about it yet.

I think you probably mean arithmetic and logic puzzles, not math, that's what the little examples in his book are. Math is a much bigger subject than that. Do you remember the titles of any of the math books he read? And you're right, you shouldn't have used the word "established," it makes the claim quite different from what you intended. "He was good at math" is what you meant, and I have no reason to take issue with that. And finally, what is his contribution to the field that nobody knows about yet? If you mean his two sided equation, that's not mathematics. Philosophy and metaphysics maybe, but not mathematics. If he had understood what scientific and mathematical mean to scientists and mathematicians, he would have known better than to use them as synonyms for undeniable.

 

[peacegirl]

Show me one instance, even one, in his book where he backed his opinion up with research, trials, or experimentation.

I already told everyone he used astute observation and sound reasoning.

I never said you were making money on it, I said you were selling it. The two don't always go hand in hand.

If I can't sell my own book, then something is wrong. I am in a democratic country and I am entitled to sell something that I have the right to sell. I am not selling anything on this forum.

So you can argue with his theory so long as you tacitly agree with it. No wonder so many people 'agree' with him in his arguments, if it's the only way to forward the discussion.

That's not the only reason but for those who can't get beyond his proof of determinism, or his observations about conscience, they will have to accept these principles in order to read the rest of the book. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree if they don't, but I don't think they have given this knowledge a chance.

Yes, in order to be 'mathematical' something has to have more to do with math than simply someone CALLING it an equation.

It's an equation because there are two sides. That was his wording and I think it accurately describes how these two principles work together.

Sorry, but I'm not certain exactly what his parameters are here, if he's expecting that in the 105 squares nothing be repeated, or if he's merely expecting that in the lines, or the groups of three. But I find it neat that he can profess to knowing that someone else felt inadequate. Clarify the parameters of his problem, it sounds like a fun one to work on. Do the letters have to remain in alphabetical order? Because if not, then it is simply to end up with 105 unique 3 letter combinations when selecting from 15 letters.

Karrie, I really don't know what the parameters are. I never actually worked on it, but I found the answer in a folder.

it can't be denied if it's right? LOL. Do you get the abusrdity of that statement?

I am walking on eggshells. I added the qualifier [if it's right] for everyone's benefit, so that people wouldn't attack me for saying it can't be denied.

You do get that professing a good reason for lying doesn't make it less of a lie, right?

I admitted I lied. In my mind I had a good reason. Should I be sent to a liar's prison or something? :disgust:

 

[karrie]

Prison? no. But, most adults would just admit to having done something wrong and dishonest, rather than making excuses for having done so.

Karrie, I really don't know what the parameters are. I never actually worked on it, but I found the answer in a folder.

Really? how do you know the answer is correct if you don't understand the question?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Gawd, it's worse than I thought. By googling some of the key phrases in the little logic puzzle about the 105 alphabet cards I just found another thread at a message board called Graveyard of the Gods, where she called herself janispaula, dated 2003. It's obviously the same person, she says exactly the same things as she does here, and at the other 3 message boards where I found her. She's been beating this dead horse for at least 7 years and getting no traction anywhere. This is a fundamentalist preacher and proselytizer folks, she's just fastened on her father's works instead of the Bible or the Quran.

 

[peacegirl]

But you don't need to believe that sight is not a sense in order to explain how words work to condition what we see. Words also condition what we hear yet hearing is a sense right? If I put on a CD of music you've never heard and I say ''listen to this horribly cheesy music'', this changes your perception of it. If I say ''listen to how beautiful this music is!'', this will also change your perception. Similarly, some pieces of modern music that most people find ugly can be heard as beautiful once one understands the context in which the work was written and if one is sufficiently trained to grasp the more elaborate harmonies.

If you say listen to this cheesy music, a person might not want to listen to it because they respect you, and it might even change their perception because we are all influenced by people's opinions, but I don't think that would change their intrinsic feelings about what they are hearing. I also agree that someone can learn to appreciate a certain genre of music if they understand the difficulty. In our society there is also a greater value placed on certain types of music over others, so people will try to listen to that music not so much because they enjoy it, but because it makes them feel more cultured.

The point here is that words and concepts condition all our senses. Not only sight, it's not apart from the rest. Saying a girl is ugly or beautiful changes nothing about the way the atoms of her body are assembled together. And saying a piece of music is ugly changes nothing on how the music itself is made. Yes, words often have nothing to do with the actual exterior objective reality, but photons and air pressure waves do.

Saying a girl is ugly or beautiful changes nothing about the way the atoms of her body are assembled together, but it does change how people see her features. It is this conditioning which is causing the problem, and this is all due to words that are projected onto a screen. When the words are removed, we get a true glimpse of reality.

You are confusing the concept of ''image'' and ''photons''. Photons are an objective aspect of reality. Images are a subjective part of reality.

I was trying to explain that even though Lessans used the word 'image', it is not a strawman because this word can be interchanged with photons. The point is that the photons are not impinging on the optic nerve and going to the brain to be decoded.

We are conditioned by words. BUT NOT ONLY WORDS. The reason that you can't stare at the sun at noon isn't because we call the sun ''bright''. It's because it will actually burn your retina if you stare at it too long! Similarly, the reason why you naturally take your hand out of fire is because it burns you, not because we are conditioned to associate the word ''burning'' with fire.

You're right. Too much light can burn, but that has no bearing on whether the eyes are a sense organ. When you take your hand out of a fire, you are feeling this from your sense of touch. Where does this cause a conflict?

I did read that part and I think Lessans is terribly confused or misinformed on that issue. As I already explained, it is true that words condition the way we look at things. But that's only half of the picture. Our eyes react to actual photons. Remember that we started seeing before we started communicating with spoken language. Language has a huge impact on how sense data is interpreted. But in no way does that mean that sight is any different from the other senses.

Of course we can see before we can speak. But as soon as these words are introduced, children begin to be conditioned to hearing only certain words used with certain features and not with others. As they begin growing up it doesn't take long before they are attracted to those individuals that are considered beautiful not only because of this attraction, but because there is more value placed on those individuals.

He didn't care about whether the eyes are a sense organ or not yet he says he actually proves that it isn't (and fails miserably). He did care or else he wouldn't have spoken about it. It's really weird because in the end, he really didn't need all that nonsense to explain his point that we should get rid of hurtful words.

I think he did need to explain what is actually happening with words, which necessitated that he prove that the eyes are not a sense organ, but proving that the eyes are not a sense organ had no other significance. He writes:

"The knowledge revealed thus far although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me — when the purpose of my discovery is to remove all evil from the world (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relation) — is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have caused more suffering and unhappiness than can be readily imagined."

 

[JLM]

Gawd, it's worse than I thought. By googling some of the key phrases in the little logic puzzle about the 105 alphabet cards I just found another thread at a message board called Graveyard of the Gods, where she called herself janispaula, dated 2003. It's obviously the same person, she says exactly the same things as she does here, and at the other 3 message boards where I found her. She's been beating this dead horse for at least 7 years and getting no traction anywhere. This is a fundamentalist preacher and proselytizer folks, she's just fastened on her father's works instead of the Bible or the Quran.

It's an obsession the poor thing needs psychiatric help..................badly.

 

[peacegirl]

I think you probably mean arithmetic and logic puzzles, not math, that's what the little examples in his book are. Math is a much bigger subject than that. Do you remember the titles of any of the math books he read? And you're right, you shouldn't have used the word "established," it makes the claim quite different from what you intended. "He was good at math" is what you meant, and I have no reason to take issue with that. And finally, what is his contribution to the field that nobody knows about yet? If you mean his two sided equation, that's not mathematics. Philosophy and metaphysics maybe, but not mathematics. If he had understood what scientific and mathematical mean to scientists and mathematicians, he would have known better than to use them as synonyms for undeniable.

We are squabbling over definitions. He was good in math. If that suits you, it suits me too. His contribution will be that he was able to tease out undeniable principles that were never before understood (whether you call them mathematical, scientific, or undeniable). Because these principles are based on a psychological law, and because these principles can help rid our world of the things none of us want, this knowledge will one day contribute to making this a reality. You're right, technically he has not made a contribution to the field of mathematics, but to a much broader base.

It's an obsession the poor thing needs psychiatric help..................badly.

These guys were objectivists. They were the very first group of people I talked to on the internet. I was new at this, and was shocked by the reaction, yet they never put me in their solitology section, which was all about people with crazy ideas. In fact, NoDeity invited me back to have my own subforum, but I didn't like their anything goes policy because people could be quite mean, so I chose not to do it. I also want to mention that they never read the book. I didn't put it online until 2007.

Prison? no. But, most adults would just admit to having done something wrong and dishonest, rather than making excuses for having done so.

I'm not making an excuse. You consider this deception as some major catastrophe. I don't. I lied because it was the better choice under my particular circumstances than telling the truth. I might have lost some credibility...so what else is new? Other than that there was no real harm done.

Really? how do you know the answer is correct if you don't understand the question?

I didn't say I didn't understand the question. I just never tried to solve it on my own. You can easily see by the answer that it's correct because none of the letters are ever together at the same time.

 

[mentalfloss]

You could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you canso you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can so you could if you would but you can't so you won't, but you can