Revolution in Thought

[Belinda]

Your words ring flat. Until you understand what this discovery is about, you are talking from ignorance.

Preciousss.

Obviously you didn’t read my posts. You’ve jumped to a false conclusion which causes you to scuff at me. I’ve been explaining what this knowledge is about. I haven’t just said “Trust me” therefore I have not done what you are accusing me of. You are a jaded individual who comes on like a bully with a bulldozer. You have asked nothing that I could answer yet you assume I haven’t tried to answer every and all questions. My answers may create more questions which is understandable when no one here has read the book. This is why a work is important to read, not just base their opinion on cliff notes. I hope you think about how difficult this has been considering the controversial nature of the topic and the fact that the author had no affiliation and was not asking for funding. It’s not surprising that people will listen to the bully who is usually the meanest and the the loudest and the most ignorant. There’s usually one or two in he crowd. Sadly, this may end my time here. If it is I want to leave the reader with the first three chapters that have posted before. I hope it will be read without prejudgement which is the only way these principles can be understood. If anyone wants to join my grassroots movement to bring this knowledge to light, I hope you will subscribe to my fledgling Facebook page: www.facebook.com/SafeworldPublishingCompany.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... apters.pdf

Why did you not learn this theory the conventional way by doing an undergraduate course, or at least seeking advice from some teacher about a course of study?

[peacegirl]

Preciousss.

Obviously you didn’t read my posts. You’ve jumped to a false conclusion which causes you to scuff at me. I’ve been explaining what this knowledge is about. I haven’t just said “Trust me” therefore I have not done what you are accusing me of. You are a jaded individual who comes on like a bully with a bulldozer. You have asked nothing that I could answer yet you assume I haven’t tried to answer every and all questions. My answers may create more questions which is understandable when no one here has read the book. This is why a work is important to read, not just base their opinion on cliff notes. I hope you think about how difficult this has been considering the controversial nature of the topic and the fact that the author had no affiliation and was not asking for funding. It’s not surprising that people will listen to the bully who is usually the meanest and the the loudest and the most ignorant. There’s usually one or two in he crowd. Sadly, this may end my time here. If it is I want to leave the reader with the first three chapters that have posted before. I hope it will be read without prejudgement which is the only way these principles can be understood. If anyone wants to join my grassroots movement to bring this knowledge to light, I hope you will subscribe to my fledgling Facebook page: www.facebook.com/SafeworldPublishingCompany.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... apters.pdf

Why did you not learn this theory the conventional way by doing an undergraduate course, or at least seeking advice from some teacher about a course of study?

Belinda, not all discoverers go that route. You are standardizing the route in which a discovery can be made. This is why my introduction was long-winded. I needed to share why this author had such a hard time. It was not because he didn’t have something of importance to offer, but because he was an autodat, and was not taken seriously by the academic elite. That’s what happened to him yet when I tell the truth, the bullies come out of the woodwork and mock.

[Lacewing]

This is why my introduction was long-winded.

Look at your opening post. There is nothing long-winded or descriptive about it. It was only after people pressed you to explain why you started this thread, that you provided a link to an unrealistic amount of information for people to wade through.

when I tell the truth, the bullies come out of the woodwork and mock.

So now you're a bullied victim for telling the truth?

When are you going to honestly start taking responsibility and stop blaming everyone else for your own failures? Your "truth" is very controlled and limited in a way that suits you... and it shuts out all else.

I am understanding, now, why you've had a reputation. Maybe if you'd stop making excuses and dismissing everyone, you could evolve beyond that. I wish you well. Your truth is not the only truth, however, and it's good that people keep pointing that out to you whether you find it pleasing or not.

[peacegirl]

This is why my introduction was long-winded.

Look at your opening post. There is nothing long-winded or descriptive about it. It was only after people pressed you to explain why you started this thread, that you provided a link to an unrealistic amount of information for people to wade through.

This is not my first rodeo. There is a pattern in forums that make it difficult to share because everybody wants to be spoon fed. I can’t do that without the possibility of compromising the concept. I also tried to accommodate people by telling them where they can start if they want to skip the introduction and part of Chapter One.

when I tell the truth, the bullies come out of the woodwork and mock.

So now you're a bullied victim for telling the truth?

I’m a bullied victim because I’m being bullied.

When are you going to honestly start taking responsibility and stop blaming everyone else for your own failures? Your "truth" is very controlled and limited in a way that suits you... and it shuts out all else.

I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just a little dismayed. It’s not my truth Lacewing. It’s either an invariable law or it’s not.

I am understanding, now, why you've had a reputation. Maybe if you'd stop making excuses and dismissing everyone, you could evolve beyond that. I wish you well. Your truth is not the only truth, however, and it's good that people keep pointing that out to you whether you find it pleasing or not.

Once again, the fact that man’s will is not free is either true or it’s not. I’m just showing an explanation as to why free will doesn’t exist. This is not my truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

The author explains his position coherently in the beginning, people should either read the book or shut up. Peace girl is being bullied around, which is not a surprise considering the egos of the people on this forum...most are just idiots.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

Belinda, not all discoverers go that route. You are standardizing the route in which a discovery can be made. This is why my introduction was long-winded. I needed to share why this author had such a hard time. It was not because he didn’t have something of importance to offer, but because he was an autodat, and was not taken seriously by the academic elite. That’s what happened to him yet when I tell the truth, the bullies come out of the woodwork and mock.

The standard route to knowledge is no better and no worse than your eccentric route to knowledge :except for the practical reason that the standard route is in line with the academic elite who as a matter of fact hold the cards of power in the matter of knowledge.
So it's quixotic to fight against the current.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote:

Belinda, not all discoverers go that route. You are standardizing the route in which a discovery can be made. This is why my introduction was long-winded. I needed to share why this author had such a hard time. It was not because he didn’t have something of importance to offer, but because he was an autodat, and was not taken seriously by the academic elite. That’s what happened to him yet when I tell the truth, the bullies come out of the woodwork and mock.

The standard route to knowledge is no better and no worse than your eccentric route to knowledge :except for the practical reason that the standard route is in line with the academic elite who as a matter of fact hold the cards of power in the matter of knowledge.
So it's quixotic to fight against the current.

They hold the cards, but they're not always right which could be unfortunate for society. This author explained that his informal learning was greater than what he could have learned in college. He was an independent thinker and thought outside of the box. If he had gone to college he may never have made this discovery because he would have been satisfied with what was being taught.

You wrote: Why did you not learn this theory the conventional way by doing an undergraduate course, or at least seeking advice from some teacher about a course of study?

You're assuming advice wasn't sought after. If you had read the introduction you would have seen the great effort the author went through to contact universities, but because he wasn't affiliated he couldn't get an audience, not because of the quality of his work. I understand that there are frauds out there, and that the screening process is used to try to separate the wheat from the chaff, but just because someone didn't go to a university doesn't automatically mean a 30 year work should be thrown into a scrap heap.

[Eodnhoj7]

Peacegirl wrote:

Belinda, not all discoverers go that route. You are standardizing the route in which a discovery can be made. This is why my introduction was long-winded. I needed to share why this author had such a hard time. It was not because he didn’t have something of importance to offer, but because he was an autodat, and was not taken seriously by the academic elite. That’s what happened to him yet when I tell the truth, the bullies come out of the woodwork and mock.

The standard route to knowledge is no better and no worse than your eccentric route to knowledge :except for the practical reason that the standard route is in line with the academic elite who as a matter of fact hold the cards of power in the matter of knowledge.
So it's quixotic to fight against the current.

The current is dying, we can look at the world they gave us.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you going to tell me that if you had two choices, a world of peace and brotherhood or a world of war and conflict, you would choose the world with war and conflict?

This is a false dichotomy.

I would like to introduce you to the concept of Iatrogenics.

Where intervention (trying to fix something you don't understand) can lead to even worse outcomes.

https://fs.blog/2013/10/iatrogenics/

Iatrogenics is when a treatment causes more harm than benefit. As iatros means healer in Greek, the word means “caused by the healer” or “brought by the healer.” Healer, in this sense, need not mean doctor, but anyone intervening to solve a problem. For example, it could be a thought leader, a CEO, a government, or a coalition of the willing. Nassim Taleb calls these people inventionistas. Often these people come armed with solutions to solve the first order consequences of a decision but create worse second and subsequent order consequences. Luckily, for them at least, they’re never around to see the train wreck they created.

And that is the paradox of computing.

[Logik]

And that is the paradox of computing.

Blame not the tool for our human failures, any more than you would blame the knife for being used to stab somebody to death.

Without intent tools do nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

And that is the paradox of computing.

Blame not the tool for our human failures, any more than you would blame the knife for being used to stab somebody to death.

Without intent tools do nothing.

But man is measurer.

[Logik]

But man is measurer.

That we are. Some yardsticks are worse calibrated than others on measuring complex issues.

[peacegirl]

It’s so very sad that no one has asked me a relevant question regarding the chapters I’ve graciously given this forum. The assumptions that have been made about me are fabricated. If there is the slightest possibility that this is not a joke, that I understand what I’m sharing, then isn’t reading the first 3 chapters worth the risk of it not being what you hoped it would be? Think about this: if this author is correct you would be bypassing a discovery only because you pooh poohed the possibility that he could be right without examining the proof. I thought philosophy groups were objective think tanks: true investigators. I have found this across the board not to be the case. You will never know what this knowledge offers unless you understand his reasoning? I challenge you to find a flaw after you read what he has written, not before. What is 100 + pages to read if there is the possibility that this discovery is the real deal and not a waste of your time? I am not pulling the wool over your eyes but if no one shows any interest I will move on. I do understand the skepticism but just because other claims turned out to be false doesn’t mean this claim is false. All I have ever asked is for this author to be given a fair tribunal. Just bear in mind how long it took for the knowledge that the earth was round took to be recognized as true.

[henry quirk]

pg,

I'll have comments (and mebbe questions) this afternoon.

[Logik]

You will never know what this knowledge offers unless you understand his reasoning?

This is the crux why I won't waste my time reading it.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
The kind of knowledge you can achieve through pure reason is "know that". This is a posteriori knowledge.
The kind of knowledge that matters in this universe is "know how". This is a priori knowledge.

The author does not appear to have any practical experience in dealing with complexity and scale.
Yet another armchair genius who thinks the world's problems can be solved by thinking about them a lot!

That not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works...