Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:59 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:43 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:42 pm This is a genuine discovery, but if you don't believe it because it's hard to fathom that someone could be offering something of real value on a philosophy page, then please don't waste your time here. Find something more to your liking. There are many threads you can participate in.
Dismantling bullshit that masques as 'knowledge' is more to my liking.

It doesn't matter the reason you're here, you're moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Thank you for confirming what is true.

Logik wrote:That's why I am a scientist. It's taken a lot of "going against gratification" to earn this mindset.

Going against gratification does not grant you free will. OMG! You don't get it at all because you're not trying. You seem to hope this is not true, but it is true. We don't have free will.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:01 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:59 pm Going against gratification does not grant you free will. OMG! You don't get it at all because you're not trying. You seem to hope this is not true, but it is true. We don't have free will.

Yes. I 100% understand your point. Nothing grants me free will because it's an unfalsifiable law of nature!

The ONLY unfalsifiable law we have ever discovered.

How can you 'hope' that it's not true if it's unfalsifiable? You are stuck with it like an incurable STD!

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:14 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:56 pm I won't be convinced to cross a bridge that is rickety due to bad math.

Well, bridges are only for the body to move over obstacles, and since you're not this body exclusively, well there you have it ... a partial picture.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:53 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:01 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:59 pm Going against gratification does not grant you free will. OMG! You don't get it at all because you're not trying. You seem to hope this is not true, but it is true. We don't have free will.
Yes. I 100% understand your point. Nothing grants me free will because it's an unfalsifiable law of nature!

The ONLY unfalsifiable law we have ever discovered.

Don't call it a law then. Call it something else if it makes you have less angst. It makes no difference to me what label you give it.

Logik wrote:How can you 'hope' that it's not true if it's unfalsifiable? You are stuck with it like an incurable STD!

With all due respect, your logic is not all that it's cracked up to be. You think you are finding a flaw, but you're not and I won't continue defending what I know to be true. If I can't get any interest, you won't have to move on, I will, but I will leave people with the link again to the first three chapters. The pomposity of philosophers, in particular, is quite disturbing.

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best
of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific
enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank
ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl
Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out
to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are
adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the
tyranny they seek to resist.

These modern skeptics are sometimes the
most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of
science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth.
And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real
crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet.
Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however
barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank. In
many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in
action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and
ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom. And
empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted
derision.

The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its
simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and
rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries
that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge. The
reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is
strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by leading skeptics
to compel a more widespread adoption in the community of the
rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of opposition, and the putting
down of anyone unwise enough to step out of line by publicly
embracing taboo ideas.

The taboo reaction in such simple cases is
eventually dispelled because the facts — and the value of the
discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger than the taboo belief;
but there remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos
prove stronger (or more valuable) than the discoveries to which they
are applied. In its more subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle
around a subject and places it ‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational
analysis or investigation. In doing so, science often puts up what
appears to be a well-considered, fundamental objection, which on
closer analysis turns out to be no more than the unreflecting
prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the idea of
mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is
that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well
hold important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any
benefits they may contain are denied us.

Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the
Scientific Establishment” by Richard Milton

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:03 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:53 pm Don't call it a law then. Call it something else if it makes you have less angst. It makes no difference to me what label you give it.

That's what I am doing.

I am calling it unfalsifiable "truth".
I am calling it an axiom.

I am calling it dogma.

It's a religion.

You can no more prove that man's will is not free than I can prove that it is.
It's just an assumption on which to build your belief-system on.

I much prefer to remain neutral on such things and admit that I don't know the answer.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:09 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:03 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:53 pm Don't call it a law then. Call it something else if it makes you have less angst. It makes no difference to me what label you give it.
That's what I am doing.

I am calling it unfalsifiable "truth".
I am calling it an axiom.

I am calling it dogma.

It's a religion.

You can no more prove that man's will is not free than I can prove that it is.
It's just an assumption on which to build your belief-system on.

I much prefer to remain neutral on such things and admit that I don't know the answer.

You are 100% wrong.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:10 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:09 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:03 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:53 pm Don't call it a law then. Call it something else if it makes you have less angst. It makes no difference to me what label you give it.
That's what I am doing.

I am calling it unfalsifiable "truth".
I am calling it an axiom.

I am calling it dogma.

It's a religion.

You can no more prove that man's will is not free than I can prove that it is.
It's just an assumption on which to build your belief-system on.

I much prefer to remain neutral on such things and admit that I don't know the answer.
You are 100% wrong.

Or 100% right.

Guess we will never know which.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:18 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:10 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:09 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:03 pm
That's what I am doing.

I am calling it unfalsifiable "truth".
I am calling it an axiom.

I am calling it dogma.

It's a religion.

You can no more prove that man's will is not free than I can prove that it is.
It's just an assumption on which to build your belief-system on.

I much prefer to remain neutral on such things and admit that I don't know the answer.
You are 100% wrong.
Or 100% right.

Guess we will never know which.

You have no idea what the discovery even is or how it will benefit this world because you never got that far. You're jumping to a terribly wrong conclusion, but so be it. I can't keep defending this knowledge when all people do is say it can't be right, it's wrong, it's a religion, it's dogma, it's unfalsifiable, na na na na na, yet they won't take the time to read.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:25 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:18 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:10 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:09 pm

You are 100% wrong.
Or 100% right.

Guess we will never know which.
You have no idea what the discovery even is or how it will benefit this world because you never got that far. You're jumping to a terribly wrong conclusion, but so be it. I can't keep defending this knowledge when all people do is say it can't be right, it's wrong, it's a religion, it's dogma, it's unfalsifiable, na na na na na, yet they won't take the time to read.

Correct.

You told me it is unfalsifiable.

And that is all I needed to know that it is junk.

Reading won’t make it falsifiable.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:16 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:53 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:27 pm Are you being serious? It leads right into it. You stay because your preference is to stay (for whatever reason), IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION, otherwise you would leave. That means leaving was not an option a few moments ago because you would have been moving in the direction of dissatisfaction when a greater satisfaction was available (staying).
Are YOU being serious? It proves your "law" incorrect!

It’s not my law.

“Logik” wrote:I stay because DESPITE having the (far more satisfactory) option to leave.
I CHOOSE to remain despite it being painful and unpleasant for reasons that you fail to comprehend.

You remain even if it’s painful because you feel compelled to prove me wrong. I explained that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction doesn’t mean you’re always satisfied. It could mean you are choosing between alternatives where none are satisfactory so you are choosing the least distasteful.

“Logik” wrote:This means that leaving (despite it being an option) is not being exercised. I can exercise it any moment.

Of course you can leave at any moment. Each moment offers a new set of options. Where have you been? I explained this. You’re going by the conventional definition of determinism which would make you a robot.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:27 pm You could try to outwit this law by saying you are now going to leave, but this doesn't negate this law. It just means your desire to prove me wrong by leaving (which has changed your preference in the direction of greater satisfaction) has led you to believe this would be proof that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which it doesn't.

“Logik” wrote:I am telling you that I feel neither gratification nor satisfaction by staying here.
You insist that I do.

I never mentioned the word gratification and I explained that greater satisfaction only means choosing the best option that you find most preferable under your particular circumstances. You’re misconstruing what “greater satisfaction” means in this context.

“Logik” wrote:So now you are going to tell me how and what to feel?

What else is it that you think you can you tell me about me?

This has nothing to do with telling you how or what to feel. It’s not even relevant.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:34 am**

So given that you are the person reheating Seymour Lassan's tired old books, can we assume you also manage his Twitter account, which is promoting an Anti Vax documentary for people who want their children to die?

If any of this stuff from the Amazon review is accurate, there is really no point in trying to hawk this miserable work to anyone who isn't directly retarded.

Amazon reviewer wrote: 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.

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.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

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.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:56 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:25 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:18 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:10 pm
Or 100% right.

Guess we will never know which.
You have no idea what the discovery even is or how it will benefit this world because you never got that far. You're jumping to a terribly wrong conclusion, but so be it. I can't keep defending this knowledge when all people do is say it can't be right, it's wrong, it's a religion, it's dogma, it's unfalsifiable, na na na na na, yet they won't take the time to read.
Correct.

You told me it is unfalsifiable.

And that is all I needed to know that it is junk.

Reading won’t make it falsifiable.

But IT can be falsified if the principles don’t work. They will though because this is a genuine discovery!

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:01 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:34 am So given that you are the person reheating Seymour Lassan's tired old books, can we assume you also manage his Twitter account, which is promoting an Anti Vax documentary for people who want their children to die?

If any of this stuff from the Amazon review is accurate, there is really no point in trying to hawk this miserable work to anyone who isn't directly retarded.
Amazon reviewer wrote: 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.
This was an outright lie. He wanted to hurt my chances to bring this knowledge to light and he did a good job. There’s not one ounce of force in anything that was written. If you want to believe this guy who had a vendetta, by all means go for it.

“FlashDangerPants” wrote: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.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

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.
Right now I’m only focusing on his proof that man does not have free will. This guy wrote a disgusting review because he resented the author’s claim regarding the eyes. He never read the book and made misleading statements about force. There’s no force at all. Amazon won’t remove these lies. All I can do is get reviewers to give a commentary that reflects what was written, not a fabrication. Are you new here?

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:14 am**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:34 am So given that you are the person reheating Seymour Lassan's tired old books, can we assume you also manage his Twitter account, which is promoting an Anti Vax documentary for people who want their children to die?

If any of this stuff from the Amazon review is accurate, there is really no point in trying to hawk this miserable work to anyone who isn't directly retarded.
Amazon reviewer wrote: 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.
This was an outright lie. He wanted to hurt my chances to bring this knowledge to light and he did a good job. There’s not one ounce of force in anything that was written. If you want to believe this guy who had a vendetta, by all means go for it.

“FlashDangerPants” wrote: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.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

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.
Right now I’m only focusing on his proof that man does not have free will. This guy wrote a disgusting review because he resented the author’s claim regarding the eyes. He never read the book and made misleading statements about force. There’s no force at all. Facebook won’t remove these lies. All I can do is get reviewers to give a commentary that reflects what was written, not a fabrication. Are you new here?

Okay, so you're denying the use of force. you aren't denying the reincarnation or whatever the author's stuff about eyes is. those are just things you choose not to discuss with people who haven't bought your book?

Is your whole thing just Scientology's cheap cousin?

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:21 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:14 am
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:34 am So given that you are the person reheating Seymour Lassan's tired old books, can we assume you also manage his Twitter account, which is promoting an Anti Vax documentary for people who want their children to die?

If any of this stuff from the Amazon review is accurate, there is really no point in trying to hawk this miserable work to anyone who isn't directly retarded.

This was an outright lie. He wanted to hurt my chances to bring this knowledge to light and he did a good job. There’s not one ounce of force in anything that was written. If you want to believe this guy who had a vendetta, by all means go for it.

Right now I’m only focusing on his proof that man does not have free will. This guy wrote a disgusting review because he resented the author’s claim regarding the eyes. He never read the book and made misleading statements about force. There’s no force at all. Facebook won’t remove these lies. All I can do is get reviewers to give a commentary that reflects what was written, not a fabrication. Are you new here?
Okay, so you're denying the use of force. you aren't denying the reincarnation or whatever the author's stuff about eyes is. those are just things you choose not to discuss with people who haven't bought your book?

Is your whole thing just Scientology's cheap cousin?

The cynicism is becoming more and more outrageous.

Philosophy Now Forum

Revolution in Thought

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: Revolution in Thought

Re: Revolution in Thought