It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.Lessans made major errors in his book. Light and sight. Where does the money come from to maintain the pay for all those people put out of work? You didn't read his solution doc. It was right there in the economic chapter. That proves to me that you read nothing. I did not see anything in the book where Lessans stated the source of the money, If it's there, quote it for me, or tell me where, in the chapter, it is, since you claim to know the book so well.
He did not say that people fall in love with genitals, but sex is important, and when there is no criticism as to a person's choice (which there is in today's world) there will be nothing stopping two people from falling in love who may have been criticized for their choice previously. People will be able to sleep in the same bed if that's what they choose. The only thing that changes is the criticism that says we must sleep in the same bed because this is a condition of marriage. You understand nothing and that's why your responses are so ignorant.Lessans stated that it was mathematically impossible for people to choose to sleep in the same bed. The idea that people could choose to sleep in the same bed was your corruption of Lessans book, but only after people complained that the separate beds idea, wasn't true. No where in the real world does anyone say that people have to sleep in separate beds, that is a result of Hollywood censorship and not depicting married people in the same bed in movies and on TV. Hollywood wouldn't even consider unmarried people sleeping in the same room, back then. Your father must have grown up in an unrealistic fantasy world that totally corrupted his view of the world.
peacegirl - 01 June 2015 04:13 PM That is true, but the photons do not have to travel to Earth for the wavelength to be at your eye…Aaaahh, ambient light!
I thought ambient light was composed of photons? And I would like to know how the wavelength can arrive before the photons? I was under the impression that the wavelength was a property of the photon, rather than a separate entity. Of course Peacegirl will say it's because of efferent vision, without any further explanation.peacegirl - 01 June 2015 04:13 PM That is true, but the photons do not have to travel to Earth for the wavelength to be at your eye…Aaaahh, ambient light!
Aaaahh, ambient light!Don't you know that non absorbed and non reflected photons will hover around you like a cloud of angry Gnats?
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.Firstly, I was responding to your bogus claim that we don't know if he made errors. That is nonsense. He did. Trying to pass them off as minor doesn't change the fact that he made these errors. Secondly, presenting an account of vision that requires photons to be somewhere before they can possibly get there is not a minor error or a typo. It is a huge and significant mistake. So I am obviously not using minor typos against him. I am using his whopping great huge mistake which you have been running away from for years. All you, David, and doc are doing is trying to find anything you can to make yourself believe that he wasn't capable of making such a discovery. In your mind it makes no sense therefore it has to be wrong. Calling out little errors is just that; an effort to discredit him for reasons that have nothing to do with his discoveries. He was human and therefore not invincible, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with his accurate observations. I'll guarantee you that Edison made trivial mistakes too but not when it came to his discovery. BTW, he was a mathematician in his own right. This was a simple math question. He did not make any errors in his calculations. It was a typo. I don't care what you think Spacemonkey. You also have a vendetta against him because his claim doesn't make sense to you, but you are not the end all. I will find scientists who will desire to do more testing, and if I die before this happens, my children or other people who are interested in this claim will help in this effort. Could you be any more transparently disingenuous? Again, I am not using his small errors against him. I am using his gigantically huge whopping mistake of presenting an account of vision that requires photons to be somewhere before they can possibly get there against him. Meanwhile, his lone supporter seems to think that if she closes her eyes and pretends the objection isn't there, then no-one will notice and it will go away.
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.Firstly, I was responding to your bogus claim that we don't know if he made errors. That is nonsense. He did. Trying to pass them off as minor doesn't change the fact that he made these errors. Secondly, presenting an account of vision that requires photons to be somewhere before they can possibly get there is not a minor error or a typo. It is a huge and significant mistake. So I am obviously not using minor typos against him. I am using his whopping great huge mistake which you have been running away from for years. All you, David, and doc are doing is trying to find anything you can to make yourself believe that he wasn't capable of making such a discovery. In your mind it makes no sense therefore it has to be wrong. Calling out little errors is just that; an effort to discredit him for reasons that have nothing to do with his discoveries. He was human and therefore not invincible, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with his accurate observations. I'll guarantee you that Edison made trivial mistakes too but not when it came to his discovery. BTW, he was a mathematician in his own right. This was a simple math question. He did not make any errors in his calculations. It was a typo. I don't care what you think Spacemonkey. You also have a vendetta against him because his claim doesn't make sense to you, but you are not the end all. I will find scientists who will desire to do more testing, and if I die before this happens, my children or other people who are interested in this claim will help in this effort. Could you be any more transparently disingenuous? Again, I am not using his small errors against him. I am using his gigantically huge whopping mistake of presenting an account of vision that requires photons to be somewhere before they can possibly get there against him. Meanwhile, his lone supporter seems to think that if she closes her eyes and pretends the objection isn't there, then no-one will notice and it will go away. This will go on and on and on ad infinitum. You can be angry at Lessans and me for the rest of your life, and it won't solve a thing. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and do more experiments with this claim in mind. BTW, you are using these small errors to condemn him on the "bigger one" to try to convince yourself and others that he was wrong. This is sneaky and disingenuous and doesn't prove a thing! >:(
This will go on and on and on ad infinitum. You can be angry at Lessans and me for the rest of your life, and it won't solve a thing. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and do more experiments with this claim in mind. BTW, you are using these small errors to condemn him on the "bigger one" to try to convince yourself and others that he was wrong. This is sneaky and disingenuous and doesn't prove a thing! >:(It will go on as long as you keep lying and evading, instead of facing up to the fact that light can't be somewhere before it gets there.
We can only have same past same future type free will.
Therefore to have done otherwise circumstances beyond our control would have had to have been different.
And if they were appropriately different we would have done otherwise.
There is an obvious sense in which this makes who gets to do what a lottery.
It’s also obvious that people ordinarily think we have some way of overcoming this luck.
The question is how much harm is that doing if at all?
Calling it obvious doesn’t make it any less wrong.
This will go on and on and on ad infinitum. You can be angry at Lessans and me for the rest of your life, and it won't solve a thing. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and do more experiments with this claim in mind. BTW, you are using these small errors to condemn him on the "bigger one" to try to convince yourself and others that he was wrong. This is sneaky and disingenuous and doesn't prove a thing! >:(It will go on as long as you keep lying and evading, instead of facing up to the fact that light can't be somewhere before it gets there. What you are saying displays an angry person who is upset that his entire worldview is collapsing. I hope people can see through you Spacemonkey. All you are doing is condemning Lessans for no other reason that you disagree with him based on what you have based your entire life on, literally. But your disagreement doesn't prove you right. That's the key point here, and it will not go away just because you personally don't like his claim.
This will go on and on and on ad infinitum. You can be angry at Lessans and me for the rest of your life, and it won't solve a thing. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and do more experiments with this claim in mind. BTW, you are using these small errors to condemn him on the "bigger one" to try to convince yourself and others that he was wrong. This is sneaky and disingenuous and doesn't prove a thing! >:(It will go on as long as you keep lying and evading, instead of facing up to the fact that light can't be somewhere before it gets there. What you are saying displays an angry person who is upset that his entire worldview is collapsing. I hope people can see through you Spacemonkey. All you are doing is condemning Lessans for no other reason that you disagree with him based on what you have based your entire life on, literally. But your disagreement doesn't prove you right. That's the key point here, and it will not go away just because you personally don't like his claim. More projection and evasion. Try being honest for once. Try facing up to the fact that photons prove you wrong.
This will go on and on and on ad infinitum. You can be angry at Lessans and me for the rest of your life, and it won't solve a thing. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and do more experiments with this claim in mind. BTW, you are using these small errors to condemn him on the "bigger one" to try to convince yourself and others that he was wrong. This is sneaky and disingenuous and doesn't prove a thing! >:(It will go on as long as you keep lying and evading, instead of facing up to the fact that light can't be somewhere before it gets there. What you are saying displays an angry person who is upset that his entire worldview is collapsing. I hope people can see through you Spacemonkey. All you are doing is condemning Lessans for no other reason that you disagree with him based on what you have based your entire life on, literally. But your disagreement doesn't prove you right. That's the key point here, and it will not go away just because you personally don't like his claim. More projection and evasion. Try being honest for once. Try facing up to the fact that photons prove you wrong. No, you will not get away with this, as if your perception is all that is. You never gave this account serious thought, so your refutation means nothing. I am so tired of defending this claim to you, it's better that you leave or you will force me to leave. I know that's what you want.
No, you will not get away with this, as if your perception is all that is. You never gave this account serious thought, so your refutation means nothing. I am so tired of defending this claim to you, it's better that you leave or you will force me to leave. I know that's what you want.It doesn't matter if you go or not, or where you go, even if this group doesn't find you there will always be someone who will point out the errors in the book and your delusions. I don't think there is anyone here who still holds the hope of bringing you back to reality, that ship sailed a long time ago. So you might as well continue in your delusions, and reap the abuse, since it brings you greater satisfaction to do so.
No, you will not get away with this, as if your perception is all that is. You never gave this account serious thought, so your refutation means nothing. I am so tired of defending this claim to you, it's better that you leave or you will force me to leave. I know that's what you want.It doesn't matter if you go or not, or where you go, even if this group doesn't find you there will always be someone who will point out the errors in the book and your delusions. I don't think there is anyone here who still holds the hope of bringing you back to reality, that ship sailed a long time ago. So you might as well continue in your delusions, and reap the abuse, since it brings you greater satisfaction to do so. You are the least person to know whether this book has validity or not. All you do is bloviate! If I start a discussion on my facebook or twitter page, I will block you.
TRENDS IN PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
Unearthed Lessans Manuscript Declares Sun to be Giant Taco Powered by Rat Farts
CENTER FOR INQUIRY (Internet News Service) – The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts, it was disclosed on Wednesday.
The startling revelation came in a Seymour Lessans manuscript recently discovered in an old trunk in a Baltimore billiard hall.
“Scientists have long assumed that the sun is a celestial fusion reactor,” said E. Mota Khan, a message-board analyst with the RAND Corporation. “It was believed that the sun, a main-sequence star, generates energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium, releasing photons in the process. In its core, the sun was believed to have fused 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. Now we know better. Scientists were well-meaning, but they got it wrong. After all, everyone makes mistakes.”
The sun, Khan astutely observed, “is instead a giant taco powered by rat farts. We know this because Seymour Lessans said so. He was a humble man, and if he had ever been wrong, he would have said so. Since he never said that he was wrong, he must have been right.”
At press time, Lessans’ daughter, peacegirl, was frantically recalibrating her online posts to defend the notion that the sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. “Oh, noooooo, Spacemonkey,” she recently posted. “The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. You can’t see this undeniable knowledge because you have a mental block and a vendetta against my father because he has overturned your precious world view.”
. All you do is bloviate!Can I put that on my resume?
Calling it obvious doesn't make it any less wrong.It really is the no brainer of philosophy. The controversy over this has nothing to do with the facts. People imagine they lose power worth wanting if it's the luck of the draw who gets to do what. That's understandable we are in a pretty crap situation I'm afraid. But we only have to look around at all the suffering people go through to know that, there is no magic escape or those people would take it and make better choices. But having bitten the bullet on that we do have the opportunity to be fairer and kinder if we drop the nasty fiction that people have libertarian free will. We are controlled by circumstances beyond our control. This is the undeniable fact. Well you can deny it by getting into a semantic battle. But that's just word games. The puppet strings are there assuming (standard) determinism The puppet analogy is bad in that it leaves out the machinery inside our heads and because there is no one on the end of the strings. But the strings are there and to do otherwise they would have had to tug us in a different direction. It's very unkind to deny this. So I'm in a restaurant with a bean allergy and I order the steak. Someone else with a bean allergy orders beans and gets ill. I think what an idiot he could have chosen steak he deserves his suffering I have no sympathy he brought it upon himself. This way of thinking is bullshit. He was tugged by his causal strings. He might not have been, it might have been me. Sheer fluke it wasn't me. Denial of this is really quite nasty. And because it's nasty I'd be surprised if it doesn't make us nasty.
peacegirl - 01 June 2015 04:13 PM That is true, but the photons do not have to travel to Earth for the wavelength to be at your eye…Can you explain how the wavelength can become separated from the photon?
If I start a discussion on my facebook or twitter page, I will block you.Or I could find a proxy to post for me.