We don't see beauty and ugliness (not figuratively) from nowhere. We are trained by words to see certain things as more beautiful when in actuality it's just a word without any reality whatsoever.
No, we are trained by experience (including, but not limited to, social conditioning). Beauty is not absolute, and different cultures and societies have different standards of beauty.
That is true and that culture is conditioned to liking certain features if they hear over and over again that these features are more beautiful or more ugly. I will only continue if you read these excerpts otherwise there's no point in beating a dead horse, as I already said.
If you were taught one word, orange, which included within that symbol a grapefruit and tangerine, you would hand me any one of the three if I asked for an orange, but when you learn the other two words, which photograph the difference, then you could not hand me a tangerine or grapefruit if I asked for an orange. The reason we have a word for the sun and a word for the moon is because these two bodies are different, and the reason we have a planet named Earth, one named Saturn, Venus, etc. is only because these are not one and the same planet, and we have separated them by calling them different names. However, the reason we do not call the moon a planet is because we learned it does not function like one, therefore it does not fall in the same category. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head. In the course of our children’s development, they learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations, not only because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol itself but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you how this was accomplished.
From the time we were small children, our relatives, parents, friends, and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and dislikes regarding people’s physiognomies. The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over and over again with an enhancing inflection as to someone’s physical appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives that also contained the degree of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard repeatedly with a detracting inflection as to someone’s physical characteristics took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went on, a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities contained a lesser value than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed only in our head. It would not be long before we would be conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the other, and as we would get older, you would not be able to convince us that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist because we had witnessed these differences with our very eyes. In other words, when a word contains a judgment of value, a standard of perfection, then we are able to project this value directly onto substance, and then because we see this with our very eyes, it was a simple thing to convince ourselves that beauty was a definite part of the real world. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external values when there are no such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie projector.
Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look — there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally.
Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external reality, and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which makes the projection appear real. By having the words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve, which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses that were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.
The belief in the eyes being a sense organ has allowed innumerable words to come into existence, which has caused people to be judged as an inferior production of the human race. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in a world where all such words were removed, where nobody, including ourselves, would be judged in terms of ugliness, homeliness, prettiness, and so forth. Remember, however, that when these negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from seeing differences that appeal to us more, but instead of saying, “She is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen,” which places other girls in a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say, “She appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen,” which makes it obvious that the value we see exists only for us. The first expression requires that ugly girls exist because certain type features are considered superior, while the second expression only observes that other girls appeal to us less, which makes everybody equal in value except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that describe people as good looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad looking, this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality and respect. However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction, although the change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become happy. And are we given a choice when to continue using these words after we have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which we will never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for believing the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes a sense organ when we know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the truth?
It is true, however, that we are so conditioned by these words that even their removal will not make us like someone more who appeals to us less. But when children are brought up without ever hearing these words, there is no telling to whom they might be attracted without being adversely judged. For example, if two boys decide to approach two girls having never been conditioned with words like beautiful and ugly, they might be attracted, without envy, each to the other, but when their heads are filled with fallacious standards of value that have been concealed in words, it is obvious that they will prefer the one that conforms more closely to this standard of perfection or beauty because this meets with greater approval and less criticism. This approval by others is in no way an external value; in other words, your approval of what I do has a value for me, but unless I want this, it has no value for me at all. If I don’t like the criticism, I will try to conform to a standard that avoids what I don’t like, but this is a relation between myself and what exists outside of me.
“Well, is it a fallacious value when certain differences are admired and respected more by the majority of the world? For example, is it a fallacious value when — pardon the fallacious expression — a beautiful girl attracts a millionaire who desires to marry her because of her beauty? I’d say these values are pretty real regardless of whether we call these differences by one name or another, right? If one thousand males have to choose between two females and the entire thousand pick one in preference to the other, do you mean to say that the differences that attracted them are not a part of the external world?”
“Of course these differences are a part of the external world, just as the difference between the moon and the sun is a part of the external world, and just as the difference between a cat and a rat is externally real, but this has nothing to do with value. In other words, if you choose a cat as a pet because you like felines, this has personal value for you. There are some people who like rodents and would pick the rat as their choice, which has personal value for them. In reality, there is no such thing as an external value. If you are drawn to hire an individual because he meets certain requirements or if he judges for himself that he qualifies (as will happen in the new world), this only means that he is more valuable to you, the employer; and if one thousand people think the same way this doesn’t mean that the differences they prefer have external value although the differences in substance are externally real. Value is nothing other than a word to describe what you personally want or like.”
“Do you mean that one man’s meat is another man’s poison... and doesn’t this go back to the idea that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? I’m still confused as to why this expression isn’t correct when it is expressing someone’s personal taste.”
“There is quite a difference between both expressions because meat and poison are external realities, but, as we have learned, beauty has no external reality whatsoever. I may not like certain types of meat, but I don’t create the meat with a word to symbolize its existence, whereas the word beauty does this by placing a greater value on certain specific differences (that undeniably exist and are a part of the external world), which value only has existence for the internal world, that is, for what I personally like or desire. For example, if I call one shaped nose aquiline and another straight, then I am accurately symbolizing an external difference, but if I say a straight nose is beautiful and an aquiline nose is ugly, then I am projecting through my eyes an internal value that has no external existence onto a screen of differences that are externally undeniable. Consequently, when any words are used that contain an internal value, something that you recognize as having more value for you, which is then projected as a part of the external world, it is then made to appear that this value exists outside of you because you see it with your very eyes. As a result of words, man was actually able to do the impossible. He was able to stratify differences in people into layers of value when it is mathematically impossible for anything of value to exist in the external world. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in an atmosphere where there were no values that were imposed as standards by the unconscious or conscious judgment of others?”
I hsve no idea what this is supposed to even mean. We see light ONLY. Because eyes are light detectors, and seeing is what we call it when our eyes detect light.
You will understand what he meant if you read carefully what he wrote.
Why don't you try hearing his demonstration before telling me he was not right?
Because it's unnecessary to consider "demonstrations" of conclusions that are founded on demonstrably false premises.
He is "demonstrating" the existence of silicon heaven, by asking "where do all the calculators go?". It's a non-demonstration of an incredulous presumption of a false premise, or (as we philosophers call it) a complete waste of time.
Your video was funny but please don't compare him to this. That is offensive.
Do you even know what made him come to these findings?
Yes; He believed stuff that's not true, and refused to accept his errors when they became apparent.
It's a very common human trait.
No, bilby, that wasn't him. You are characterizing him as someone he was not. You'll have to trust me on this.
Maybe I should post it again one last time, although I think this aspect of his work is on its last legs in here.
It never got up on its legs to begin with. It's obvious nonsense that depends utterly on the heartfelt belief of the audience; Like all such cultish claptrap, its devotees are incapable of regarding criticism of it as anything other than ignorance and personal attacks.
I understand that it's unusual for someone to come on a forum and actually have a discovery without people being extremely skeptical. I would be the same way. It's just that this is a true discovery. He also said if anyone can explain his discoveries better, they are welcome. If his premises were wrong, I could accept it, but I don't think he was wrong.
No one even answered me when I asked about the woman who was blind, and they put electrodes in her head. She saw flashes of light that corresponded to the implanted electrodes, but my question was: did this light correspond to something external like the little boy who had electrodes put in his head and he could hear his father speak after the implant was turned on?
The answer is "yes", but you have to
either believe that it is "no",
or question your precious beliefs, so you won't accept the possibility that anyone who says "yes" might be right.
I am curious to see if this actually works where a person could see images of the outside world, not just electrodes within the brain that light up. What's wrong with that?
Everyone can see the rhetorical trap you have set in an effort to futher reinforce your daft mistakes, and nobody is interested in further propping up your already absurd worldview for you by joining in your self-serving word games.
Then we can stop. I'm not invested.
That you imagine this question to be either important, or worthy of a response, is evidence of your abject failure to even consider the possibility that your central thesis might be wrong - ironically, the very problem that you project so freely upon everyone else.
I can't lie. I know this is hard for everyone and they probably think he was a crank. It's really sad.
Nobody cares about the details of your fantasy, and nor should they until you show it to have at least some basis in reality.
Kryten is not right to believe in silicon heaven, just because nobody ever answers his question about where all the calculators go.
Somebody you trust deeply has written down a collection of speculative notions, and you have decided to believe them, rather than believe the reality that they contradict. This is so commonplace amongst humans as to be comical. Every single such cult has exactly similar methodologies and epistemologies, and all can see instantly that all the others are batshit nutso crazy insane - and yet cannot even begin to consider examining their own using the exact same criteria.
The only thing that prevents such magical and religious thinking from being labelled as mental illness is its ubiquity. Most humans simply cannot escape the lure of believing the claims made by other humans once they have decided to trust those humans wholeheartedly, and no amount of reality checks can ever help them to do so.
That's why the central principle of science is "Trust Nobody", not even yourself. Science is the ONLY belief system that works; And it works because the ONLY thing it allows us to trust is observed reality.
But don't take my word for it - look around and see just how many advances have been made by science, and compare that to all the advances you have made towards world peace, by promoting Lessans's work.
I haven't promoted it. It hasn't been investigated or distributed. This is not fair of you to onclude he has nothing to offer.
Can you see any inkling of a hint that one approach might be going a tad better than the other?
Of course science is where it's at. I am not anti-science. He even writes in the economic chapter:
Science will actually govern Earth, but without telling one person what he must do. If the scientists determine that the population on earth is beginning to get crowded, they will announce this, and the very fact that you will never be blamed for this overcrowding which hurts the economy will compel you, of your own free will, to desire limiting your family in accordance with what is best for everyone.
Hopefully, it will eventually sink in.
