“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

 

[bilby]

Second – and heretical to philosophic orthodoxy – tautologies can actually teach us something new about the world. Lots of things, in fact.

No, they can't. By definition, they add nothing new. Your entire epistemology is fundamentally broken.

You have no grasp whatsoever of the meaning of 'truth', and instead have abdicated reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

And having chosen as your object of faith a recent book of low popularity, rather than (as most non-thinkers do) an old and highly popular book, you have brought upon yourself ridicule from both the minority of skeptical thinkers, and the majority of faithful non-thinkers.

And you respond to this ridicule as all faithful non-thinkers do - it proves that your belief is true, because in your broken epistemology it is an axiom of your faith that persecution is evidence of truth.

I suspect that you are worried that you could be wrong, and so invite ridicule as a defensive strategy - you need to be defending your ideas against perceived persecution, because without that ability to externalize the conflict, you would be forced to recognize the existence of an internal conflict between what you believe, and what you observe.

"They hate me because I am right" drowns out that niggling question "Does this make any sense, though?".

It's not even new. Religions have been doing it for longer than recorded history.

You are far from alone. Almost everyone who has ever lived has chosen to abdicate reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

But this discussion board is for the minority who choose not to do that. So it makes an excellent place to come, if you need a dose of ridicule and shaming in order to shore up your faith.

 

[bilby]

The wavelength is at the eye when we are gazing at the object

The what is doing what to the which?

Wavelength is a measure of the distance between one wave peak and the next.

A distance can't be "at the eye".

This claim is not even wrong; It's more by way of being surrealist art, than an attempt to describe something that could exist in reality.

The only charitable position I can take here is to assume that you mistakenly wrote "wavelength" when you intended a completely different word.

Could you please try again, using a word that at least is in the category "things that could possibly be at an eye"?

but it's not carried through space and time to reach the eyes for processing.

It should also be a word in the category "things that could possibly be carried through space and time to reach the eyes".

Thanks in advance.

 

[pood]

The wavelength is at the eye when we are gazing at the object

The what is doing what to the which?

Wavelength is a measure of the distance between one wave peak and the next.

A distance can't be "at the eye".

This claim is not even wrong; It's more by way of being surrealist art, than an attempt to describe something that could exist in reality.

The only charitable position I can take here is to assume that you mistakenly wrote "wavelength" when you intended a completely different word.

Could you please try again, using a word that at least is in the category "things that could possibly be at an eye"?

but it's not carried through space and time to reach the eyes for processing.

It should also be a word in the category "things that could possibly be carried through space and time to reach the eyes".

Thanks in advance.

Nope, “wavelength is at the eye” is something she repeatedly stated at FF.

 

[Crumb]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

 

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

Yes, it’s nonsense from the start.

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

He never said that. WTF!!!

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

Yes, it’s nonsense from the start.

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

Yes, it’s nonsense from the start.

I don’t know what Clark wrote. I doubt if he has written the same thing as Lessans regarding what happens when we die, but you never know.

This has nothing to do with reincarnation because there is no connection between the person who dies and the person who is born. Please stop acting like you understand any of his discoveries because you don’t.

 

[peacegirl]

Second – and heretical to philosophic orthodoxy – tautologies can actually teach us something new about the world. Lots of things, in fact.

No, they can't. By definition, they add nothing new. Your entire epistemology is fundamentally broken.

Wrong! https://steve-patterson.com/tautologies-must-not-be-dismissed/

You have no grasp whatsoever of the meaning of 'truth', and instead have abdicated reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

It depends what’s written in the book. This book is all about astute observation and sound reasoning. You’ve never shown one ounce of curiosity. You’re just a cynic.

And having chosen as your object of faith a recent book of low popularity, rather than (as most non-thinkers do) an old and highly popular book, you have brought upon yourself ridicule from both the minority of skeptical thinkers, and the majority of faithful non-thinkers.

These claims are either true or they’re not. I’m not depending on either group to for anything. I can tell you haven’t read a thing I’ve written. Being skeptical is fine but to this degree is not allowing you to keep an open mind. What a waste!

And you respond to this ridicule as all faithful non-thinkers do - it proves that your belief is true, because in your broken epistemology it is an axiom of your faith that persecution is evidence of truth.

I don’t hold that axiom. Your analysis of me is all wrong.

I suspect that you are worried that you could be wrong, and so invite ridicule as a defensive strategy - you need to be defending your ideas against perceived persecution, because without that ability to externalize the conflict, you would be forced to recognize the existence of an internal conflict between what you believe, and what you observe.

No bilby. Your analysis of me is pure psychobabble!

"They hate me because I am right" drowns out that niggling question "Does this make any sense, though?".

No niggling question. They hate me because they don’t like the claims, not because I’m right.

It's not even new. Religions have been doing it for longer than recorded history.

You are far from alone. Almost everyone who has ever lived has chosen to abdicate reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

This is not about abdicating reason just because it’s in a book. And just because it’s written doesn’t make it wrong. What a strange thing to believe.

But this discussion board is for the minority who choose not to do that. So it makes an excellent place to come, if you need a dose of ridicule and shaming in order to shore up your faith.

Thats not my motive for being here. This is not fun for me and I’m trying to find other avenues to get this knowledge brought to light. This is just a stopgap for the time being.

 

[DBT]

We aren't 'different people' from day to day, but we are in a different state from moment to moment, day to day, year to year....where the changes accrue and at middle age we bear little resemblance to our five year old self, where at eighty we bear little resemblance to our middle age self, both in body and mind