God On The Brain

[Guest]

Another irritating insect?

LOL

 

[c4ts]

The mystics and theists here have a pretty good understanding about where I am coming from already, IMO.

Would any of you "mystics and theists" care to explain it better than he does?

 

[Dub]

Q :

What is the point in me trying to explain the meaning of such 'revelations' as predictions of the second coming of Christ, the kingdom of God, and the battle of armageddon to an audience of people who ascribe no meaning whatsoever to anything outside of science?

I dearly wish there was an audience here who were interested in these things, but there is not. The audience here is only interested in trying to prove that all religious mythology is meaningless claptrap and most of philosophy is pointless.

So in other words, to believe in what you believe in, we have to already believe in it? If it was true, it wouldnt matter what people believe in or dont believe in. People here are are obivously interested in "these things". What most people here require however, is evidence. And objective evidence at that. You're argument, in a very subtlle way, is ad hominem. You say its 'our' fault that we dont understand what you're saying (or not as is the case here).

 

[Guest]

So in other words, to believe in what you believe in, we have to already believe in it?

No. Absolutely not. The basic principles are derivable logically, and I have been demonstrating this over and over again. Logic can take you as far as an understanding of the metaphysical principles underlying what I speak of. The only requirement is that you do not have a prior belief system to defend. The stumbling block is that most skeptics are very attached to their materialistic belief system and this is a very effective block to getting any further. Once you get over that hurdle all that can be supplied is signposts and ideas, and the new terrotory must be exploed by the individual. The last thing I want is anyone to take my word for anything at all. ALL belief systems are damaging. They are cages for the mind.

If it was true, it wouldnt matter what people believe in or dont believe in. People here are are obivously interested in "these things".

Some of them are, yes.

What most people here require however, is evidence. And objective evidence at that.

Well, objective evidence stops when you want to investigate the subjective. If you want to explore the world of subjectivity then you must explore it on your own. I can't do anything about that.

You're argument, in a very subtlle way, is ad hominem.
You say its 'our' fault that we dont understand what you're saying (or not as is the case here).

Not really. I understand only too well why people here resist what I am saying. I repeat that I was once part of the admin team at the secular web. I have not forgotten what led me towards science, skepticism and rationalism in the first place. I genuinely have the deepest sympathy and respect for all people of that ilk who treat me with respect. And I do not mean sympathy in a patronising way - I mean I sympathise with your viewpoint. The mental leap required to accept that materialism may actually be false and seriously consider the alternatives is huge. It is the psychological equivalent of 'giving up'. One of the main reasons I ended up taking the path I did was that I was searching for information about the historical roots of Christianity in order to de-convert a Christian I knew. What I found ended up opening up all sorts of others doors I had no idea existed. My problem is even convincing people to search for answers in these sorts of places, even though I know exactly why the people here refuse to look in those sorts of places. I have many times spoken about commonalities in the roots of all religions, and in the philosophical writings of many great scientists. Even this is rejected as worthless. From my perspective, I now see the same belief-sytem dependence exhibited here as I once criticised Christians for. But the last thing I really want to do is alienate people.

edited....

Perhaps materialism is the wrong target anyway. The real problem is blind reductionism and scientism. By that I mean a total refusal to look at information from different sources together, both within science and on a wider perspective.

 

[Dub]

The mental leap required to accept that materialism may actually be false and seriously consider the alternatives is huge. It is the psychological equivalent of 'giving up'.

"Giving up" sounds an awfully lot like "having faith". I, for one, am quite open to other points of view, so long as they are valid. I was brought up in a very religous environment. I also studied 'the paranormal' pretty extensively. I have never said "i dont want to believe this is true". In fact, I'd love for it to be true. However, I wont believe in something just because I 'want to believe'. While it may be nice to believe somewthing is true, when there's no evidence to support it, I wont be convinced. If something can be proved to be true, then no mental leap would be required. Now, belivers usually insert an analogy of how theories in science arent accepted when they first appear. Which is true. And they shouldnt be. These theories gain credibility through experimentation. Then, if the experimentation shows the theory to be correct it is accepted. People have been believing in the 'paranormal' (which definition here includes religions) for many thousands of years. So there has been plently of time for evidence to surface. But has it? If you think it has and you have it you may be $1,000,000 richer.

One of the main reasons I ended up taking the path I did was that I was searching for information about the historical roots of Christianity in order to de-convert a Christian I knew. What I found ended up opening up all sorts of others doors I had no idea existed.

Care to share any of this information that so convinced you?

My problem is even convincing people to search for answers in these sorts of places, even though I know exactly why the people here refuse to look in those sorts of places.

Myself, and im sure alot of people here, have searched very deeply for such things. However, the truth is more important than believeing in something because it feels nice to believe in it, or its how I would like the world to be.

I have many times spoken about commonalities in the roots of all religions, and in the philosophical writings of many great scientists. Even this is rejected as worthless. From my perspective, I now see the same belief-sytem dependence exhibited here as I once criticised Christians for. But the last thing I really want to do is alienate people.

The truth is not a belief system.

Perhaps materialism is the wrong target anyway. The real problem is blind reductionism and scientism. By that I mean a total refusal to look at information from different sources together, both within science and on a wider perspective.

It isnt a case of refusing to look at the information, its a case of not be convinced by it.

 

[Loki]

uce,

The mental leap required to accept that materialism may actually be false and seriously consider the alternatives is huge.

You seem to have no problem in making sweeping generalisations, despite your self professed claim that you don't want to be blinkered by any particular "belief system". Anyway, perhaps you're right. Personally, I don't seem to find myself "over committed" to materialism - I just find it the best alternative I've come across. You've done very little to show a viable alternative.

I have many times spoken about commonalities in the roots of all religions, and in the philosophical writings of many great scientists. Even this is rejected as worthless.

Not rejected as worthless, uce, just added to the list of "patterns" that humans seem so fond of inventing.

From my perspective, I now see the same belief-sytem dependence exhibited here as I once criticised Christians for.

And from my perspective I see yet another person convinced that they are "on to something big..." that "defies conventional thinking" and which "can't be understood without letting go of your preconceived ideas". Only problem is, you're talking the same process as many others, but reaching wildly varying conclusions. I see the commonality as the process, not the conclusions - which, unfortunately, leaves me wondering why I should trust a process that seems to lead in every possible direction at the same time.

 

[Yahzi]

ALL belief systems are damaging

I reject your damaging belief system that belief systems are damaging.

BTW, I'm not attached to my materialism: it's attached to me, and won't let go. I'd love to get rid of it. But everytime I throw it out, it comes back with a vengance.

 

[Max560]

Would any of you "mystics and theists" care to explain it better than he does?

The real problem is that your whole stance and preconceived notions about reality blind you from the truth. You can be saved though.

The first step to enlightenment is to cast aside the demon of critical thinking.

Then, and only then, can you ascend to higher levels of understanding. The first level of understanding is only 4 equal payments of $29.95. If you act within the next 30 days, you will receive a $50.00 credit towards attaining the 2nd level of understanding.

Through faith, sincerity of purpose, and generous donations, one day you may attain all 37 levels of understanding, and the amazing truth will be revealed.

 

[Guest]

Dub

Giving up" sounds an awfully lot like "having faith".

That may be how it appears to you. However, I repeat for about the tenth time that I am not expecting anyone to have any faith in anything at all. I don't. I am asking people to relinquish their faith in materialism and accept the numerous logical demonstrations that it is false. I believe nothing at all.

www.nobeliefs.com

I, for one, am quite open to other points of view, so long as they are valid.

Who is to be the judge of their validity? I hear this over and over again, usually followed by a claim that without materialism their can be no means of validation.

I was brought up in a very religous environment.

As was I.

I also studied 'the paranormal' pretty extensively. I have never said "i dont want to believe this is true". In fact, I'd love for it to be true. However, I wont believe in something just because I 'want to believe'.

And I am not asking you to!

While it may be nice to believe somewthing is true, when there's no evidence to support it, I wont be convinced. If something can be proved to be true, then no mental leap would be required.

Unfortunately this is not true. Materialism has been demonstrated to be false. Certain groups of people here will claim it has not, but they are no different to Christians at an apologetics site claiming the Bible hasn't been demonstrated false. The Hard Problem is REAL. The failure to accept it is psychological. You do not have to "believe" me. No logical argument on the planet will convince the "believers" here, no matter how watertight, no matter how ridiculous their attempts to defend materialism. They will accept only scientific evidence, and none can be forthcoming because it is a philosophical question.

Now, belivers usually insert an analogy of how theories in science arent accepted when they first appear. Which is true. And they shouldnt be. These theories gain credibility through experimentation. Then, if the experimentation shows the theory to be correct it is accepted.

The problem being that many experiments have shown paranormal effects (minor ones). These experiments (at PEAR) are just dismissed by the materialists. The materialists "know" the results must be wrong so they accuse PEAR of fraud and incompetency. They do not provide any evidence of fraud and incompetency, they just assert it because they "KNOW" paranormal phenomena don't exist. There is a double-standard here, but the materialists won't and can't see it, because they know they are right.

People have been believing in the 'paranormal' (which definition here includes religions) for many thousands of years. So there has been plently of time for evidence to surface. But has it? If you think it has and you have it you may be $1,000,000 richer.

Randis prize is bogus for several reasons. I have discussed this many times in the past. I don't really want to get into it in this thread. There is also a creationist prize for proof that Darwinism is correct. Nobody has won that one either. Why? Well, the fact that the creationists are the judge and jury is part of the problem. But this is off-topic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the main reasons I ended up taking the path I did was that I was searching for information about the historical roots of Christianity in order to de-convert a Christian I knew. What I found ended up opening up all sorts of others doors I had no idea existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to share any of this information that so convinced you?

I can certainly share some information that helped.

Here are two sources that were important. You will need more information to know why they were important, but they are both interesting documents in their own right :

Origins of Christianity :

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Origins of existence :

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm

Myself, and im sure alot of people here, have searched very deeply for such things. However, the truth is more important than believeing in something because it feels nice to believe in it, or its how I would like the world to be.

I know that. Really I do know that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps materialism is the wrong target anyway. The real problem is blind reductionism and scientism. By that I mean a total refusal to look at information from different sources together, both within science and on a wider perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isnt a case of refusing to look at the information, its a case of not be convinced by it.

Actually, in many cases it is a point blank refusal to even consider it as a worthwhile source. "So what if 90% of the founders of QM were mystics? I am not interested in knowing why they were, so long as their reasons were not purely scientific." (Stimpson paraphrased).

 

[Guest]

Loki :

Interesting it is Loki and Yahzi, two of the most committed materialism-believers who are responding to me....

Only problem is, you're talking the same process as many others, but reaching wildly varying conclusions.

Not true. There is only ONE conclusion to mystical philosophy. Compare that to the confused mess we call quantum physics.

I see the commonality as the process, not the conclusions - which, unfortunately, leaves me wondering why I should trust a process that seems to lead in every possible direction at the same time.

Need I say "quantum physics" again?

There you have a theory which only really makes sense if it indeed does lead in every possible direction at the same time!


Max :

The first step to enlightenment is to cast aside the demon of critical thinking.

Here is my favourite website :

www.nobeliefs.com

I am a true critical thinker. I have NO BELIEFS.

 

[Dub]

Dub



That may be how it appears to you. However, I repeat for about the tenth time that I am not expecting anyone to have any faith in anything at all. I don't. I am asking people to relinquish their faith in materialism and accept the numerous logical demonstrations that it is false. I believe nothing at all.

www.nobeliefs.com

You claim to bleieve in "nothing at all" yet you also claim religious/mystic beliefs (although you havent made this clear). Believeing nothing at all is the position of myself, a skeptic.

Who is to be the judge of their validity? I hear this over and over again, usually followed by a claim that without materialism their can be no means of validation.

Validation comes through objective evidence.

Unfortunately this is not true. Materialism has been demonstrated to be false.

And where is the proof of this?

The problem being that many experiments have shown paranormal effects (minor ones). These experiments (at PEAR) are just dismissed by the materialists. The materialists "know" the results must be wrong so they accuse PEAR of fraud and incompetency. They do not provide any evidence of fraud and incompetency, they just assert it because they "KNOW" paranormal phenomena don't exist. There is a double-standard here, but the materialists won't and can't see it, because they know they are right.

For someone claiming "no beliefs" you have a pretty strong belief about 'materialists'. Infact you have a strong predjudic against materialists. If experiemtns are show to be flawed, a great example is the experiemtns that appeared to show homeopathy worked, then they have to be rejected. Its pointless ignoring bad experimental techniques just because the outcome appears to show what you want it to show.

Randis prize is bogus for several reasons. I have discussed this many times in the past. I don't really want to get into it in this thread. There is also a creationist prize for proof that Darwinism is correct. Nobody has won that one either. Why? Well, the fact that the creationists are the judge and jury is part of the problem.

It's not "Ranid's Prize" it is the JREF prize. At one time the challeneg existed but offered no prize money. People started saying that JREF should put its money where its mouth is. And so they did. The creations prize is totally different. The JREF prize merely asks that people can do what they claim to do. JREF claim, through experience, that people cant. The JREF protocol is also worked out between both parties. The creations however, are merely asking people to convince them. They dont merely not believe in evolution, they believe in a totally different process based on religious reasons. That menas that objective evidence woont change their mind because they will alsways say "well it says this and this in the bible". Darwinism has been proved true throught the study of genetics and the fossil record. As long as there is varition in a population, with some indiviuals 'fitter' than others, natural selection will ensure that the 'fittest' pass on more of their genes. By default, the creationists are not just asking people to prove darwinism is true, they are asking people to prove creationism is false.

 

[Q-Source]

Geoff

Here is my favourite website :

www.nobeliefs.com

I am a true critical thinker. I have NO BELIEFS.

You believe that Materialism is false
You believe in the Metamind
You believe that the physical realm is a subset of the mental realm.
You believe that a consciousness is generating this reality
You believe....
You believe...
etc

Geoff, the truth is that we cannot live with empty heads. We need to believe in something. It is natural and understandable that we will always assume that our beliefs are based on rational and logical explanations, while the others' are based on emotional reasons.

Smart and educated people have better skills to defend their beliefs.

 

[Guest]

Geoff

You believe that Materialism is false

I have gine to extra-ordinary lengths to demonstrate why materialism is logically incapable of explaining consciousness. I do not accept it to be a belief.

You believe in the Metamind

This is indeed belief, but given that materialism is false and that an objective reality exists, the metamind must also exist. My 'belief' is that solipsism is false. I see solipsism or the metamind as the only logical possibilities once materialism is demonstrated to be false. Some form of dualism might be possible but I am yet to hear a convincing solution to the binding problem.

You believe that the physical realm is a subset of the mental realm.
You believe that a consciousness is generating this reality

Again, all of these things logically follow once materialism is demonstrated to be false. Logical inevitabilities aren't beliefs. I do not "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4.

Geoff, the truth is that we cannot live with empty heads. We need to believe in something. It is natural and understandable that we will always assume that our beliefs are based on rational and logical explanations, while the others' are based on emotional reasons.

Maybe true, but the Hard Problem cannot be escaped. How is this a belief?

I am more fearful of beliefs than any materialist is. My worldview suggests that my beliefs are capable of effecting my existence in ways I cannot predict. I have very good reasons for avoiding all beliefs like the plague. My worldview renders beliefs even more dangerous than the mere psychological handicaps you see them as.

If you suspected (and I mean that if you felt your experiences demanded that it be true) that beliefs could shape reality then would you believe anything?

I have all sorts of perceptions and conceptions about metaphysics, politics, psychology and art. I am very much aware that they are opinions. I depend on none of them for my psychological well-being. I know what you are saying about 'needing a belief system'. Personally, I need a belief system like I need a hole in my head. Absolute certainties are very hard to come by, and I have very few. That materialism is false is one of those few certanties I have, and I have spent hundreds of hours explaining to people why I am certain.

 

[Yahzi]

UCE

I am asking people to relinquish their faith in materialism

Even I don't expect people to give up their religious beliefs until I provide some kind of alternative.

The branch you want us to crawl out on has to exist before we let go of the one we are clinging to. This is called "common sense."

 

[billydkid]

Ya da, Ya da, Ya da

Dub


Unfortunately this is not true. Materialism has been demonstrated to be false.

You keep saying this. Nothing has been demonstrated. You have made some arguments from which you claim their are inescapable conclusions. You claim certain things are true based on certain presumptions. I can demonstrate that a rock is "real", that it has mass and inertia and dimension by smacking you in the head with it. You can not demonstrate ANY effect that can not be attributable to material reality. The sensation of "I" is not dependent on something other than material reality.

Certain groups of people here will claim it has not, but they are no different to Christians at an apologetics site claiming the Bible hasn't been demonstrated false. The Hard Problem is REAL. The failure to accept it is psychological. You do not have to "believe" me. No logical argument on the planet will convince the "believers" here, no matter how watertight, no matter how ridiculous their attempts to defend materialism. They will accept only scientific evidence, and none can be forthcoming because it is a philosophical question.

BS plain and simple. No, scientific evidence is not required. Although any genuine phenomenon should be demonstratable under whatever conditions. And this ridiculous notion that the mentality of the observers allows of prevents a phenomena to occur - patently absurd. I don't need scientific evidence to know there is air, I can feel it blowing against me when I walk out the door. And I would feel it even if I didn't have a clue what it was, let alone believed in it or not. And this insulting ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ about how no argument however logical or watertight being enough to convince us "believers". You saying your arguments are logical or watertight does not make them so. You post here saying, essentially, "The sky is pink! It may look blue to you, but it's really pink." and then make some long convoluted argument about the nature of consciousness making the rest of us poor dolts believe the sky is blue, but if we would only open our minds as have those gifted few like yourself, we would be able to see the true sky in all it's genuine pinkness.

Things are either true or they are not true. They are not not true because you don't accept them and they are not true because you do. Can you imagine what kind of reality we would inhabit if it were otherwise? All of us would inhabit the universe of a schizophrenic. Have you ever tried to imagine what the implications would be if your view of reality were actually true. Yes, I know you think it is true. Luckily for you and the rest of us it is not.

 

[Guest]

UCE

Even I don't expect people to give up their religious beliefs until I provide some kind of alternative.

The branch you want us to crawl out on has to exist before we let go of the one we are clinging to. This is called "common sense."

http://www.distance.vic.edu.au/vce/Philosophia/why.htm

"Dear Sophie,

... A lot of people experience the world with the same incredulity as when the magician suddenly pulls a rabbit out of the hat which has just been shown to be empty.

In the case of the rabbit, we know the magician has tricked us. What we would like to know is just how e has done it. But when it comes to the world it's somewhat different. We know that the world is not all sleight of hand and deception because here we are in it, we are part of it. Actually, we are the white rabbit being pulled out of the hat. The only difference between us and the white rabbit is that the rabbit does not realize it is taking part in a magic trick. Unlike us. We feel we are part of something mysterious and we would like to know how it all works.

P.S. As far as the white rabbit is concerned, it might be better to compare it with the whole universe. We who live here are microscopic insects existing deep down in the rabbit's fur. But philosophers are always trying to climb up the fine hairs of the fur in order to stare right into the magician's eyes....

... Although philosophical questions concern us all, we do not all become philosophers. For various reasons most people get so caught up in everyday affairs their astonishment at the world gets pushed into the background. (They crawl deep into the rabbit's fur, snuggle down comfortably, and stay there for the rest of their lives.)

To children, the world and everything in it is new, something that gives rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults. Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.

This is precisely where philosophers are a notable exception. A philosopher never quite gets used to the world. To him or her, the world continues to seem a bit unreasonable - bewildering, even enigmatic. Philosophers and small children thus have an important faculty in common. You might say that throughout her life a philosopher remains as thin-skinned as a child.

So now you must choose, Sophie. Are you a child who has not yet become world-weary? Or are you a philosopher who will vow never to become so?

If you shake your head, not recognizing yourself as either a child or a philosopher, then you have gotten so used to the world that it no longer astonishes you. Watch out! You are on thin ice... I will not allow you, of all people, to join the ranks of the apathetic and the indifferent...

To summarize briefly: A white rabbit is pulled out of a top hat. Because it is an extremely large rabbit, the trick takes many billions of years. All mortals are born at the very tip of the rabbit's fine hairs, where they are in a position to wonder at the impossibility of the trick. But as they grow older they work themselves ever deeper into the fur. And there they stay. They become so comfortable they never risk crawling up the fragile hairs again. Only philosophers embark on this perilous expedition to the outermost reaches of language and existence. Some of them fall off, but others cling on desperately and yell at the people nestling deep in the snug softness, stuffing themselves with delicious food and drink.

'Ladies and gentlemen,' they yell, 'we are floating in space!' But none of the people down there care.

'What a bunch of troublemakers!' they say. And they keep on chatting: Would you pass the butter, please? How much have our stocks risen today? What is the price of tomatoes? Have you heard that Princess Di is expecting again? ..."

 

[Guest]

Billy :

I can demonstrate that a rock is "real", that it has mass and inertia and dimension by smacking you in the head with it.

Yes, Samuel Johnsons famous 'rebuttal' remains the only response the materialist can provide....

And this ridiculous notion that the mentality of the observers allows of prevents a phenomena to occur - patently absurd.

Berkeley the lunatic!

Have you ever tried to imagine what the implications would be if your view of reality were actually true.

Can you imagine what that question might sound like to someone who had already seen the implications in effect, and been terrified and awed like never in his life before?

Can you imagine being a lifelong skeptic, then finding that the paranormal was real and then finding yourself getting into it way over your head because at the outset you didn't really believe it was real, and didn't understand what you were getting involved in?

 

[Loki]

uce,

Interesting it is Loki and Yahzi, two of the most committed materialism-believers who are responding to me....

This statement alone tells me you don't bother to read other posts, except to find points to disagree with. "Materialist-believer" ... nice one! A not quite so subtle adHom ...

Not true. There is only ONE conclusion to mystical philosophy.

Sure there is - and it's different for each person. That's why it's a subjective conclusion.

Materialism has been demonstrated to be false.

Except you don't seem to be able to get anyone to agree with you that it has. Which particular demonstration are you referring to here ?

(a) The famous "statement 5" ?
(b) P-ZombieWorld ?
(c) Mary the blind eye specialist ?
(d) Other (pleas epovide details)

Certain groups of people here will claim it has not, but they are no different to Christians at an apologetics site claiming the Bible hasn't been demonstrated false.

Oh, I think there's a difference, and I think you'd agree with me there's a difference if you weren't busy trying to score a few quick points.

The Hard Problem is REAL.

Well, you put "real" in CAPS and bold, so I guess you must mean it. Pity you can't even prove this point. Even Chalmers admits there are possible alternatives (although, clearly, he rejects them) :

1. Type-A materialism : The "Hard Problem" is not real.
2. Type-B materialism : The "Hard Problem" is real, but does not reflect an underlying split in the nature of reality
3. Type-C materialism : The "Hard Problem" is real, but will eventually be solved by the discovery of new information about the physical world.

There are two interesting things here, uce.

First, why does Chalmers reject Type-A? In simple terms, he argues that :
a. rejecting the Hard Problem is counter-intuitive;
b. counter-intuitive concepts require strong evidence to be accepted;
c. the evidence in this case is not strong;
d. therefore, rejection of Type-A is valid.

The thing to note is that he doesn't actually offer any direct evidence that the Hard Problem exists!! All he says is that it is counter-intuitive to reject the Hard Problem, and therefore he will assume it exists until such time as strong evidence against it is provided. This works for me - I also assume the Hard Problem exists (until I'm convinced otherwise) - but the point is Chalmers cannot prove the Hard Problem exists; he assumes it.

The second point is that Type-C materialism is at least logically acceptable. It simply says that the Hard Problem exists, and will eventually be resolved by some as yet unknown discovery. So the acceptance of the Hard Problem as real is not enough to logically disprove materialism. Or at least that's what it seems to me that Chalmers is saying.

 

[billydkid]

Pulllleeeeze!

Billy :


Can you imagine what that question might sound like to someone who had already seen the implications in effect, and been terrified and awed like never in his life before?

Can you imagine being a lifelong skeptic, then finding that the paranormal was real and then finding yourself getting into it way over your head because at the outset you didn't really believe it was real, and didn't understand what you were getting involved in?

Pulllleeeeze!

 

[asherah]

undercover elephant's conversion

Am new to the forum as a whole and have read a number of undercover elephant's comment's about materialism the paranormal and his or her conversion from the skeptical to the credulous but was unable to locate an explanation of the specific life changing events that influenced his/her decision beyond vague references and if only you understood what happened you would know i'm right platitudes ... please tell me that he or she has been willing to allow an open and critical discusion of her transformation in detail.