Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
You're wrong Vivisectus. Under the efferent model, we can see the object because of the way the lens works. This does not violate physics because a mirror image does not require photons to travel. This can only occur when we're looking at the object because that is the only time the (P) reflection is at the film/retina. All (P) light is is the inverse of the absorbed light when WE'RE VIEWING THE OBJECT.
|
Point a: That is meaningless waffle. You do not even know what it is supposed to mean yourself, which makes it all the more funny. |
I do know what it means, and you are, once again, trying to deflect the truth. I will stand up against this nonsense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Point b: even if it wasn't, it still contradicts causality. Something has an effect on the retina from 8 light minutes away instantly, with nothing travelling over to do actually cause that effect. This is practically the definition of something that contradicts causality.
|
I will say for the thousandth time that this is why science never saw the truth. I'm not blaming science but it was hidden behind the premise that information is in the light itself. All you're doing is going back to the old premise, and I can't win if that's what you're doing, but this does not make Lessans wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
If causality does not apply, then determinism does not hold. At its basis, it states that all things are caused by other things. Lessans determinism relies on it too: according to him we are compelled by our own free will to do the things we do. Without causality that is not the case: we could just choose something random, as causality no longer dictates that thought, too, must be caused.
|
Quote:
|
As I said, this does not contradict causality in any way.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
It rather does, as I have clearly shown above. It is just that it is one of the great many things that you lack a basic understanding of. How on earth did you ever manage to get through college?
|
Oh shut up already and stop using ad hominems to discredit this work when you have nothing else to lean on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The book contradicts itself here: on the one hand it relies on causality, but then cheerfully makes statements that reject it later on. It is another example of Lessans just not thinking it through.
|
Quote:
|
Everything is caused in one way or another, but don't get the standard definition of determinism confused with Lessans' definition which reconciles the issue of responsibility with determinism, which has not been understood by either science or philosophy. Efferent vision does not go against physics. I didn't make this up; there is a reason the brain works this way. God knew what he was doing.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Even Lessans fallacy-ridden version of determinism relies on causality. If thoughts were uncaused they could be random: if they can be random, then we are not "compelled of our own free will" and once again Lessans train derails before it even gets under way.
Either efferent sight has to go, or determinism. They are utterly incompatible, and with it the book contradicts itself. No amount of waffling is going to make that any less of a fact.
|
You're so confused I can't work with you. I'll have to stick with certain people who are a little open minded. That way you may glean the information from them. I'm sorry to say that a direct conversation with you will only lead to results that reflect (no pun intended) your truth, not reality.