A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do they tell people to do?

I don't know all the ins and outs of this cult, but I do know there has been plenty of objections to the way its run. There have also been reports of sexual abuse. I don't know if that's true. I just found this forum.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...to-scientology

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Shit. I didn't remember that. Or it was just not on my mind. Whatever. I got distracted by the instant fucksuit that goes faster than the speed of light on the dinner table, no the wheel that rotates at two different speeds at once or NASA' s WE gaAVe eher A aALEInkA tio the fuicikinnbh source c odecodecodecode ceodceod edcoe cod
111!!""!22122121212122232222EGVZDkcfqevcaj

Dragar, I carefully compiled these 7 books so that the facts would be correct. Whether you think the facts are right or wrong has nothing to do with the actual validity of this book. I would never put out a book that does not carefully explain these principles, which is why it has taken me so long. I'm almost there, and yes, I have spent a lot of money, but it was worth it. I would never chase sunk costs at the expense of the facts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These conclusions that bring about such distorted views are not surprising given the vulnerability of those who are destitute and suffering, to your advantage. You cannot put the perception of what Hubbard saw (whether you believe it off the bat or not), in the same category. You can't. I'm hoping that you will let your guard down enough to study Dianetics IN EARNEST. You are so skeptical (which is understandable but nevertheless is a HUGE stumbling block to bringing this knowledge to light), that I don't know how to break through this sound barrier of total ignorance and denial. You will continue to believe you're right; never read Dianetics with the intention of giving Hubbard the benefit of the doubt, and therefore you will conclude that he was no different than all of the cult leaders who also accused the scientific community of the same thing. Do you not see the problem I am faced with?

As I said, there's a big difference. This new world tells no one what to do or how to live their life. There's nothing that asks you to be part of a group that has power over their members.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nope.

The difference, you see, is that Lessans' claims regarding vision have been tested. We have tested the claim that vision is efferent. It is not. We have tested the claim that we see in "real time." We do not. And so forth.

Heck, I've done many of the experiments myself.


It is not close-mindedness or willful ignorance to disregard claims that are disproved through both observation and experimentation. It's just the opposite, in fact. On the other hand, one is close-minded and willfully ignorant if she refuses to abandon unsupported claims that are disproved through both observation and experimentation.

The experiments are not reliable Lone Ranger. I hope you realize this. You cannot tell me with a straight face that a dog (even the smartest breed) can recognize his owner from a picture, which he should be able to do if sight is afferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please read TLR's wonderful little essay. The very structure of the optic nerve means signals cannot go the other way. This is something we can observe directly by looking at the optic nerve through microscopes - there is no theory involved. We can actually see how it works... and that it can only work one way. That is not an assumption, any more than the mechanics of reproduction are an assumption.

I'm not arguing with this aspect, but just because the nerve fibers are afferent does not translate to afferent vision. We don't know how the brain actually works when these impulses are transmitted. It is obvious that the optic nerve connects the external and internal world, but again, there is a lot we don't know. Observing afferent fibers does not prove that the brain interprets images from light. There's a big gaping hole that needs closing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have seen how sperm and ovum interact. And we have seen how the optic nerve works, and how it is structured. Unless you feel that my "Baby fairies fly up your bum" theory should not be dismissed because the normal theory of baby production is "assumed"?

There's proof of how babies are born. How light and sight are believed to work is not proven; it's a theory. You cannot compare the two.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know all the ins and outs of this cult, but I do know there has been plenty of objections to the way its run. There have also been reports of sexual abuse. I don't know if that's true.

You don't know anything about it except what you've heard from probably closed minded and bitter individuals who could never believe someone like Hubbard could have a serious discovery. You won't even take the time to seriously study the life's work of this man and you think you're justified in calling it a cult and accusing people of sexual assault! Get off your high horse!

[LadyShea]

You cannot tell me that a dog can recognize his owner from a picture, which he should be able to do if sight is afferent.

You've never adequately explained how you came up with the word should, there.

This is nothing more than another faith statement. There is no reason at all to think dog's should have this ability. They may have it, they may not, but that should is completely ass derived.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's even more bull.

Tut tut! Let's wait until all the empirical testing is in, shall we? I realize that e-meters pose a severe threat to your comfy-cozy worldview, but try to keep an open mind up in hyah.

You know, for the sake of the scientific method.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, our eyes detect light, but this has nothing to do with the direction our brain sees.

So you are saying that our eyes detect light comeing from one direction but our brain can see things in another direction different from where the eye is focused? This would explain how teachers can see trouble without looking at it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, our eyes detect light, but this has nothing to do with the direction our brain sees.

I see. So we're back to "We see by magic."

Nice to have that cleared up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained the mechanism whereby a baby's brain begins this focussing process. This has very little to do with the ciliary muscle, but rather the taking in of sense experience which causes the brain to begin to focus, through the eyes, to see what it is experiencing through the other senses. If there was no stimulation, the brain would not know to look, and would therefore not focus.

"The brain looks out through the eyes, because of stimulation from the other senses." If this isn't one of Lessans stupidist ideas, it should certainly rank up in the top.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientology is a cult the minute they tell a person what he has to do in order to be part of the group. There is no comparison between Lessans' discovery which can be empirically tested, and scientology, which is unfalsifiable. For you to even suggest that there is a similarity between the two is ludicrous LadyShea.

But Lessans tells us what we need to do to be part of the 'Golden Age', we need to accept his ideas without question. Do you think scientology would entertain questions about the basic beliefs thay expect you to hold, you refuse to answer any questions that might put Lessans in a bad light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[

But he does have proof; you just don't see it because he didn't write everything down.

So you admit that we don't see the proof because it is not in the book. That seems like a reasonable reason to doubt the claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot tell me with a straight face that a dog (even the smartest breed) can recognize his owner from a picture, which he should be able to do if sight is afferent.

There is no corolation between facial recognition in dogs or any other animal, and whether vision is afferent or efferent. Just another red herring.

[Vivisectus]

I'm not arguing with this aspect, but just because the nerve fibers are afferent does not translate to afferent vision.

Yes it does, actually. It is the only way signals can be sent from the eye to the brain.

We don't know how the brain actually works when these impulses are transmitted.

But we do know the only way these signals can go: from the eye, to the brain.

It is obvious that the optic nerve connects the external and internal world,

No, that is nonsense. It does no such thing: it simply transmits impulses from the retina to the brain. Using silly grandiose wording like that only confuses you Peacegirl. You ought to stop doing it because it only makes you look ignorant.

but again, there is a lot we don't know. Observing afferent fibers does not prove that the brain interprets images from light. There's a big gaping hole that needs closing.

No, that is not the case. It shows us that the retina cannot receive any information from the brain, but that the brain can only receive information from the retina. What we know of the visual cortex and the brain itself is immaterial, despite your repeated attempts to claim that because we do not fully understand the brain we cannot know that it is simply impossible to send impulses up the optic nerve.

There's proof of how babies are born. How light and sight are believed to work is not proven; it's a theory. You cannot compare the two.

That is another one of your clumsy strawmen. I am not talking about light and sight. I am talking about the fact that the optic nerve is afferent, and that it can only send signals one way. This has nothing to do with the brain. It does, however, make efferent sight impossible. Well, it is one of the many, MANY reasons it is impossible, really.

This is why I CAN compare the two: there is proof that efferent sight is simply not possible. There is no way for impulses to travel from the brain to the retina.

[LadyShea]

Lessans asserted flat out that there are no afferent "structures" in the eyes as are found in other sense organs. That was completely wrong.

He claimed the eyes were windows that the brain looked through. That's not possible. The neural connection between eyes and brain is one way, afferent.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans asserted flat out that there are no afferent "structures" in the eyes as are found in other sense organs. That was completely wrong.

He claimed the eyes were windows that the brain looked through. That's not possible. The neural connection between eyes and brain is one way, afferent.

Exact quote, page 134:

If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

This statement is directly contradicted by the evidence.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, I carefully compiled these 7 books so that the facts would be correct. Whether you think the facts are right or wrong has nothing to do with the actual validity of this book. I would never put out a book that does not carefully explain these principles, which is why it has taken me so long. I'm almost there, and yes, I have spent a lot of money, but it was worth it. I would never chase sunk costs at the expense of the facts.

Aha! So you have finally corrected the part that states there are no afferent nerve-endings in the optical nerve?

[Vivisectus]

Yes, our eyes detect light, but this has nothing to do with the direction our brain sees.

Yes, that IS rather interesting. So let us say we have a nice big planet which is 30 light minutes away. It reflects light, but we can also simply see it with the naked eye.

If we both detect light and see directly, we should see the planet in one spot (where it is now) and we should detect the light coming from where it was 30 minutes ago!

This does not happen in reality... we detect the light and see the image in the same place. But we know that the light is coming from where the planet was 30 minutes ago because it's speed is finite!

Pesky empirical testing...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've never adequately explained how you came up with the word should, there.

This is nothing more than another faith statement. There is no reason at all to think dog's should have this ability. They may have it, they may not, but that should is completely ass derived.

Would you stop with your expletives LadyShea? They only serve to try to make me look foolish, but in the end it is you who looks foolish. If you think about it, all the other senses get an immediate reaction because the brain is receiving signals from the outside world. Therefore, a dog SHOULD be able to get an immediate reaction when he sees a picture of his master, if his eyes are a sense organ. This would have nothing to do with a dog's conceptual abilities, just like hearing and taste have nothing to do with his conceptual abilities. That was your latest retort.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No, I am rationally concluding he's wrong. You are the one with a belief.

Sorry specious, that doesn't fly. You are no more rationally concluding that he is wrong than I am rationally concluding that he is right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

NO VIVISECTUS.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, then we see it where it was, and how it looked like 16 minutes ago? There really aren't that many other options...

We see an object because it can be seen with a telescope. We are not seeing how it looked 16 minutes ago unless the object has traveled into our field of view 16 minutes later.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh but we are, and how wonderful it is! But please, do not limit yourself to saying "You don't know everything Vivisectus!!!" because you do that playground stuff all the time in the rest of the thread. Please actually explain to me how images travel, and how there is a difference between seeing light and seeing images!

After thousands of pages, do you really think I'm going to start this conversation up again, when the most important part of his work was dismissed as a mere assertion? What a joke this thread has turned out to be.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, so it is NOT a mere assertion? Then please tell us why we should believe that conscience works the way the book claims. There I was, thinking there was no compelling reason to believe it was so, while the evidence was there all along, together with a pretty compelling case in favour of it! Deary me.

Your sarcasm is not becoming Vivisectus. You better be careful what you say and how you say it or I will pass over your longgggg posts. Just giving you a warning.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you admit that all you have is your normal playground repartee?

I have never engaged in playground repartee, so you're premise that this is what I'm doing is already fallacious, so there's no point in me quibbling with you over your faulty reasoning.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is amazing, as this means that we should see the light reflecting off the moons of Jupiter somewhere different from where we see Jupiter itself. After all, the light needs quite some time to get here, but the image of Jupiter's moon does not. It should have moved on quite a bit before the reflected light reaches us.

Quick empirical test: does this happen? Result: Of course not.

That's your big argument, that we don't see Jupiter as it is but as it will be when light has reached us.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No you goose! That is what you are saying! I am saying we see Jupiter as and where it was roughly 16 minutes ago.

You are saying that we see Jupiter not as it actually is, but a delayed version due to light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well done! You have managed to catch up! We see it where it was, and as it was. Not, like you said, "as it will be when the light reaches us".

Again, we have to have light surrounding the object to see it, but we don't need the light to travel to us which takes time. The only thing that would do is allow us to see each other, as when daylight approaches.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is odd as it is your own point: we do not see Jupiter where and how it was when the light left it, we see it as it is now.

You misunderstood what I said.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you were writing nonsense again. If someone were to give you the benefit of the doubt they might say that you may have written something else than you meant, but that would require more optimism that your track-record warrants.

I made clear what I meant in the above response.

We can see Jupiter with the naked eye in real time, not a delayed image.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Empirical evidence rather states we do not.

This is just a repeat of hundreds of pages that came before, and I'm not getting back into it again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is a fact backed by empirical evidence.

Yes, it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not. Your posts are without any substance; you just keep denying that Lessans has anything of value without any proof that what you're saying has any merit at all. Unless you have a pertinent question, I'm going to pass over your posts.

If Jupiter is too small to be seen with the naked eye, or with a telescope, we would not be able to see it no matter how much light is present, or how fast light is traveling.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? If we would not be able to see it, we would not be able to see it? Amazing

But no-one is claiming otherwise!

You are claiming that what you see is an image of the object. Yes, we are light detectors, but this has nothing to do with the direction our eyes see.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That has nothing to do with your earlier circular statement. And if we are light detectors, then sight is delayed by definition... unless we can detect light hitting an object, without that light having to travel to the retina?

That's not true in the case of efferent vision. Remember, the object must be large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eye, whether it's magnified through a telescope or whether it's seen by the naked eye. Therefore, the light is already at the retina. Of course, you don't get this relationship at all, so you continue with the same old refrains that you always have.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then please elucidate me: why and how is it not? Please do not hesitate to include travelling images, the magic of focussing, and especially mirror images of non-travelling photons arriving at the lens carrying an image of the object (or substance) as it is now.

I have always agreed that photons travel, but patterns of light that are believed to reveal a past event by striking the retina after traveling through space/time is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Empirical evidence shows it is not. No evidence whatever, and your claim says it does. By the way,

Limited as my understanding may be, I have one small advantage over you: I actually know what focussing is.

Oh be quiet. You have no power here, like the Witch of the North says in the Wizard of Oz.

He explained the mechanism whereby a baby's brain begins this focussing process.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, he claimed that it was a conditioning process that required non-sight stimuli. How a deaf child with reduced sensitivity would learn to see he did not see fit to explain, by the way.

Deafness is only one stimuli. There are other stimulii that can cause the brain to focus such as taste and touch. If a child had no stimuli to arouse the brain to focus the eyes, that would be another story.

This has very little to do with the ciliary muscle, but rather the taking in of sense experience which causes the brain to begin to focus, through the eyes, to see what it is experiencing through the other senses. If there was no stimulation, the brain would not know to look, and would therefore not focus. That is why the importance of stimulating the baby in its early months is crucial.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yup - that was his claim. And none of that has anything to do with optical focussing (which in the human eye would require the ciliary muscle to change the focal point) and the psychological meaning of focus, which means to shift attention to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wonderful isn't it? An entire system based on his inability to distinguish between two uses of a word.

fo·cus (fks)
n. pl. fo·cus·es or fo·ci (-s, -k)
1.
a. A point at which rays of light or other radiation converge or from which they appear to diverge, as after refraction or reflection in an optical system: the focus of a lens. Also called focal point.
b. See focal length.
2.
a. The distinctness or clarity of an image rendered by an optical system.b. The state of maximum distinctness or clarity of such an image: in focus; out of focus.
c. An apparatus used to adjust the focal length of an optical system in order to make an image distinct or clear: a camera with automatic focus.
3. A center of interest or activity. See Synonyms at center.
4. Close or narrow attention; concentration: "He was forever taken aback by [New York's] pervasive atmosphere of purposefulnessthe tight focus of its drivers, the brisk intensity of its pedestrians" (Anne Tyler).
5. A condition in which something can be clearly apprehended or perceived: couldn't get the problem into focus.
6. Pathology The region of a localized bodily infection or disease.
7. Geology The point of origin of an earthquake.
8. Mathematics A fixed point whose relationship with a directrix determines a conic section.
v. fo·cused or fo·cussed, fo·cus·ing or fo·cus·sing, fo·cus·es or fo·cus·ses
v.tr.
1. To cause (light rays, for example) to converge on or toward a central point; concentrate.
2.
a. To render (an object or image) in clear outline or sharp detail by adjustment of one's vision or an optical device; bring into focus.
b. To adjust (a lens, for example) to produce a clear image.
3. To direct toward a particular point or purpose: focused all their attention on finding a solution to the problem.
v.intr.
1. To converge on or toward a central point of focus; be focused.
2. To adjust one's vision or an optical device so as to render a clear, distinct image.
3. To concentrate attention or energy: a campaign that focused on economic issues.

focus - definition of focus by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And when you think about it, that is what the entire book IS, really. He does more or less the same thing to the word "cause" when he says that the past cannot cause us to do anything. He conflates "Cause" with "Coerce".

He does no such thing. Cause or compel mean exactly what they say, and they are synonymous. The only qualification, which does not change the fact that we are compelled to do what we do, is that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not remove our responsibility in performing those actions, where the present definition could be used to shift one's responsibility by saying something other than ME caused me to do what I did. You're completely lost Vivisectus, and you are giving yourself way too much credit.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you stop with your expletives LadyShea? They only serve to try to make me look foolish, but in the end it is you who looks foolish. If you think about it, all the other senses get an immediate reaction because the brain is receiving signals from the outside world. Therefore, a dog SHOULD be able to get an immediate reaction when he sees a picture of his master, if his eyes are a sense organ. This would have nothing to do with a dog's conceptual abilities, just like hearing and taste have nothing to do with his conceptual abilities. That was your latest retort.

That's interesting: if that where the case, then you should be able to identify different sheep from pictures of their faces. Sheep can. And they remember the faces for up to 2 years too. From life-size digital images of sheep.

Study: Sheep Recognize Other Sheep, Even People - ABC News

More empirical evidence! It is just piling up...

[LadyShea]

If you think about it, all the other senses get an immediate reaction because the brain is receiving signals from the outside world. Therefore, a dog SHOULD be able to get an immediate reaction when he sees a picture of his master, if his eyes are a sense organ.

Your latest explanation as to why humans can recognize faces but dogs supposedly cannot, even though both have efferent vision, had to do with dogs' lack of human language.

Yet, we know birds and dolphins can recognize individual human faces (and apparently so can sheep)...why are they able to do this, but dogs are not able to, despite the common lack of human language, in your theory? What explains the differences amongst various animals in human facial recognition, according to you?

This would have nothing to do with a dog's conceptual abilities, just like hearing and taste have nothing to do with his conceptual abilities. That was your latest retort.

I never used the word conceptual. I said cognition. You know, the cognition part of the word recognition?

[Vivisectus]

We see an object because it can be seen with a telescope.

LOL really? We see it because we can see it? Amazing!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

We are not seeing how it looked 16 minutes ago unless the object has traveled into our field of view 16 minutes later.

Please do elaborate that point - it sounds delightfully contradictory to your own point once again. If something traveled into my "field view" sixteen minutes ago, I will see it how it was sixteen minutes ago? That is my point, not yours. Again.

Your sarcasm is not becoming Vivisectus. You better be careful what you say and how you say it or I will pass over your longgggg posts. Just giving you a warning.

Still no evidence to be seen... but that is my fault right?

I have never engaged in playground repartee, so you're premise that this is what I'm doing is already fallacious, so there's no point in me quibbling with you over your faulty reasoning.

...still no evidence forthcoming.

Again, we have to have light surrounding the object to see it, but we don't need the light to travel to us which takes time. The only thing that would do is allow us to see each other, as when daylight approaches.

Then we would see the light from the sun coming from where the sun was, and see the sun where it is. That clearly is not the case.

Yes, it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not. Your posts are without any substance; you just keep denying that Lessans has anything of value without any proof that what you're saying has any merit at all. Unless you have a pertinent question, I'm going to pass over your posts.

You will end up doing that anyway, because you cannot answer them properly, and to hang on to this nonsense you will be forced to find some excuse not to deal with them. It is what you always do.

The difference is that I do have proof: lots of it. I have the proof of the moons of Jupiter. I have the proof of all those successful probes launched at planets. I have the proof of the fact that we do not see reflected light in a different place than the object reflecting it. It goes on and on.

You on the other hand only have some theoretical future evidence that may or may not ever materialize.

That's not true in the case of efferent vision. Remember, the object must be large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eye, whether it's magnified through a telescope or whether it's seen by the naked eye. Therefore, the light is already at the retina. Of course, you don't get this relationship at all, so you continue with the same old refrains that you always have.

I love it when you go into these weird little speeches. They carry almost no information, but you never seem to notice. Let us analyse: Even though we detect light, there is no delay, because this is not true in the case of efferent vision. Which is funny as it suggests there are cases of either efferent or afferent vision .

Then you say "The object must be large enough and bright enough to be seen etc." which merely means it must be detectable. Again - none of this has anything to do with the fact that in order to detect light, we need to wait for it to get here.

Then, as if you have actually made a point, you say "THEREFORE, the light is already at the retina"

But none of what you said before explained anything! In fact, this breaks down to:

An object must be visible, therefore the light is already at the retina.

And you do not even seem to notice it. Amazing!

[QUOTE-vivisectus]Limited as my understanding may be, I have one small advantage over you: I actually know what focussing is.

Oh be quiet. You have no power here, like the Witch of the North says in the Wizard of Oz. [/QUOTE]

No power required or desired.

He explained the mechanism whereby a baby's brain begins this focussing process.

Deafness is only one stimuli. There are other stimulii that can cause the brain to focus such as taste and touch. If a child had no stimuli to arouse the brain to focus the eyes, that would be another story.

That is not borne out by evidence: children with severe paralysis and deafness still develop their sight just like other children.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wonderful isn't it? An entire system based on his inability to distinguish between two uses of a word.

fo·cus (fks)
n. pl. fo·cus·es or fo·ci (-s, -k)
1.
a. A point at which rays of light or other radiation converge or from which they appear to diverge, as after refraction or reflection in an optical system: the focus of a lens. Also called focal point.
b. See focal length.
2.
a. The distinctness or clarity of an image rendered by an optical system.b. The state of maximum distinctness or clarity of such an image: in focus; out of focus.
c. An apparatus used to adjust the focal length of an optical system in order to make an image distinct or clear: a camera with automatic focus.
3. A center of interest or activity. See Synonyms at center.
4. Close or narrow attention; concentration: "He was forever taken aback by [New York's] pervasive atmosphere of purposefulnessthe tight focus of its drivers, the brisk intensity of its pedestrians" (Anne Tyler).
5. A condition in which something can be clearly apprehended or perceived: couldn't get the problem into focus.
6. Pathology The region of a localized bodily infection or disease.
7. Geology The point of origin of an earthquake.
8. Mathematics A fixed point whose relationship with a directrix determines a conic section.
v. fo·cused or fo·cussed, fo·cus·ing or fo·cus·sing, fo·cus·es or fo·cus·ses
v.tr.
1. To cause (light rays, for example) to converge on or toward a central point; concentrate.
2.
a. To render (an object or image) in clear outline or sharp detail by adjustment of one's vision or an optical device; bring into focus.
b. To adjust (a lens, for example) to produce a clear image.
3. To direct toward a particular point or purpose: focused all their attention on finding a solution to the problem.
v.intr.
1. To converge on or toward a central point of focus; be focused.
2. To adjust one's vision or an optical device so as to render a clear, distinct image.
3. To concentrate attention or energy: a campaign that focused on economic issues.

focus - definition of focus by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Yup, that is the dictionary entry for the word you do not understand and do not use correctly. You regularly confuse 3. To direct toward a particular point or purpose with b. To adjust (a lens, for example) to produce a clear image. for example.

He does no such thing. Cause or compel mean exactly what they say, and they are synonymous.

No, they are not. I can warn you that the berries are poisonous. Tomorrow, you hesitate to eat them. I caused you to hesitate, but I did not compel you to hesitate. Like I said: you and your father clearly conflate the two terms.

The only qualification, which does not change the fact that we are compelled to do what we do, is that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not remove our responsibility in performing those actions, where the present definition could be used to shift one's responsibility by saying something other than ME caused me to do what I did. You're completely lost Vivisectus, and you are giving yourself way too much credit.

...which once again has nothing to do with what we were discussing.