A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Immutable is immutable. Non-absorbed light is light. It has the same properties as light. You can't debate light if you are not debating light.

That is exactly what I'm saying. White light travels. Non-aborbed light does not. It reveals the world to us. Light doesn't bounce off and travel with all different wavelength/frequencies depending on what it happens to strike.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what I'm saying. White light travels. Non-aborbed light does not. Light doesn't bounce off and travel

So efferent vision requires a change in the empirically observed, measurable, and absolutely known properties of light.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not delete anything koan.

You already have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be unethical number one,

When has that ever stopped you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and number two, his knowledge is accurate whether you think so or not.

Sez you and no one else in the whole wide world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And for you to twist the letter he wrote to Jimmy Carter and what he was asking for, is not a reflection on him, but on you.

It wasn't a letter, dumbfuck.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was desperate.

No shit. The mean ol' world wasn't recognizing the boundless genius of God's holy messenger. Surely that justifies a completely frivolous lawsuit against the President.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give him credit for doing this,

Of course. You're as big an asshole as he was.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and if you were in his shoes you would have done the same exact thing.

That's idiotic even by your standards.

Tell me, did your father step up, take responsibility for his actions and pay the costs associated with getting his frivolous lawsuit dismissed? I'm betting he didn't. In all likelihood, sponging off the government is a family tradition as well.

[LadyShea]

and if you were in his shoes you would have done the same exact thing.

I can guarantee I would not sue the POTUS for not giving me an audience to hear an idea I had.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what I'm saying. White light travels. Non-aborbed light does not. It reveals the world to us. Light doesn't bounce off and travel with all different wavelength/frequencies depending on what it happens to strike.

What you are saying is completely wrong. You say that you are not changing the laws of physics, but these statments contradict the known laws of physics. There is no 'white Light', all light that is not absorbed travels. Light does bounce off (reflect off) objects with the frequency that corosponds to the color of that object. Your statments in this quote do not just contradict physics, they illustrate just how stupid you really are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what I'm saying. White light travels. Non-aborbed light does not. It reveals the world to us. Light doesn't bounce off and travel with all different wavelength/frequencies depending on what it happens to strike.

We know this is what you are saying. The problem is that it is completely and utterly retarded. White light is just the collection of light of differing wavelengths. When this light hits an object, some of it is absorbed and used up, while the rest bounces off and travels away. The light that bounces off and travels away is the non-absorbed light. It does not pick up or take anything away from the object it has hit. No-one is claiming that it does. The light bouncing off has not changed. These non-absorbed photons are exactly as they were before they hit the object, only they are now traveling in a different direction. All that is different is that the part of the spectrum that got absorbed is not longer there. The non-absorbed light that has bounced off and is traveling away has not picked up and carried away any 'wavelength of the object', or information about the object. The light just is this information. If white light hits an object, and only the blue light bounces off and travels towards us (with the rest having been absorbed) then this tells us that there is an object in the direction we are looking which is absorbing all but blue light - i.e. there is a blue object in that direction.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I said it wasn't a perfect analogy, but I used it to get across the idea that what we are seeing is the upside down version (the mirror image) of the object as it is right now without any time delay.

It is worse than that: it is nonsensical.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean "they produce photons?" The eyes don't produce photons Vivisectus. Photons are traveling all the time but the image (wavelength/frequency) that is at the retina does not get reflected. It does not bounce off of the object and travel across space. I've already explained this.

If the eyes do not produce them then there is no way to explain how they got there? Remember - we are talking about the light that is at the retina 8 minutes before the rest of the light produced by the sun gets here, when the sun is just switched on.

So is it your position that this light at the retina... teleports there?

I have no idea what you're talking about. What photons are used up in the process? Photons get dispersed as the light gets farther and farther away from the object, but it does not get reflected. We see the object because of this non-absorbed light, but what travels through space/time is the full spectrum.

I have no idea what you're talking about

That is abundantly clear.

We see the object because of this non-absorbed light, but what travels through space/time is the full spectrum.

So let me get this straight: non-absorbed light travels instantly to any retina that happens to point in its direction, while the full spectrum - which has somehow regained the absorbed wavelenght - travels at boring old lightspeed?

Or is it that non-absorbed light that has a retina pointed at it exists both at the retina and the object at the same time?

Tell me, how does this magical non-absorbed light (a phrase that only has meaning in real optics, not in your idea) know that there is a retina no magically transport itself to instantly without travelling?

How does light regains the full spectrum once it has bounced off something and part it has been absorbed? How come coloured light (full spectrum of visible light minus a few wavelengths) can be measured to travel at the same speed as any other?

Absurdities! Look at the ridiculous lengths you have to go to to even be able to entertain the notion!

The implications do not lead to absurdities; that's all in your head. You're making things up that don't even relate and thinking you've got it all figured out. You really don't, and this whole discussion is getting boring.

They clearly do: I just pointed a few out to you. And it is just a few out of a long list of them.

The only way you can hang on to this idea is by making up bizarre nonsense like "Non-absorbed light" that somehow has different properties from normal light, and "mirror images that are the other side of the coin"... you do not even know what that means.

It is purest crackpottery.

[LadyShea]

She even refuses to use the word photoreceptors.

[LadyShea]

Let's go back to the first discovery, you started ignoring that topic with me after I posted this. Are you going to ignore it again?

Compatibilists disagree with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, just like Spacemonkey, have completely missed the reasoning that proves this beyond a shadow of doubt.

I have explained why I think Lessans reasoning was fallacious, and all you've done is assert that it was spot on.

And, this concept is not at all proveable, it can merely be agreed with or not agreed with.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is simple peacegirl. According to compatibilism, our beliefs, desires and motives and values etc. are causally determined (because the brain is a material thing and subject to cause and effect), but we are free to choose how and whether to act on them and to contemplate on them, thereby possibly changing or refining them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is double talk. Don't you see this?

Double talk is your crap about mirror images and magically relocated photons. There is nothing nonsensical about what I said about compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot be causally determined and still be free

Sure you can, I just showed you how it is possible. Are you defining "free" in some odd way?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being free to choose how and whether to act on those choices or to contemplate them does not mean we have free will.

I define free will as being free to to choose how and whether to act.

So yes, it is free will, according to some concepts of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have such a superficial understanding of this issue it's extremely difficult.

LOL, you are the one with the strict binary thinking lacking in nuance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot have both free will and determinism at the same time.

Hume and other compatibilist disagree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a complete contradiction and someone who is supposed to be a philosophical thinker, you're just as brainwashed as everybody else.

Brainwashed into thinking what exactly?

What "latest theories" do you think I am agreeing with?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it has been a philosophical debate. This knowledge was borne out of philosophical thought, but now there is factual proof that man's will is not free.

You've not offered any proof. It can't even be proven, as I've stated many times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think that just because there was no proof up until now, that this debate will always remain a theory? It's called progress LadyShea.

"Man's will is not free" not a falsifiable proposition. It can't be proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I quoted Wiki to show you how compatibilism is not a contradictory philosophy given varying concepts of free will and varying concepts of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is completely contradictory. I can't talk to you if you keep insisting that this position is logically acceptable.

It is not logically contradictory, nor have you demonstrated any contradiction.

You've asserted it plenty, but can you show us any contradiction?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so obvious to an astute observer that it is completely illogical.

LOL, lots of things about Lessans book are obvious to an astute observer that you will vehemently disagree with, so this opinion of yours holds very little weight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care that in the world of compatibilism there are "varying" degrees of free will and "varying" concepts of determinism. In order to reconcile these two concepts, these definitions of "varying" degrees have been created, but it's total gibberish.

Some people, like Hume, disagree. And nobody cares what you think about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We either have free will or we don't

There is no rational reason to accept this statement as true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, and in an effort to make people blameworthy free will gets a free pass without any real proof that free will exists in the first place.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of free will

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW. These were my own words: According to compatibilism, our beliefs, desires and motives and values etc. are causally determined (because the brain is a material thing and subject to cause and effect), but we are free to choose how and whether to act on them and to contemplate on them, thereby possibly changing or refining them.

Please think carefully about this instead of givine me a knee-jerk reaction based on what you've been taught.

What I've been taught by whom? My only personal experience with free will vs. determinism has been online, starting with Christian apologists, and my looking into the subject has only been for these online discussions. I have no use for the term "free will" myself...I think it's an obsolete concept outside of theology.

So no, I haven't been taught anything about this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If our beliefs, desires, motives and values, etc. are causally determined (because the brain is a material thing and subject to cause and effect), then everything that follows must, out of necessity, be determined.

There you go with the must. Back that must up with any kind of logical argument.

[naturalist.atheist]

Hello! She's crazy. Why do you expect a crazy person to act sanely?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's go back to the first discovery, you started ignoring that topic with me after I posted this. Are you going to ignore it again?

One of the oddest aspects of her mental dysfunction is the way she keeps changing the topic herself, by choosing not to reply to posts concerning the first non-discovery, and then turning around and blaming others for having changed the subject and for not wanting to discuss the first non-discovery. It's like she's completely oblivious to her own behavior. Just like she seems at times to to be completely unaware of her own evasion and dishonesty. It must be a horrible way to live. I would pity her were it not for how she persists in her evasion and dishonesty when she is made aware of it.

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, what is the definition of free will according to you and your father? We would need to know that as a starting point. I do not see a clear definition in the book.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

One of the oddest aspects of her mental dysfunction is the way she keeps changing the topic herself, by choosing not to reply to posts concerning the first non-discovery, and then turning around and blaming others for having changed the subject and for not wanting to discuss the first non-discovery. It's like she's completely oblivious to her own behavior. Just like she seems at times to to be completely unaware of her own evasion and dishonesty. It must be a horrible way to live. I would pity her were it not for how she persists in her evasion and dishonesty when she is made aware of it.

What makes you think she is aware of it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So efferent vision requires a change in the empirically observed, measurable, and absolutely known properties of light.

Where did I say that LadyShea? I said the exact opposite: that efferent vision does not change the speed of light or any known measurable properties. But it does offer a phenomenon that allows the eyes to see an object even though those photons have not reached Earth. That is due to two things: the object must be in one's field of view (i.e., it must be large enough and bright enough to be seen), and the eyes must be efferent. If the eyes were not efferent, it wouldn't matter whether the object was in view or not because photons would be bringing the image to the retina and ultimately the brain through space/time (with or without the object being present), but if the eyes are efferent (and we're assuming it is, even though you aren't sure at this point), the requirements for seeing in this way are not woo at all. They follow the same physical laws as any other legitimate scientific observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We know this is what you are saying. The problem is that it is completely and utterly retarded. White light is just the collection of light of differing wavelengths. When this light hits an object, some of it is absorbed and used up, while the rest bounces off and travels away. The light that bounces off and travels away is the non-absorbed light.

You're just repeating the exact thing Lessans is disputing. He said the following for those who might have stumbled upon this thread:

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope?

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It does not pick up or take anything away from the object it has hit. No-one is claiming that it does. The light bouncing off has not changed. These non-absorbed photons are exactly as they were before they hit the object, only they are now traveling in a different direction. All that is different is that the part of the spectrum that got absorbed is not longer there.

I understand your interpretation, and I believe it's wrong. It is true that part of the spectrum that got absorbed is no longer there. The question is what is happening with the non-absorbed light. Is it bouncing and being reflected, or is it revealing the external world to those who are looking in that direction?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The non-absorbed light that has bounced off and is traveling away has not picked up and carried away any 'wavelength of the object', or information about the object. The light just is this information.

He never thought that light actually picks the image up or carries it like a basket carries a bunch of apples.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If white light hits an object, and only the blue light bounces off and travels towards us (with the rest having been absorbed) then this tells us that there is an object in the direction we are looking which is absorbing all but blue light - i.e. there is a blue object in that direction.

That part is true. That is why we only get on the retina the non-absorbed photons which allow us to see the object. But the question remains: Are the non-absorbed photons being reflected and traveling through space/time, or are they revealing the external world due to light's presence as a condition for sight, but not a cause of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your window analogy doesn't say anything about the object being necessary either, so it remains not only imperfect but also completely useless, for the reasons I just gave you.

That window analogy is not useless at all because it gives someone an image of what the brain is doing at birth (this ability to focus the eyes in order to see what it is experiencing when it is stimulated by the other senses), and it makes more sense when spoken in these familiar terms.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot separate your desires, opinions, beliefs and motives and say they are caused in one breath, and then say you have free will in the next breath.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, we can. We can say exactly that.

I know you can say it, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because nothing is coercing you to choose one way or another does not mean your will is free.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It means we have the compatibilist kind of freedom that I explained to you before.

That compatibilist kind of freedom is no different than the standard definition of free will, which means it's a contradiction. All they have done is try to make it look like it's not a contradiction so they can have a reconciliatory solution that will keep responsibility intact and justify blame and punishment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you examine this carefully you will see that the compatibilist definition has been a way to resolve this irreconcilable issue since to make someone morally blameworthy, the people doing the blaming must believe that this person had the "freedom" to choose otherwise. But how could one choose otherwise if his desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are pushing or causing him to act a certain way? Can't you see the contradiction? Don't you see that if someone has the freedom to choose a different alternative than the one that was chosen, then his actions would not be determined.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilist freedom is not the freedom to have been able to choose otherwise in exactly the same causal conditions. It is rather the freedom to have been able to choose differently under slightly different antecedent conditions, and to have been able to act in accordance with one's decision given whatever choice one is actually caused to make.

This is a form of freedom which we undeniably have, and which is also sufficient for moral responsibility, blame, and punishment. And there is no contradiction involved at all, regardless of your faith-claims and assertions to the contrary.

Of course people change their choices according to slightly different antecedent conditions, but this just shows that one's choices are everchanging depending on new circumstances each and every moment of time. Where does this change the fact that one's choices are not free? This doesn't show that we have free will, and your believing that it does shows me how very confused you are about the knowledge in the book that you think you are now an expert on.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1097309]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So efferent vision requires a change in the empirically observed, measurable, and absolutely known properties of light.

Where did I say that LadyShea?

You say it every time you say that "non-absorbed" light has different properties than white light. You said it when you said "Non-aborbed light does not (travel). Light doesn't bounce off and travel"

Traveling and reflection are empirically observed, measurable, and absolutely known properties of light. There is no property differentiation between white light and reflected light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the exact opposite: that efferent vision does not change the speed of light or any known measurable properties.

IN efferent vision, is light that is not absorbed by an object reflected or transmitted? Does reflected light travel at light speed the same as any other light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it does offer a phenomenon that allows the eyes to see an object even though those photons have not reached Earth. That is due to two things: the object must be in one's field of view (i.e., it must be large enough and bright enough to be seen), and the eyes must be efferent.

LOL, tautology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They follow the same physical laws as any other legitimate scientific observation.

Nope, because you require light to have different properties than it is known to have, and you require light to be at a location without a physically possible mechanism for getting there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are the non-absorbed photons being reflected and traveling through space/time

Yes because traveling and reflection are empirically observed, measurable, and absolutely known properties of light.

If you need to change the known properties of light for efferent vision to be true, then it violates laws of physics.

So choose. Do you need a change int the laws of physics or the properties of light for efferent vision to be true, yes or no? If yes, admit it, if no, you have to change your model to include mechanisms that are in accordance with those laws and properties.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can guarantee I would not sue the POTUS for not giving me an audience to hear an idea I had.

LadyShea, don't make me feel that you are as closed-minded as koan. I don't have the time to bicker about stupid things. This would make me lose my interest in talking to you altogether. Lessans knew the difficulty, but he took the shot as a calculated risk. He obviously lost, but he did it because he needed an audience and he tried to do whatever it took. You can blame him until the cows come home, but his motives were pure. It's true that his efforts failed due to the fact that he was an unknown. People that are not celebrities or endorsed by the established universites get the raw deal. He was one of those that got the raw deal.

He was also a realist and he dealt with this by the fact that he didn't have people coming to him with open arms as the best way he could. He was extremely accepting of everyone's questions, but he has still been condemned. Why is he being condemned? Please spare me from telling me it's all faith based. I will not answer you. Writing to the President was a last ditch effort just like it was with Gregor Mendel. I don't need to hear the minutia that says he did not struggle to prove his case. He did, but he was not listened to, sort of like what's happening here. I believe his account of efferent vision and no free will can be verified EVENTUALLY, which may pose a problem becasue everyone wants an immediate answer.

And btw, anonymous is so wrong in his conclusions, I feel like I"m stepping on Lessans' grave, but he would have understood. Anonymous, for what this is worth (which is nothing because you will try to find flaws and feel justified in ruining my reputation, Lessans paid for his suit that would have evenutally gone public. He hid nothing and paid in full what was due. Everything that he did came out of his own pocket, not the government which anomymous is accusing him of with words that are so demeaning to this major discovery that I could slap him the face if he dared to show it to me in real life. How sad it that? Lessans never leached on the government to pay his way.

Anonymous, defend what I am saying without the cursing. YOU CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A SNEAK AND A FRAUD.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

This is a laughably inaccurate explanation of the standard model of sight, and why you are so confused all the time peacegirl

1. There is nothing in optics about light reflecting anything. Light is reflected in the scientific model, light doesn't reflect

2. Electric images is the same idiotic strawman you've stuck to forever and it makes 0 sense and makes you sound stupid

3. Since there are no "reflected electric images" of things light has touched, there are no reflected electric images of things light has touched traveling through space

Lessans completely misunderstood the standard model peacegirl, so you are stuck trying to defend his mistaken ideas.

Originally Posted by Lessans

The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected.

No shit! Nobody has ever said images are reflected. That's a strawman. Misunderstanding of optics on full display here!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can guarantee I would not sue the POTUS for not giving me an audience to hear an idea I had.

LadyShea, don't make me feel that you are closed-minded with an air of open-mindedness that is not open-minded in ANY SENSE OF THE WORD. If you continue to do this, I will lose my interest in talking to you altogether as an objective scientist (which you yourself admit you are not). Lessans knew the difficult task ahead of him, but he took the shot. He needed an audience and he tried to do it through ordinary means. That failed due to the fact that he was an unknown, but he thought that by explaining his astute observations (that had taken him years to observe), he may have been respected enough to get (at the very least) some kind of welcome. This was not to happen. Following this disappointment, he had to figure out a way to adjust how to to the ignorance of people who had no clue of what he had even discovered. Don't you see the problem here?

And to answer anonymous (I will never talk to this man directly again unless he comes to his senses, which I do not believe will happen unless there's a miracle), Lessans paid for the suit to the President out of his own pocket. What are you going to say now to redeeem yourself anonymous? You will find something, but it will mean nothing. The fact that you can't show your face is very telling. You are a coward.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He hid nothing and paid in full what was due. Everything that he did came out of his own pocket, not the government which anomymous is accusing him of with words that are so demeaning to this major discovery that I could slap him the face if he dared to show it to me in real life. How sad it that? Lessans never leached on the government to pay his way.

Anonymous, defend what I am saying without the cursing. YOU CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A SNEAK AND A FRAUD.

Lessans did not pay the judge or court to process and review his suit. The public pays judges and courts, not individual petitioners. By wasting the court's time with this frivolous suit he wasted public dollars.

Lessans filing a suit is the stuff insane people do. Crazy people file crazy lawsuits, wasting time and money, all the time. Lessans was just one of them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans did not pay the judge or court to process and review his suit. The public pays judges and courts, not individual petitioners. By wasting the court's time with this frivolous suit he wasted public dollars.

Lessans filing a suit is the stuff insane people do. Crazy people file crazy lawsuits, wasting time and money, all the time. Lessans was just one of them.

Oh my god, so now you are going off onto Stephens bullshit: I am so disgusted with you, as a spokesperson for this forum, I am going to the toilet to throw up.