A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you say "no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject" if that's not what you meant?

Yes, that was my point. Your original post indicated you felt that was not the case, because you said so explicitly when you said "no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject".

There is nobody stopping them from doing studies and experiments and working up the math and/or offering evidence and argument against a theory. This happens in science all the time. Google the Susskind-Hawking battle for an example of this.

Opposition without evidence is worthless however. Statements of disagreement without evidential support are just assertions. Ignorant woos don't have evidence, they have assertions. If they brought hard evidence or math or compelling arguments to the table, they wouldn't be ignorant woos, they would be valid scientists doing valid science.

Differing points of view are all over the public realm in the form of books, essays, magazines, blogs, live lectures, videos, discussion forums, podcasts, radio programs, websites, conventions and expos. Surveys indicate a large percentage of Americans (close to half) agree with various "different views" over scientific views when it comes to topics like evolution and the existence of ghosts.

So, I ask again, what are you talking about?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light makes contact, that is true, but there is no stimuli that travels to the brain whereby an image can be interpreted as normal sight.

That wasn't part of this passage nor what he said at all. Can you defend and explain his actual statement or not?

The statement 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. is flat out incorrect. So why should I pay any attention to anything he says when he couldn't even get the physical facts correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no external stimuli as in a brightly colored object that is making direct contact to cause a reaction.

Light is the external stimuli. Light makes direct contact Of course objects don't enter the eyeballs, just like there is no object entering the ear when we hear nor object entering our skin when we sense pressure.

In the case of sound, a baby can hear the roar of a lion and it would wake him up because there is direct contact with something external.

Direct contact with what external, exactly. "Something external" is not very specific.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The time it takes to see a dot of a laser appear has nothing to do with light and sight.

Seeing light has nothing to do with light and sight? How do you figure that?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're appealing to the conclusion

No, I am not appealing to anything. I am showing you photographic images. How is something concrete...evidence anyone can look at... a "conclusion" being "appealed" to??

And he clarified what these terms meant in the context he was using them.

I wasn't talking about what Lessans meant, I was talking about what can be called science and what cannot.

If the methods of science aren't used, it isn't science. It's philosophy, maybe.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is what this entire discussion is about. Lessans shows that just because we can choose to act on a desire does not make will free. After all this time, people are still not getting it because they never took this knowledge seriously. Now we're back to square one.

After all this time you are still not getting it. His argument against free will is, for a number of reasons, simply not a very convincing argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, people offer excuses to justify their actions, but if they are already excused because we know they couldn't help themselves, they have no way to justify their actions to themselves. You're not understanding why conscience cannot accept actions that cannot be justified. If we take away their ability to rationalize their behavior, because they're already excused, they are left with an uncomfortable feeling since their rationalizations are not being given a chance to satisfy what their conscience knows is wrong.

You are not understanding that just because our actions are already excused does not take away our ability to justify those actions. It may mitigate the desire to justify those actions, but it certainly does not remove the ability to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, I have always taken for granted that the earth was round because that's what science has established and science is trustworthy.

Science has established that sight is afferent and that there is no such thing as real time seeing and science is trustworty. Why don't you trust it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does Angakuk.

What specific improvements have resulted from Lessans theory of efferent sight?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are benefits to this knowledge or it wouldn't matter.

Well, since it does not matter there must not be any benefits.

[Vivisectus]

I am not counting on the consequences as proof of anything Vivisectus.

You shouldn't, but I do remember you doing so on a few occasions. Let's just agree that arguments from consequences will no longer occur.

You can compare this knowledge to the flat earthers if you want, but I don't think it's fair to do so. Each claim has to stand on it's own merits.

That is exactly the issue: the standards by which you determine which claim has merit, and which does not. The ones you apply (and expect other people to apply) to this book of yours is different than the one that applies to other ideas.

The empirical evidence against a flat earth is strong - but so is the empirical evidence against efferent sight. However, you accept one and not the other for no other discernible reason than your desire for your father to have been correct.

I know you don't, so how can you tell me his case for how conscience works is weaker than the case for a flat earth? The only way to accumulate more evidence in favor of Lessans' claim is through reliable and unbiased testing. So far I've never seen a dog that can recognize his master from a picture or video without any other cues.

I can, because I have read the book, and he does not bother to make a case for it in the book. A weak case is stringer than none at all. and I have also studied the evidence the flat-earthers proffer. Unlike you, I do my homework.

And you rather prove my point by your muddled conflation of two points:

1: You speak of gathering more evidence in favor of your point of view. Again that is not how unbiased science works. You look for any evidence, either in favor or against. You are applying the methods of people who want to interpret the bible literally: you start with a conclusion, and work backwards, trying to find any fact that fits.

2: Dog sight, even if it would work the way you think it does (for which there is no evidence) is still not evidence for efferent sight. It would be compatible with it, but it does not argue either in favor or against it.

Yes, that's the only way to convince you that Lessans' perceptions were spot on.

Then you must also wait for the empirical evidence in favor of a flat earth to show up. But you don't. As I said, different standards.

What do you want me to say? Maybe the flat earthers were right. I know that Lessans has a strong case for efferent vision.

You could try being honest. What is this strong case for efferent vision? You keep alluding to it, but there is no strong case in the book.

You're right. Maybe the earth is flat.

If you apply the same standards that you apply to your book and expect others to apply then yes, you have to assume that the flat-earth theory is plausible too.

I dismiss the evidence against efferent sight because I believe the evidence for efferent sight is compelling.

Which evidence for efferent sight do we have again? My version of the book has none. I do see that the writer promises to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eyes are not sense organs, but he never seems to get round to it.

I get your point Vivisectus, but it really doesn't fly in this case. Like I said, each case has to be examined on its own merit, not on appearances based on theories that have not stood up under scrutiny. I want this knowledge to be tested and analyzed. That's the only way the truth will come out, one way or another. And don't tell me that all the tests have been done.

All tests will never be done, by definition. But a lot of them have been done, and the results of these have consistently been incompatible with efferent sight. No tests have come back incompatible with afferent sight.

We could also demand that we keep doing new tests to see if the earth is still round. But that would not make the evidence we already have go away, and it would be extremely difficult to imagine what could possibly make the earth behave as if it is round in so many ways, and still be flat!

So why aren't you a flat-earther if there is so much compelling evidence?

Because the evidence does not meet my standards, ofcourse.

We can measure a lot of things by the speed of light, but this has no relation to how the eyes work in relation to light. You're getting all mixed up.

That is just a different version of "something else could be going on". And one that you would not be able to explain using a concrete example: you are evading the issue again.

I never gave much thought to it. Maybe science is wrong there too. I don't know. All I know is that Lessans' observations regarding the eyes make absolute sense and should be investigated.

Again - the standards you apply to the book would make a flat earth seem plausible.

[quote-Vivisectus]
No you're right. A theory is a theory is a theory. Maybe their claims are compelling and the preponderance of evidence is leaning in their direction.
[/quote]

I think you need to have a look at what you think a theory is more closely. In the meantime, we have established that when we use your standards for determining what is plausible, the theory that the earth is flat becomes plausible.

So now we need to see if we can stop doing that, because it is silly, and still retain the ideas you love so much.

How can you say that when his knowledge came from years and years of studying reality? All he has done is made reference to the real world, so I don't know what you're talking about. No claims of fairies here.

Taking a long time to be wrong does not make you right. But that is beside the point: it is you who looks at ideas and just decide if they are correct or not based on how you feel about them, not based on the strength (or even existence) of the evidence in favor or against them.

Just like you just "know" your father was correct.

I have the right to take care of my health, and I will do it in the best way I know how. Medicine is not an exact science. There are many unforeseen complications from drugs and surgery, so why shouldn't I question the success rates of these therapies knowing they could impact my health and the health of my loved ones?

There you go evading the issue again. If you apply the standard that you apply tot the book and require other people to apply to it, then you would NOT have the right to criticise modern medicine.

My point is that you do not apply that standard to all ideas. This is now pretty well established, I think.

I'm being very serious. I'm tired of trying to convince you when you compare Lessans to a flat earther as if the evidence they bring and he brings are equivalent.

Actually, there is slightly more evidence for a flat earth than there is for conscience working as you think it does. There is a hell of a lot more evidence against efferent sight.

The point was that you do not ask us to wait for tests to be done to prove the earth is flat, and yet you ask us to infinitely defer our jusdgement on efferent sight.

I don't know what you mean. It's not hard to do since the advent of airplanes and ocean liners.

Think of a saucer. Its centre of the saucer is the magnetic north pole. A ship sails along, always keeping the needle of the compass at exactly 90 degrees, which means they will always point west. They will end up at the exact same point. This would work on both a round earth and a flat earth.

What do taxes have to do with the benefit of believing in a flat earth?

They could be used to give people free healthcare. Or to build schools. Not terribly difficult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quoted for the sheer, jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

For the most part science has gotten it right Lone Ranger. There is no jaw-dropping hypocrisy here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually it has been demonstrated that the signals are decoded by the brain to form images in our mind.

No it has not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If you walk in a circle around a plate, you come back to where you started. Voila!

But we're using longitude and latitude, which means there is depth to the plate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we're using longitude and latitude, which means there is depth to the plate.

Maybe something else is going on there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will send it to you reluctantly. I'm still wondering why it even matters, if you're not going to read it? If you do give it to a university make sure Lessans gets a fair shake by not only giving it to libertarians and compatibilists (which puts him at a disadvantage because they're going to point out imaginary flaws like you have), but determinists as well.

Great, so we're back on then? When do your books arrive?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we're using longitude and latitude, which means there is depth to the plate.

But you can't use those coordinates - that assumes the Earth is a sphere!

Besides, as Spacemonkey says, there might be something going on there. Why are you not waiting for the evidence to come in, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can you defend a snake oil salesman who has made millions selling software that bypasses spam filters, and promotes alternative health products that he has financially partnered with while eviscerating competing products? Mike Adams has never successfully treated anyone, because he is not a trained practitioner of any kind...he sells products for money. Why do you give any weight to anything he says?

How has he eviscerated competing products? All you have to do is go online and google health products. I do not believe for one second that this guys' motives are as cold and calculating as you are making them out to be, that's why.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do think twice about all meds and procedures, and weigh those risks against the risks of not treating whatever the problem is. Of course I don't just blindly follow doctors orders. Do you really think everyone is a complete moron?

Well I'm glad about that. Then don't make light of the fact that there has been hanky panky going on in the FDA, and that they did not disclose the true dangers of certain drugs even when they knew of the risks. They claimed certain drugs were safe and effective when they were not safe, and put thousands of people at risk of injury or death. How can you compare these breaches of trust with Mike Adams who has hurt no one with his recommendations?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Edward Gibbon is dead so can't be offended, and who gives a shit if those that love him are offended? What a strange thing to point out.

It's not strange. it's outright nasty. It just makes you look ignorant and very angry. You seem like you have a major chip on your shoulder.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But you can't use those coordinates - that assumes the Earth is a sphere!

Besides, as Spacemonkey says, there might be something going on there. Why are you not waiting for the evidence to come in, peacegirl?

Actually, longitude and latitude are easily explained using a flat earth model. Simply draw a number of circles on your plate, one inside the other. Then draw straight lines from the centre of the plate to the edges.

the staight lines are the latitude. The circles are the longitude.

like this:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"The kind we are discussing"? When was that added? What a weasel, you just moved the goal posts again.

No it's not a weasel. There is a difference with how the word free is used. We can have freedom of this or that, but that's not what people mean when they are discussing freedom of the will. As Saul Smilansky writes:

"There are many forms of freedom--- political liberty, the freedom of finding 'oneself', the sense of feeling psychologically unemcumbered and a 'free spirit,' and more which are not directly related to the traditional philosophical free will problem."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it has not.

What makes you say it has not been demonstrated? Have you ever looked up a single paper on the subject?

Light to sight: milestones in phototransduction
Phototransduction in Rods and Cones – Webvision
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/e...ed-potentials/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, longitude and latitude are easily explained using a flat earth model. Simply draw a number of circles on your plate, one inside the other. Then draw straight lines from the centre of the plate to the edges.

the staight lines are the latitude. The circles are the longitude.

like this:

What about using a compass which points north, south, east, west? Doesn't that show depth? What you're saying is that because they believe there is a preponderance of evidence in their favor, they feel they are being treated unfairly, and this is the exact situation that exists with the claim regarding the eyes. All I can say to this charge is that Lessans was an observer of reality. Moreover, the comparison isn't fair. Just because flat earthers say they are right even though, according to scientists, they are wrong given the compelling evidence to the contrary, does not mean that just because Lessans says he is right even though, according to scientists, he is wrong given the compelling evidence to the contrary, that he is necessarily wrong. These are two different cases and they stand on their own merit. It is too easy to classify a claim as wrong just because people who challenge other established theories sound similar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you say it has not been demonstrated? Have you ever looked up a single paper on the subject?

Light to sight: milestones in phototransduction
Phototransduction in Rods and Cones – Webvision
Visually Evoked Potentials – Webvision

Yes I know about these theories. I am telling you that I don't believe they have it right. They are trying to figure it out, but it's not conclusive that signals are transduced in such a way that images of the outside world are found in the brain.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it's not a weasel. There is a difference with how the word free is used. We can have freedom of this or that, but that's not what people mean when they are discussing freedom of the will.
[/I]

It is exactly what some people mean when they are discussing freedom of the will.

Lessans pitted one version of determinism, his, against one version of free will, and arbitrarily left out other understandings of both terms. Hence the false dichotomy.

Also, how did he define "will"?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I know about these theories. I am telling you that I don't believe they have it right.

On what are you basing that disbelief? What criteria did you use to evaluate the information in those links?

They are trying to figure it out, but it's not conclusive that signals are transduced in such a way that images of the outside world are found in the brain.

The signals have been measured and recorded.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about using a compass which points north, south, east, west? Doesn't that show depth?

A compass is a flat disc with a needle that points to the north pole, why wouldn't it work on a flat disc Earth?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about using a compass which points north, south, east, west? Doesn't that show depth?

No. In the flat earth model, a north pointing compass just points along the straight lines towards the north pole at the center. East and West are at right angles to north and south. It's exactly the same as the round earth model.

For all practical purposes when you're navigating over distances of a few hundred miles or less, and you're not very close to the north or south pole, then you use the flat earth model already. The map you carry with you is on flat paper or a flat screen and you compare the earth's surface (which also looks pretty flat) directly to the map.

Edit: LadyShea beat me to it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I plead the 5th amendment. You will do whatever you can to use what I have said against me in the most unscientific way you can possibly muster to support your unproven position, so I will not continue this conversation as you will use it against me in very unobjective ways. How can you put in the same breath two completely different theories that have no relation to each other? That sounds very suspicous to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

No. In the flat earth model, a north pointing compass just points along the straight lines towards the north pole at the center. East and West are at right angles to north and south. It's exactly the same as the round earth model.

For all practical purposes when you're navigating over distances of a few hundred miles or less, and you're not very close to the north or south pole, then you use the flat earth model already. The map you carry with you is on flat paper or a flat screen and you compare the earth's surface (which also looks pretty flat) directly to the map.

Edit: LadyShea beat me to it.

I get what you're saying but it's not enough proof. Lessans wants to prove his case.