A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not being clear. Don't put the onus on me. Show me how this negates Lessans' claim.

Doc Physics - Fizeau's 1850 Experimental Measurement of the Speed of Light - YouTube

It's a proof by negation, a reductio ad absurdum:

Hypothesis: We see things instantly - what we see is happening exactly when we see it.
Fact: Light has a finite speed.

The Fizeau experiment is constructed in such a way that when the light is reaching a person's eye, the pathway between the light source and the light is obstructed by the wheel's gear. When the pathway is not obstructed, no light is at the person's eye.

So, if we saw instantly, we would be receiving light into our eye when the gear is in the pathway of our vision, and we would see the gear.

However, what we see is the light source, illuminated. We see exactly what we would see if there was no spinning gear in between the light source and our eye.

Therefore, the hypothesis is false.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

DavidM . . . kept saying determinism is a modal fallacy and Steve Lawrence refuted that.

Not really. Steve got all his best philosophy ideas from Eydie.

[specious_reasons]

BTW, But is putting the onus on you because:
1. It's your idea we're testing, and everyone else has looked at the evidence and concluded Lessans is wrong.
2. He's hoping that you'll actually think about the problem. Fizeau's experiment is pretty easy in both construction and concept that it's not too hard to think about.

However, I just spelled it all out for you. I'm beyond hope that you're willing to think about it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seasoned does not mean much when it comes to a new idea. There was very little discussion regarding this discovery; in fact almost nil. It was mainly a debate over free will, compatibilism and the standard definition of determinism. So once again you are presupposing that there was a lot of inquiry and deep discussion. There wasn't. Of course, thedoc and Davidm had to bring up the claim regarding the eyes which threw the entire thread off course. It never gained any real footing again.

For many pages the discussion was about free will and determinism because that was one subject in the book that only had the support of opinion, nothing objective or testable. Peacegirl refused to talk about vision because she know the claims were testable and wrong. Lessans claims about free will and determinism were just as unprovable and wrong, but being based on opinion and conjecture there was no way to test them, it was all semantics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

However, I just spelled it all out for you. I'm beyond hope that you're willing to think about it.

It's called willful ignorance, and Peacegirl has it in abundance.

[ceptimus]

Peacegirl can also explain, in her own words, why the moons of Jupiter apparently slow down in their orbits whenever Earth is moving away from Jupiter, and speed back up again when Earth moves towards Jupiter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It's a proof by negation, a reductio ad absurdum:

Hypothesis: We see things instantly - what we see is happening exactly when we see it.
Fact: Light has a finite speed.

The Fizeau experiment is constructed in such a way that when the light is reaching a person's eye, the pathway between the light source and the light is obstructed by the wheel's gear. When the pathway is not obstructed, no light is at the person's eye.

So, if we saw instantly, we would be receiving light into our eye when the gear is in the pathway of our vision, and we would see the gear.

No we would not; not if the light was occluded as it hit the tooth and bounced back to the mirror.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

However, what we see is the light source, illuminated. We see exactly what we would see if there was no spinning gear in between the light source and our eye.

Therefore, the hypothesis is false.

If the light missed the tooth because of the speed of the wheel, we would see the light source as if there was no spinning gear. So what. Where does this negate the idea that light is a necessary condition of sight, not the direct cause of sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Peacegirl can also explain, in her own words, why the moons of Jupiter apparently slow down in their orbits whenever Earth is moving away from Jupiter, and speed back up again when Earth moves towards Jupiter.

You know my famous words. There may be something else going on. I don't know what that something else is. All I know is that Lessans' observations need further investigation. The fact that the established theory has graduated into fact doesn't help in my effort to get a thorough investigation of what scientists already have classified as a done deal. This has closed all doors because there's no interest. There has to be an unbiased test (not just one but many) which means that the methodology must be completely independent of all previous biases. The studies heretofore already have confirmation bias embedded in them and are therefore unreliable. I'm really not interested in getting into this topic again.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the light missed the tooth because of the speed of the wheel, we would see the light source as if there was no spinning gear. So what. Where does this negate the idea that light is a necessary condition of sight, not the direct cause of sight?

Is it not the case that in your "model" of vision, you can't see an object if there is no light at the object at that moment?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

light is a necessary condition of sight, not the direct cause of sight?

Just like the book, meaningless word salad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Is it not the case that in your "model" of vision, you can't see an object if there is no light at the object at that moment?

So if there is light at the lamp, which would be true because the lamp is a light source, we should be able to see the light all the time. But the experiment proves that when the slots don't line up with the beam of light, we do not see the light, therefore efferent vision is false.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the light missed the tooth because of the speed of the wheel, we would see the light source as if there was no spinning gear. So what. Where does this negate the idea that light is a necessary condition of sight, not the direct cause of sight?

But, according to the experiment, we do not see the light source when the slot does not line up with the beam of light, therefore efferent vision is false. And the light is bright enough, and big enough, and in the line of sight, as proved when the slot does line up with the beam of light, the light is visible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Is it not the case that in your "model" of vision, you can't see an object if there is no light at the object at that moment?

That is true. How can we see an object if there is no light? The light hitting the tooth on the wheel is an obstruction. There is no light at the retina. No light, no sight.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true. How can we see an object if there is no light? The light hitting the tooth on the wheel is an obstruction. There is no light at the retina. No light, no sight.

No. At the moment the experimenter sees the light, the path between eye and mirror is unobstructed, but there is no light at the mirror. The light, which is a short pulse, has left the mirror and travels to the eye, passing between the teeth of the wheel.

As I said, you don't understand the experiment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true. How can we see an object if there is no light? The light hitting the tooth on the wheel is an obstruction. There is no light at the retina. No light, no sight.

According to your version of efferent vision the light needs only to be at the object, in this case the lamp, and the light is then instantly at the retina. The lamp is a light source, and therefore always illuminated, and always visible according to efferent vision. The lamp is illuminated, big enough to be seen, and in the line of sight. Or are you now saying that light needs to travel to the retina for vision to occurre? That is afferent vision.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop accusing people of being crackpots.

Why should he? People defending that the earth is flat and relativity is wrong are crackpots, per definition. As everyone who denies established science. There are e.g. crackpots that deny that we see lighting objects because the light travels from the object to our eyes.

Just to be sure that you understand what I mean: established science is science on which technology is based that works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said relativity was wrong.

Then why do you provide a link to an article that says relativity is wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GdB, how do you or anybody at CFI know, with the limited knowledge that you have, whether this discovery is genuine or not?

In the fist place I have a very fine nose for crackpot theories in the area of philosophy, physics and astronomy. Secondly you can immediately recognise a crackpot if the person in question has no record of understanding present day theories and still criticises them, and thirdly, when they start complaining that their ideas are not accepted, and then compare themselves with Einstein, whose ideas also took some time to get established. Normally these 2 criteria suffice to recognise a crackpot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So once again you are presupposing that there was a lot of inquiry and deep discussion. There wasn't.

There was a lot of discussion. But a deep discussion was hardly needed, when one sees that you put error after error: your modal fallacy (still waiting for a reaction on my posting here), and the circularity of the principle of greatest satisfaction, and the absurd definition of free will you are using (the capability not to act according your reasons).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, thedoc and Davidm had to bring up the claim regarding the eyes which threw the entire thread off course. It never gained any real footing again.

They were really not needed to show that your ideas are ridiculous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Why should he? People defending that the earth is flat and relativity is wrong are crackpots, per definition. As everyone who denies established science. There are e.g. crackpots that deny that we see lighting objects because the light travels from the object to our eyes.

Just to be sure that you understand what I mean: established science is science on which technology is based that works.

Then why do you provide a link to an article that says relativity is wrong?

In the fist place I have a very fine nose for crackpot theories in the area of philosophy, physics and astronomy. Secondly you can immediately recognise a crackpot if the person in question has no record of understanding present day theories and still criticises them, and thirdly, when they start complaining that their ideas are not accepted, and then compare themselves with Einstein, whose ideas also took some time to get established. Normally these 2 criteria suffice to recognise a crackpot.

This guy was not arguing against relativity. He was saying that special relativity was contradictory. I'm sorry but my father was not a crackpot, so your criteria fails. In the area my father made a discovery, he was on par with Einstein so the comparison is valid. You can think whatever you want, but I can see that this may have already prejudiced you to the degree that a productive discussion would be possible. I hope that's not the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So once again you are presupposing that there was a lot of inquiry and deep discussion. There wasn't.

Originally Posted by GdB

There was a lot of discussion. But a deep discussion was hardly needed, when one sees that you put error after error: your modal fallacy (still waiting for a reaction on my posting here), and the circularity of the principle of greatest satisfaction, and the absurd definition of free will you are using (the capability not to act according your reasons).

There are no errors GdB. I thought I did answer you. If this is the long post you're talking about, I asked you to break it down. The fact that whatever one chooses IS in the direction of greater satisfaction does not make this observation inaccurate. You need to go deeper, which you are failing to do. This is the most important discovery of our times, and you're missing it. You are one of the group of naysayers, which every discoverer had to deal with. You are adamant that compatibilism is perfectly sound, but it isn't. You can't have free will embedded in a deterministic world. It's absurd and the definition is only a way to try to reconcile the need to hold people morally accountable for their actions. Ironically, as you follow Lessans' reasoning, this law of our nature (as it is extended) accomplishes what blame and punishment could never do, without resorting to a contrived definition of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, thedoc and Davidm had to bring up the claim regarding the eyes which threw the entire thread off course. It never gained any real footing again.

Originally Posted by GdB

They were really not needed to show that your ideas are ridiculous.

Then why are you here in this thread? If it's so ridiculous there's no need to discuss it further. Think of this man as a crackpot and move on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

According to your version of efferent vision the light needs only to be at the object, in this case the lamp, and the light is then instantly at the retina. The lamp is a light source, and therefore always illuminated, and always visible according to efferent vision. The lamp is illuminated, big enough to be seen, and in the line of sight. Or are you now saying that light needs to travel to the retina for vision to occurre? That is afferent vision.

No thedoc. You're always wrong on the subject of this book. ALWAYS. The lamp is illuminated and if it is bright and large enough to be seen, we would be within the lamp's field of view and would be able to see it instantly (without a delay), but if there is an obstruction, how could we see it? How can a light source (in this case the lamp) be seen if there is a large tree blocking my view?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No. At the moment the experimenter sees the light, the path between eye and mirror is unobstructed, but there is no light at the mirror. The light, which is a short pulse, has left the mirror and travels to the eye, passing between the teeth of the wheel.

As I said, you don't understand the experiment.

That's not what I saw in the experiment. The light was obstructed when the light hit the tooth of the wheel and the faster it went the light was occluded completely. Maybe I'm missing something. Obviously, if on the return to the mirror the light hits the tooth of the wheel as its turning, there will be no light at the mirror.

Fizeau, experiment - YouTube

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy was not arguing against relativity. He was saying that special relativity was contradictory.

Well contradictory is one way of a theory to be false: so he is arguing against relativity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no errors GdB. I thought I did answer you.

No, you did not. I explained why your reactions are wrong here (<--- this is a link, click on it), and you did not react on that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that whatever one chooses IS in the direction of greater satisfaction does not make this observation inaccurate.

It is not a fact: it is a definition turned upside down. You call that action going into the direction of greater satisfaction, that somebody actually does. So per definition everything a person does is into the direction of greater satisfaction. It means you do not have two separate variables, 'the direction of greater satisfaction' and 'action done by an agent', and then discover the relationship. The relationship is defined. So it is not an observation at all. It is a tautology, as all definitions are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't have free will embedded in a deterministic world.

Of course you can. Even stronger: without determinism free will is impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are you here in this thread? If it's so ridiculous there's no need to discuss it further.

But I like to discuss! But your method of avoiding the most critical questions with some sweeping statements shows that you know you do not understand the matter yourself.

Now, begin with reacting on my posting here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seasoned does not mean much when it comes to a new idea. There was very little discussion regarding this discovery; in fact almost nil. It was mainly a debate over free will, compatibilism and the standard definition of determinism. So once again you are presupposing that there was a lot of inquiry and deep discussion. There wasn't. Of course, thedoc and Davidm had to bring up the claim regarding the eyes which threw the entire thread off course. It never gained any real footing again.

What part of "I read the thread" are you missing? I read the threads at CFI, I know what the discussion entailed, I am not presupposing anything.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not being clear. Don't put the onus on me. Show me how this negates Lessans' claim.

Not being clear? But used sentences any bright 5th grader could understand.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No we would not; not if the light was occluded as it hit the tooth and bounced back to the mirror.

If the light missed the tooth because of the speed of the wheel, we would see the light source as if there was no spinning gear. So what. Where does this negate the idea that light is a necessary condition of sight, not the direct cause of sight?

It negates that we see in real time without needing to wait for the light to travel to our eye. As you well know, Weasel.

[LadyShea]

From 2012. Why are you playing stupid, peacegirl? Oh, I know, it's because you are a weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this experiment, if light hasn't traveled to the eye, we can't see the light. But how can you determine what we see when light is traveling so fast, and the lightbulb is only 10 miles away? If it takes 1.3 seconds for light to reach Earth from the moon, how would anyone be able to determine what it is we are seeing in a millisecond?

Light travels from the light bulb, strikes a mirror and travels toward the wheel. Depending on how fast or slow the wheel is turning will determine whether the light gets through the teeth of the wheel or whether it gets blocked. This, in turn, allows us to figure out the speed at which light is traveling.

Originally Posted by Dragar

But it's the other way around! When we spin the wheel, we find that we sometimes can't see the mirror even though there is a clear path between us and it. Why?

No, it's bright enough and large enough. We can see it if we change the speed of the wheel, remember?

We explain the experiment easily - we see in 'delayed' time, so even though in real time there is a clear path between us and the object at that instant, it doesn't matter - completely the opposite of realtime seeing.

Likewise, if you sit any distance back from the wheel, there will be moments when the path at that instant is blocked between our eyes and the object, yet we can still see it. Because the instantaneous path does not matter. Again, impossible if we see in realtime, but obvious if we don't.

So explain. We spin the wheel, and it stops us seeing an object that's perfectly bright enough and clear enough to be seen. It has plenty of light illuminating it. So why can't we see it through the spokes of the wheel?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From 2012. Why are you playing stupid, peacegirl? Oh, I know, it's because you are a weasel.

Okay, show me the proof that when something is blocked by any piece of matter, we can still see through it like x-ray vision. This is your big shot to fame LadyShea. Show me the proof. You can't. As far as I'm concerned, you have failed to do the studies on your own, which you are accusing me of not doing. This is such a joke I don't know where to begin.