A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Hmmm... Semantic shift day.... Let's try it out.

• After the prisoner was released from prison he was free to go.
  That means nobody was forcing him to stay where he was, that he could go where he wants. Agree?
  
• In democracy everybody is free to vote for who he wants.
  Again, this means nobody forces anyone to vote for some candidate.
  
• You are free to choose anything from the menu.
  Means nothing except your own will determines what you will take.

So being free means 'being free to (go where the prisoner wants, to vote what you want, to take what you want)'. It is only from actions that one can say they are free: somebody's action is free when it is caused by somebody's will.

Now we can say that a person that mostly can act according to his will is a free person. Another way of expressing this is to say that his will is free: this means that somebody's will can be expressed in his actions.

Now comes the shift! Free will means that a will has no causes. That is not the same as above! One applies a concept that is applied to the relationship between will and action on will itself. That makes no sense, it is a category error. It is like asking what the cause of causation is, or how laws of nature cause events to happen, or asking what the colour of red is. It is defining free will as 'to want what you want'. That is an absurdity.

One has shifted the meaning of free.

Now many people think that free will means that the will is uncaused. But a majority thinking something does not mean it is correct. A lot of time in philosophy is spent in tracing these kind of semantic shifts: when the same words are used it can still be that they refer different concepts. 'Free will' is such a clear case. Because a majority means with free will uncaused will does not mean this is a correct use of 'free will'.

From here:

So let the semantic shift be: let's talk real free will, free will that does exist, and not this non-existing, contradictory libertarian free will. Right?

But don't you see, there is no free will in the free will sense that is described by the free will skeptic? This is a strawman that you're building. If you choose not to get this, then there is no basis for communication because it becomes a play in semantics which will get us nowhere. Please read this and respond.

#3 STRAW MAN: The free will skeptic suggest that the lack of “free will” implies the lack of freedom in any other sense.

Many compatibilists assume that the free will skeptic is asserting that the word” freedom” cannot be used in various other ways. For example, they will insist that people have “freedom” of speech, or that the person who doesn’t have a gun to his head is “free” to decide without coercion of another person, and so on. Most free will skeptics are not rejecting the distinctions used here. They are only suggesting that “freedom of the will” is different from social, political, or rights granted freedoms, as well as freedom from certain types of human coercion. Rather, the free will skeptic is saying the “will” isn’t free from the variables that produce it, and that those variables ultimately stem to variables that are outside of the willer’s control (they are not “free” either). The compatibilist, however, will often just ignore the type of freedom being referred to in light of their own usage, and do so as if they are knocking down the position of the free will skeptic (when in fact they aren’t addressing it at all).

No free will skeptic is saying that the word “free” can’t be used to describe someone who is not in prison, someone who is free from a gun being pointed at their head, someone who is free from drug addiction, and the numerous other ways that the word “free” can be used. Rather, for “free will” the word “free” is used to qualify “will”. When someone argues that people are “free” in some other sense, and think they are combating the “free” that the free will skeptic uses for the term “free will”, they have built a straw-man to beat upon.

5 Straw-man Fallacies by Compatibilists (When Addressing Free Will Skeptics)

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can believe that real time seeing is impossible because you think it violates physics, but that's only because you don't understand the mechanism as to how this is possible. Please don't ask me what the mechanism is; I've already explained it.

Bullshit. It isn't possible and you haven't explained anything. "Efferent vision" is not a mechanism or explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bullshit. It isn't possible and you haven't explained anything. "Efferent vision" is not a mechanism or explanation.

If you had read this chapter carefully, you would have understood his reasoning. You may still not believe that he is correct and that's your prerogative, but at least you would see what made him come to this conclusion. You have no reason to be so angry.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had read this chapter carefully, you would have understood his reasoning.

That's the bit about photons sitting around smiling and waiting for us, right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can believe that real time seeing is impossible because you think it violates physics, but that's only because you don't understand the mechanism as to how this is possible. Please don't ask me what the mechanism is; I've already explained it.

Never once in your entire decade-long online crusade against reality have you ever posted ANY mechanism for how your nonsensical non-theory of vision could be possible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had read this chapter carefully...

There's no mechanism for instantaneous vision mentioned in the book either. You still don't understand what a mechanism is, do you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Peacegirl's S.O.P.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl's S.O.P.

Hi Spacemonkey. So you found me once again. The mechanism is explained by how the eyes work. If they work the way Lessans described, then the rest follows. I'm not getting into this again. It's just a waste of time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Spacemonkey. So you found me once again. The mechanism is explained by how the eyes work. If they work the way Lessans described, then the rest follows. I'm not getting into this again. It's just a waste of time.

You're a waste of time. You still don't even know what 'mechanism' means, yet that doesn't stop you from lying about having presented one.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had read this chapter carefully, you would have understood his reasoning. You may still not believe that he is correct and that's your prerogative, but at least you would see what made him come to this conclusion. You have no reason to be so angry.

How is it that science can explain every detail of how eyes work and still everyone somehow managed to overlook the fact that they aren't sense organs at all? How does that work?

I hope that one day you will realize that this stuff makes absolutely no sense at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're a waste of time. You still don't even know what 'mechanism' means, yet that doesn't stop you from lying about having presented one.

If I'm a waste of time, why are you here again? I know I know, to protect others from my lies. You still believe that the photons are traveling with the wavelength/frequency to the eye which are then decoded into an image. I am not discounting the fact that the nonabsorbed photons are what allow us to see, but the difference is that the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye IF the object can be seen, or we wouldn't be able to see said object. The function of light changes because it reveals the real world rather than bring the world to us. This model is the complete opposite of what is believed to be true without it violating the laws of physics. I'm so done with this discussion and I don't want to rehash it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

How is it that science can explain every detail of how eyes work and still everyone somehow managed to overlook the fact that they aren't sense organs at all? How does that work?

I hope that one day you will realize that this stuff makes absolutely no sense at all.

Because scientists had no reason to think that the eyes may not be a sense organ. The eyes were included in the five senses and were thought to work just like the other four. If my father was a physicist he probably would not have made this finding, but he made it indirectly. I am not demanding that anyone believe him if they don't. Only time will tell if he was right.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Spacemonkey. So you found me once again. The mechanism is explained by how the eyes work. If they work the way Lessans described, then the rest follows. I'm not getting into this again. It's just a waste of time.

Well Peacegirl, it seems that you have wasted 13+ years, and not accomplished anything, what's your excuse? Oh! I know, everyone is just mean and haven't read the book with a blank mind.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I'm a waste of time, why are you here again? I know I know, to protect others from my lies. You still believe that the photons are traveling with the wavelength/frequency to the eye which are then decoded into an image. I am not discounting the fact that the nonabsorbed photons are what allow us to see, but the difference is that the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye IF the object can be seen, or we wouldn't be able to see said object. The function of light changes because it reveals the real world rather than bring the world to us. This model is the complete opposite of what is believed to be true without it violating the laws of physics. I'm so done with this discussion and I don't want to rehash it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Perhaps, but others will not be done till you have abandon Lessans nonsense about the eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well Peacegirl, it seems that you have wasted 13+ years, and not accomplished anything, what's your excuse? Oh! I know, everyone is just mean and haven't read the book with a blank mind.

I haven't wasted 13 years. In those years I compiled 7 of his books, which took a lot of thought. Being here actually helped me improve the book but I have to admit it was grueling. Since there is nothing to add, the conversation has gotten stagnant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because scientists had no reason to think that the eyes may not be a sense organ. The eyes were included in the five senses and were thought to work just like the other four.

Only time will tell if he was right.

That is not how science works, scientists have been examining and testing the idea that the eyes are sense organs from the beginning, and so far all the tests and experiments have supported the idea that the eyes are sense organs.

Time has already told, Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps, but others will not be done till you have abandon Lessans nonsense about the eyes.

Sorry, but I'm never going to do that because I don't think he was wrong. If he was wrong, it will be determined at a future time. It certainly won't be determined in this type of venue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is not how science works, scientists have been examining and testing the idea that the eyes are sense organs from the beginning, and so far all the tests and experiments have supported the idea that the eyes are sense organs.

Time has already told, Lessans was wrong.

Nope, time has not already determined that he was wrong. Tests and experiments have determined the speed of light. Jupiter's Io looks like a slam dunk, but is it really? There are often times that something looks like there could be no other explanation, and then another way of looking at that something comes along (which is just as plausible) and knocks out the original theory.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, time has not already determined that he was wrong. Tests and experiments have determined the speed of light. Jupiter's Io looks like a slam dunk, but is it really? There are often times that something looks like there could be no other explanation, and then another way of looking at that something knocks out the original theory.

The simplest explanation for all of this is that your Dad is wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but I'm never going to do that because I don't think he was wrong. If he was wrong, it will be determined at a future time.

It certainly won't be determined in this type of venue.

Your faith in your father is admirable but misplaced, that he was wrong has already been determined, Lessans was wrong.

That he was wrong doesn't need to be determined in this venue, it has been determined by scientists who have tested and experimented on vision and have determined how the eyes function, Lessans was wrong. There is no conspiracy to protect any dogma of science.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because scientists had no reason to think that the eyes may not be a sense organ.

That doesn't make sense either. If they aren't sense organs, that should be a reason to think they aren't sense organs, no? If they aren't sense organs, all the evidence should be consistent with that and point in that direction.

It isn't some kind of mystery how eyes work. It is understood exactly.

The eyes were included in the five senses and were thought to work just like the other four.

No, they have been proven to work like they do.

If my father was a physicist he probably would not have made this finding, but he made it indirectly. I am not demanding that anyone believe him if they don't. Only time will tell if he was right.

LOL. If he was a physicist, how would that make it less likely that he would have found out, as opposed to being a school dropout with no scientific training?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I'm a waste of time, why are you here again?

Because I have some time to waste.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I know, to protect others from my lies.

Wrong. Your lies are so obvious no-one needs to be defended from them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still believe that the photons are traveling with the wavelength/frequency to the eye...

Which you agree with.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the difference is that the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye IF the object can be seen, or we wouldn't be able to see said object.

Which is not a difference, as the afferent account agrees with this. The difference is that you still claim light can be at the retina before it gets there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The function of light changes because it reveals the real world rather than bring the world to us.

Again, not a difference.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model is the complete opposite of what is believed to be true without it violating the laws of physics.

And yet every explanation you've attempted violates not only physics but basic logic as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm so done with this discussion and I don't want to rehash it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

And yet here you are, doing it again and again and again...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Your faith in your father is admirable but misplaced, that he was wrong has already been determined, Lessans was wrong.

That he was wrong doesn't need to be determined in this venue, it has been determined by scientists who have tested and experimented on vision and have determined how the eyes function, Lessans was wrong. There is no conspiracy to protect any dogma of science.

There is nothing that has been tested that prove the brain interprets light to produce normal vision. There might not be a conspiracy to protect dogma of science, but that does not change the fact that people are pretty darn angry at my father for making a claim like this when science has already spoken.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

That doesn't make sense either. If they aren't sense organs, that should be a reason to think they aren't sense organs, no? If they aren't sense organs, all the evidence should be consistent with that and point in that direction.

It isn't some kind of mystery how eyes work. It is understood exactly.

But, that's assuming every theory science claims is true IS 100% conclusive. But it's tricky in the case of the eyes and light. Scientists cannot see exactly what's taking place by directly looking at it. Everything regarding the eyes and light remain the same except for the direction that we see, which has to be inferred. No one ever thought to question this theory because there was no reason to.

The eyes were included in the five senses and were thought to work just like the other four.

Originally Posted by But

No, they have been proven to work like they do.

Then keep on believing what you believe. I am not forcing you to think anything different.

If my father was a physicist he probably would not have made this finding, but he made it indirectly. I am not demanding that anyone believe him if they don't. Only time will tell if he was right.

Originally Posted by But

LOL. If he was a physicist, how would that make it less likely that he would have found out, as opposed to being a school dropout with no scientific training?

OMG, you are copying what other people are saying about him. He would have never made these discoveries if he stayed in school. He would have accepted what he was taught, and that would be the end of it. He was a thinker. He thought outside of the box. That's what discovers do. He read and studied philosophy and literature 8 hours a day for years. He might not have had scientific training but that does not mean his observations regarding human nature were flawed. That's where this indirect observation came from regarding the eyes.