A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the theory.

Yes and the current theory of vision has been tested and proven correct for many years, if not centuries. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not a fucking idiot as you believe. The more I post the meaner you get because you are threatened. Why else would you work so hard Spacemonkey? I told you a long time ago that if you think he was wrong, then let it go. Truth will always win no matter what, so you have nothing to worry about.

That might not be true but it is certain that you are ignorant of everything that your father made claims about, and your father was ignorant of the basic knowledge on the subjects he saw fit to criticize and "correct". Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, light strikes the retina and is transduced into electrochemical impulses by photoreceptors. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

Afferent neurons then transmit those impulses to the visual cortex of the brain. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

The interneurons of the visual cortex process these incoming impulses. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

If you use a sufficiently dense map of the visual cortex, you can not only watch this happening in real time, you can actually tell what an animal is looking at by observing the firing of neurons in the visual cortex. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

I think you need to be careful when using this phrase to respond to Peacegirl, she has applied a very strict meaning to the phrase which is not in accord with the usual accepted meaning. Peacegirl understands the phrase to mean "instantly' and I believe that there will be a slight delay in our observation of these events, which is understood in the usual usage of the phrase. It will take a measurable time for the electronic pulses to reach and be processed by the equipment, and there will be a slight but measurable delay for the photons to travel from the screen to the eyes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

in any sort of debate, redefining clearly-defined and well-understood words to mean whatever you want them to demonstrates that you're not interested in whether or not what you say is true; what you're really interested in is "winning," even if you have to lie to do it.

Unfortunately I have encountered several people like this in my life, and this is one reason I tend to keep my thoughts to myself in real life, and I do not do well in an office environment. To not do well is putting it mildly, I really have a problem with people who are less interested in the truth than winning an argument and will make up fictional data, or corrupt your statements, to support it.

To several others on this forum, I have given the arguments about the position of the Sun some thought, and I can see the truth of the argument that the Sun is in the radial position, in which we see it. My confusion was the understanding that the Sun is moving vertically (from the perspective of the Earth) through the Universe, but that motion is not apparent because the Earth is moving along with it. The Sun is not in the position (vertically) that we see it and I assumed that it was also true for the radial position from the perspective of the Earth. I now understand the arguments and concede that the Sun is where we see it radially in the Sky.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl: gibbering ignoramus or simpering idiot? Shall we run a poll?

I don't think there are enough negatives in the English language to adequately describe Peacegirl or Lessans.

[Vivisectus]

I bet Peacegirl cannot even tell us the first discovery that Lorraine Day made that showed her the relations that prove the holocaust never happened. And despite this she has already thrown out the baby after the calf has drowned in the bathwater! Out of pure spite, and also because this discovery threatens her.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I bet Peacegirl cannot even tell us the first discovery that Lorraine Day made that showed her the relations that prove the holocaust never happened. And despite this she has already thrown out the baby after the calf has drowned in the bathwater! Out of pure spite, and also because this discovery threatens her.

Well, you know those Holocaust-believing sheeple and their precious worldview.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the theory.

So given that no-one has EVER claimed that sense organs "receive and transmit external stimuli which go to the brain", what distinction was Daddy Dumbfuck trying to make?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not a fucking idiot as you believe.

Yes, you are. You're also a liar and a fraud.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, according to you:

Light hits a big red ball exactly 1 light minute away. Some of it is reflected - most of it is in the red spectrum. Then, after 1 minute, the light is turned off. The ball if no longer lit up. However, 30 seconds into this epxeriment, the ball changes color: it is now blue!

On earth, we have an observer and an instrument: a machine that exposes a small batch of chemicals at a rate of one batch per second. These chemicals react to light: if they are hit by red light, these chemicals turn red. If they are hit by blue light, they turn blue.

All ambient light is shielded from both observer and instrument so it cannot interfere: the only light that can reach either of them will have to be reflected off the ball.

According to you red light appeared at the retina the moment the ball was lit up, somehow. How did it get there? Also, this light appears at the retina so it never passed through a lens! So focusing is not a part of this at all! What does focusing even mean where efferent sight is concerned? What purpose can it possibly have?

They also react with the chemicals in the instrument from the first minute - they turn red, even though no red light has had time to arrive. After 30 batches, the rest of them turn blue, even though no light has had time to reach them yet either. Then, despite the fact that red light starts to arrive, they stop reacting from batch 60 onwards. From batch 90, blue light is arriving, but the chemicals do not react to them either.

After 1 minute has elapsed, red photons arrive and keep arriving for 30 seconds, followed by blue photons for another 30 seconds, but despite this, we see absolutely nothing: the light has been turned off and the ball is no longer lit up.

Do you see the essential impossibility? You have photons that cannot have arrived yet magically appearing and reacting with chemicals, as well as with the retina. You also keep talking about focusing... but if focusing has anything to do with this, then light has to pass through a lens... which does not happen according to you as light appears at the retina.

I'm sure she does see how impossible it is, which is precisely why she won't address this. She knows she has contradicted herself with her magical traveling photons from the Sun that have never traveled and never been at the Sun, but she is too invested in this to admit that it is all idiotic nonsense.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When it comes to definitions, there has to be some common denominator. When it comes to the definition of "efferent", if Lessans said efferent means looking out, he would not be defining this word in accordance with the basic meaning. By the same token, the expression "determinism" has certain boundaries where free will is not allowed.

Do you even know what you are talking about???

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It states that if we are determined we could not have done otherwise. You are changing the meaning entirely by saying NO, we are free to have done otherwise because we are reasoning creatures.

Find me the place where I said that under determinism we could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including my brain states.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is crazy beyond crazy. Dennett is wrong. This "free will" that Dennis is proposing is not a free will worth having because we don't have it, although I understand the need for law and order which has nothing whatsoever to do with free will. You have taken no time to understand anything I'm writing about, so your come back means absolutely nothing. You are a fake.

Dennett is not the inventor of compatibilism, he is just the best (known) modern defender of it. So not just Dennett is wrong, but a majority of philosophers. And if you think that no one has already discussed 'could have done otherwise' extensively, and debunked your argument already, then you are just wilfully blind. I did it, but you simply do not understand it. You have never brought a single correct argument against it.

You understand nothing, PG.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Do you even know what you are talking about???

Find me the place where I said that under determinism we could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including my brain states.

Dennett is not the inventor of compatibilism, he is just the best (known) modern defender of it. So not just Dennett is wrong, but a majority of philosophers. And if you think that no one has already discussed 'could have done otherwise' extensively, and debunked your argument already, then you are just wilfully blind. I did it, but you simply do not understand it. You have never brought a single correct argument against it.

You understand nothing, PG.

You, like other philosophers, want to believe that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive ideologies. I guess there's always a way to try to prove what you want to be true. But determinism and free will are as opposite as the concept of life and death. Either you're alive or your dead, but you can't be both. Please don't argue with me that there are levels of being alive, like suspended animation. I am not a serious partner not because I bend words, lie, or contradict myself (you are just imitating what everyone else is saying), but because I don't agree that we have free will in reference to "could have done otherwise". And that argument has not been debunked. I'm sorry you must barf, puke, and ralph because of me. I didn't know I was that powerful. The fact that you say I'm talking my way to world peace by lying, cheating, faking, keep whining, and then calling me a silly shit, is disgusting because it's not true. That's not what I'm doing. YOU are not a serious partner because of your lack of interest in anything I have to say. All you're doing is talking about your ideas, your feelings on the subject, and your solution. You are throwing out his discovery before you even know what it is. Is that the sign of a good investigator? No! You are using the discussion on the eyes (which is a total fiasco) to disregard his other discovery. Maybe you're afraid to learn the truth. You need to believe in free will to justify holding people accountable for wrongdoing. After all, our penal system is the cornerstone of our entire civilization. Without it, we would have anarchy and chaos. Most people believe that threats of punishment are the only way to keep law and order. Unfortunately, it's not working too well. I realize our penal system and the threats that go along with it are the only tools we have, but there is a better way. You don't care to hear any other way because you don't believe there is a better way. That is putting the cart before the horse, don't ya think? You understand nothing GdB.

sus·pend·ed an·i·ma·tion
noun
the temporary cessation of most vital functions without death, as in a dormant seed or a hibernating animal.

[Vivisectus]

I guess there's always a way to try to prove what you want to be true.

If that is how you feel, then you are obviously wasting your time trying to convince people your idea is the One Truthy Truth through (pretend) evidence and logic: apparently these are such flimsy, inaccurate tools that you can make them say just about anything anyway!

But it turns out you just feel that applies to whatever you do not like, because you start out with this statement, and then proceed to try to prove that what you want is true.

[Vivisectus]

Either you're alive or your dead, but you can't be both.

LOL no.

Life or death as we use them colloquially are extremely vague and poorly defined concepts. In a nutshell, we just look at the final result, and then label the state that preceded it as either life or death. If someone's heart stops, we call them dead. But we can then start their heart again, and we do not consider the person who wakes up a different person! Apparently this person was not dead: death is not considered a reversible process.

Freeze a person solid, and they are, for most practical purposes dead. We do not currently have the technology to undo the cell damage caused by freezing. But if we freeze someone now, discover the appropriate technologies, and then un-freeze them intact? Were they alive or dead?

Finally, take whatever is left of Julius Ceasar, and then reconstitute him to the exact same state he was shortly before he died. Did Caesar die? Is what is living now the same thing? If not, then why do we consider the people from the first two examples alive, as they are both noticeably different from the person who existed before the event, while Caesar is exactly as he was before!

"Life" seems to describe (vaguely) a state of continuing integrity, the existence of a process that is recognizably one individual. It is messy, and most certain not an on or off state.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL no.

Life or death as we use them colloquially are extremely vague and poorly defined concepts. In a nutshell, we just look at the final result, and then label the state that preceded it as either life or death. If someone's heart stops, we call them dead. But we can then start their heart again, and we do not consider the person who wakes up a different person! Apparently this person was not dead: death is not considered a reversible process.

Freeze a person solid, and they are, for most practical purposes dead. We do not currently have the technology to undo the cell damage caused by freezing. But if we freeze someone now, discover the appropriate technologies, and then un-freeze them intact? Were they alive or dead?

"Life" seems to describe (vaguely) a state of continuing integrity, the existence of a process that is recognizably one individual. It is messy, and most certain not an on or off state.

Sorry Vivisectus, but if a person is dead (not in a frozen state like a child who has been under water for 40 minutes and is brought back to life), but dead as a doornail, HE AIN'T COMIN BACK!!!! Life and death are polar opposites.

[Vivisectus]

Go back, I added some to that post. Which you answered with content free-blustering with lots of caps and exclamation marks, which make a poor substitute for support for your claim that it is so.

[Vivisectus]

Hey, but more interestingly - what is your response to the blue and red ball experiment I outlined a few posts back? It highlights some of the ways in which your position on sight is impossible. You should be happy: someone is examining your idea critically and logically, and you are always complaining how no-one will give it the time of day!

[thedoc]

Daddy Lessans said it,
Peacegirl believes it,
That settles it.

Just like the other Fundies.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, like other philosophers, want to believe that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive ideologies. I guess there's always a way to try to prove what you want to be true. But determinism and free will are as opposite as the concept of life and death. Either you're alive or your dead, but you can't be both.

What a shit comparison, PG. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism. The opposite of a free action is a coerced action. You equate determined with coerced. But you still have to prove this. To say this is obvious shows how stupid you are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that argument has not been debunked.

Well, it is done e.g. by Dennett (Elbow room) and by Derek Parfit (On what Matters). Look up their arguments. If you have understood them, then outline them here, and then you can give your argument against them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU are not a serious partner because of your lack of interest in anything I have to say. All you're doing is talking about your ideas, your feelings on the subject, and your solution.

Here, a mirror.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are throwing out his discovery before you even know what it is. Is that the sign of a good investigator?

A sign of a good investigator is showing that (s)he is perfectly informed about the present discussion about free will, shows that (s)he understands the positions of other experts and what their arguments are, and then can show where the errors in the arguments are. You fail miserably on that account, PG.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using the discussion on the eyes (which is a total fiasco) to disregard his other discovery.

Yes, it is a total fiasco, because you refuse to accept established science. You simply do not understand anything about biology and physics, to see that your father's claims are absolute horse shit. These ideas are not worth the paper they are printed on, not even the electrons on Amazon's hard disks for the ebook version.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you're afraid to learn the truth.

You can look in the mirror again. You are afraid to confess that your father's book is scientifically and philosophically absolute worthless. You have made the meaning of your life dependent on it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't care to hear any other way because you don't believe there is a better way.

I know there are better ways. E.g. here in Europe many countries follow better ways. But I assume you don't look over the borders of your country. What the heck, you do not even look on anything which does not agree with your father's book.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, like other philosophers, want to believe that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive ideologies. I guess there's always a way to try to prove what you want to be true. But determinism and free will are as opposite as the concept of life and death. Either you're alive or your dead, but you can't be both. Please don't argue with me that there are levels of being alive, like suspended animation. I am not a serious partner not because I bend words, lie, or contradict myself (you are just imitating what everyone else is saying), but because I don't agree that we have free will in reference to "could have done otherwise". And that argument has not been debunked. I'm sorry you must barf, puke, and ralph because of me. I didn't know I was that powerful. The fact that you say I'm talking my way to world peace by lying, cheating, faking, keep whining, and then calling me a silly shit, is disgusting because it's not true. That's not what I'm doing. YOU are not a serious partner because of your lack of interest in anything I have to say. All you're doing is talking about your ideas, your feelings on the subject, and your solution. You are throwing out his discovery before you even know what it is. Is that the sign of a good investigator? No! You are using the discussion on the eyes (which is a total fiasco) to disregard his other discovery. Maybe you're afraid to learn the truth. You need to believe in free will to justify holding people accountable for wrongdoing. After all, our penal system is the cornerstone of our entire civilization. Without it, we would have anarchy and chaos. Most people believe that threats of punishment are the only way to keep law and order. Unfortunately, it's not working too well. I realize our penal system and the threats that go along with it are the only tools we have, but there is a better way. You don't care to hear any other way because you don't believe there is a better way. That is putting the cart before the horse, don't ya think? You understand nothing GdB.

sus·pend·ed an·i·ma·tion
noun
the temporary cessation of most vital functions without death, as in a dormant seed or a hibernating animal.

I Drink Alone - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Maturin, you are a boastful know-it-all that really knows nothing other than what your legalistic mindset has trained you to be, and it's not all good. Hibernation is not death. You can't see beyond your own false reasoning because you want to make me wrong. But I'm not wrong therefore your effort, for all intents and purposes, is in the wastebasket!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

What a shit comparison, PG. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism. The opposite of a free action is a coerced action. You equate determined with coerced. But you still have to prove this. To say this is obvious shows how stupid you are.

I do not equate determinism with physical coercion. We know that most people being physically threatened will do what their captives want them to do, but they still have a choice. It's just that we can easily see the contrast and why a person would say, "You give me no choice." You are very confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that argument has not been debunked.

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, it is done e.g. by Dennett (Elbow room) and by Derek Parfit (On what Matters). Look up their arguments. If you have understood them, then outline them here, and then you can give your argument against them.

I have listened to Dennett. He keeps talking about the importance of threats in order to quell a desire to do harm. I told you that this is nothing more than the present historic position because that's how our civilization operates. I am sharing something that goes way beyond deterrence through punishment as a way to bring peace. But you won't hear of it. This shows me you are more interested in being right than trying to understand something that may prove you wrong but bring peace to the world. That means you're a fake.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU are not a serious partner because of your lack of interest in anything I have to say. All you're doing is talking about your ideas, your feelings on the subject, and your solution.

Originally Posted by GdB

Here, a mirror.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are throwing out his discovery before you even know what it is. Is that the sign of a good investigator?

Originally Posted by GdB

A sign of a good investigator is showing that (s)he is perfectly informed about the present discussion about free will, shows that (s)he understands the positions of other experts and what their arguments are, and then can show where the errors in the arguments are. You fail miserably on that account, PG.

I don't fail miserably. I told you why we need punishment and why it is a bandaid solution. In order to punish, we need to believe that a person could have chosen otherwise, given the alternatives that were presented to him. I am telling you that, once a choice is made, this person did not have done otherwise given his circumstances, even taking into consideration the punishment that would be coming to him if he chose wrongly. That's why giving consequences can only deter people if they are more afraid of the punishment than the satisfaction of what they will gain if they are not caught. It is also true that most heinous crimes are done by people who don't care about threats of punishment, or even the death penalty. Their desire to satisfy their desires overrides any threats that are trying to deter them. What is it you don't understand GdB?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using the discussion on the eyes (which is a total fiasco) to disregard his other discovery.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, it is a total fiasco, because you refuse to accept established science. You simply do not understand anything about biology and physics, to see that your father's claims are absolute horse shit. These ideas are not worth the paper they are printed on, not even the electrons on Amazon's hard disks for the ebook version.

You can think what you want. Even here, you just listen to others without even understanding the reasons behind his claim. You're just a copy-cat and a fake. I could puke.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you're afraid to learn the truth.

Originally Posted by GdB

You can look in the mirror again. You are afraid to confess that your father's book is scientifically and philosophically absolute worthless. You have made the meaning of your life dependent on it.

I'm looking in the mirror and what I see is a genuine person who is sharing a revolutionary discovery. Your reaction shows me how public discrimination can sway someone in a very prejudicial way. This is a psychological phenomenon that makes it very difficult for anyone with a genuine discovery to be heard. It may take another century for this knowledge to be brought to light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't care to hear any other way because you don't believe there is a better way.

Originally Posted by GdB

I know there are better ways. E.g. here in Europe many countries follow better ways. But I assume you don't look over the borders of your country. What the heck, you do not even look on anything which does not agree with your father's book.

Give it up GdB. There are other ways, and most of those ways are in accordance with these principles, but to a lesser degree.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maturin, you are a boastful know-it-all that really knows nothing other than what your legalistic mindset has trained you to be, and it's not all good. Hibernation is not death. You can't see beyond your own false reasoning because you want to make me wrong. But I'm not wrong therefore your effort, for all intents and purposes, is in the wastebasket!

Making fun of a booze-addled elderly person is disgusting behavior on my part, and I won't be doing it again. My prior offer to get you some help still stands. If you're interested, let me know and I'll put you in contact with people in your area. Otherwise, here's hoping you have a good life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Making fun of a booze-addled elderly person is disgusting behavior on my part, and I won't be doing it again. My prior offer to get you some help still stands. If you're interested, let me know and I'll put you in contact with people in your area. Otherwise, here's hoping you have a good life.

I am glad you're finally leaving. Goodbye and good luck! Now go!!

[peacegirl]

repeat

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1266054]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It absolutely is, although there are ways to identify the different stages in the dying process. But until we're dead, we are still alive, no matter where we are in that process. When we die and rigor mortis sets in, we are DEAD!

Peacegirl deals only with either / or situations and doesn't understand anything that is partly one or the other. Like her father everything is an absolute and there is no in between.