A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can detect light that has traveled for one lightyear, but, according to efferent vision, you can't see an image of the object from the light itself.

Then what are you seeing when you see stars or galaxies in the night sky?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you're only a mile away, why can't the camera can't take a picture of the light and still get an image of you? If nothing is in the way of you and the camera, and light travels in a straight line, it should be easy to take a picture of the light that is being reflected off of you. But we don't get a picture of you; we get nothing, unless you are in the camera's field of view.

What makes you think light is reflected off you in a straight line towards a person looking at you from a specific direction? A straight line from the center point of a sphere can go in literally limitless directions.

The light reflected off you (or any object) goes in all those countless directions, and is absorbed, reflected again, and refracted by everything it interacts with including the atmosphere/air. That's why it's difficult to see things far away unless they are very large or very bright and therefore reflecting/emitting much more light...only a tiny bit of light makes it to any one point in space.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did he, or did he not state "Man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction"?

What definition of compelled was he using?

BTW I did offer a brief analysis a few pages back and the word "compelled" is the key indication that he committed a modal fallacy, in my view, based on the accepted definition of that word.

I know you think that because he uses the word "compel", it's a modal fallacy, when that is exactly the right word. We have no choice but to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, therefore we are compelled to do what we do.

[LadyShea]

We have no choice but to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

Therefore he was saying it is necessary that any choice a human makes will be based on that which he/she believes moves him in the direction of greater satisfaction.

That is the modal fallacy. Lessans had no premises on which to conclude that it is necessary. The most he could conclude is that people do choose based on the movement towards greater satisfaction....not they must

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I laugh at you doc. You know nothing, but you act like you are Tao Te Ching himself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think light is reflected off you in a straight line towards a person looking at you from a specific direction? A straight line from the center point of a sphere can go in literally limitless directions.

The light reflected off you (or any object) goes in all those countless directions, and is absorbed, reflected again, and refracted by everything it interacts with including the atmosphere/air. That's why it's difficult to see things far away unless they are very large or very bright and therefore reflecting/emitting much more light...only a tiny bit of light makes it to any one point in space.

I was giving an example where all of these factors are taken into consideration. It should not be difficult to take a picture of an image coming from light itself, if you are standing facing the camera, but out of the range where you can be seen. If the object (you) has bright clothing on, the image would also be bright, would it not? No problem there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Therefore he was saying it is necessary that any choice a human makes will be based on that which he/she believes moves him in the direction of greater satisfaction.

That is the modal fallacy. Lessans had no premises on which to conclude that it is necessary. The most he could conclude is that people do choose based on the movement towards greater satisfaction....not they must

Wrong. It is absolutely necessary that we move in one direction only. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction. It's impossible. It's your logic that's getting everyone confused.

[LadyShea]

It is absolutely necessary that we move in one direction only. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction.

You can't know that, nor prove it, nor lay it out non-fallaciously

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then what are you seeing when you see stars or galaxies in the night sky?

You may be able to detect light coming from those stars (I already agreed that we can see the moon's image in a makeshift pinhole camera, which indicates the light has traveled). But if Lessans is correct, we do not interpret that image afferently. We see the moon; we see the stars; we see all kinds of celestial bodies because they are large enough to be seen with a telescope or with the naked eye, not due to emitted or reflected light traveling to us and turning into signals in the optic nerve.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't know that, nor prove it, nor lay it out non-fallaciously

I believe he has proven this 100%. He shows where his observation originated. He did not create a tautology, as he has been falsely accused of.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Perhaps because you haven't actually done it. Go ahead, give us your analysis and we will see whether or not it generates any interest. I can pretty much guarantee that it will. Likewise, I am pretty certain than no one is going to be particularly interested in your claim that you want to do such an analysis, absent the actual analysis.

We have to go Swartz' page where he discusses all of the modal fallacies. LadyShea provided a link.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may be able to detect light coming from those stars (I already agreed that we can see the moon's image in a makeshift pinhole camera, which indicates the light has traveled). But if Lessans is correct, we do not interpret that image afferently. We see the moon; we see the stars; we see all kinds of celestial bodies because they are large enough to be seen with a telescope or with the naked eye, not due to emitted or reflected light traveling to us and turning into signals in the optic nerve.

WHAT THEN IS THE PHYSICAL METHOD FOR SEEING THESE OBJECTS, IF NOT BY THEIR REFLECTED OR EMITTED LIGHT?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

It is not really relevant, since there are several points in the book where his conclusions do not follow from his premises, even if we granted them for the sake of argument. He doesn't even get the logic part right.

Where is there any point in his proof that the conclusions don't follow from his premises? Point them out to me?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was giving an example where all of these factors are taken into consideration. It should not be difficult to take a picture of an image coming from light itself, if you are standing facing the camera, but out of the range where you can be seen. If the object (you) has bright clothing on, the image would also be bright, would it not? No problem there.

No, if you are far away only a tiny fraction of the light reflected off your clothing would make it to my eye/camera, it may or may not be visible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

WHAT THEN IS THE PHYSICAL METHOD FOR SEEING THESE OBJECTS, IF NOT BY THEIR REFLECTED OR EMITTED LIGHT?

You have a block for some reason. How many times do I have to say that light is a necessary condition for seeing any object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You refused to put Lessans argument regarding ONLY why human will is not free into a logical format so we could compare it to the modal fallacy or even to valid logical statements.

Also I didn't post that link, davidm did.

I am pretty sure all the participants have read at least chapter one. So why can't you do that simple thing to discuss that single aspect?

I don't recall all that many premises in the chapter that led to the conclusion "Therefore human will is not free", so it shouldn't even take you long.

You found nothing in Chapter One that explained why man's will is not free? I even gave you the page numbers LadyShea. And yet you tell me his premise was a modal fallacy, when you don't even know what his observations were? And you call this critical analysis?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a block for some reason. How many times do I have to say that light is a necessary condition for seeing any object.

And you have a brain the size a dust mite.

WHAT PHYSICAL MECHANISM DO WE USE TO SEE, IF NOT LIGHT TRANSDUCED TO THE BRAIN? DESCRIBE THE MECHANISM!

Looks like you are ignoring another series of questions, Your Royal Highness. Did you see the question about eye lens? Can you answer that question?

Also, I'll repost all the questions you ignored shortly.

[davidm]

Hey, , it looks like you missed this:

Originally Posted by davidm

So the camera takes pictures in real time, does it, Peacegirl? Doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? Of course it does!

But no matter. As Vivisectus explained, we KNOW how a camera works -- afferently -- because we BUILT IT THAT WAY.

So, how does a camera work THE OPPOSITE OF THE WAY THAT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED?

Of course, you have this same problem with the actual eye, which anatomically and functionally CANNOT be an efferent organ.

Hey, peacegirl, here is a simple question for you, perhaps one that was not asked before.

WHY DO HUMAN EYES HAVE HAVE LENSES? WHAT ARE THEY FOR? WHY DID THEY EVOLVE?

If your "efferent seeing" were true, there would be no evolved lenses! They would be wholly pointless, and hence not selected for by evolutionary processes.

[davidm]

Looks like you also missed this:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, did you read The Lone Ranger's 35-page-long essay on light and sight?

No, huh?

[davidm]

And you missed this:

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, peacegirl, you are now on record as stating that cameras both do, and do not, take pictures in real time; and that information both does, and does not, travel faster than light. Wow, that is some undeniable truth ya got there! It's so undeniably true it seamlessly embraces mutually contradictory positions.

Hey, peacegirl, here is another question for you. In his book The Big Dummy asserts that a man with a telescope would see Columbus landing in real time, but that if a TV image were broadcast of the landing, the astronomer on Rigel would have to wait 800 years for it to arrive. And my question is,

WHY?

Why would the TV broadcast be delayed, but the camera and telescope see in real time? This should be fun.

Oh, and peacegirl? You evidently forgot to answer this one, so I'll repeat it:

Given that it is a POSTULATE of special relativity that light speed is invariant and finite across all inertial frames, AND THAT light carries information that is transduced to the brain for processing,

HOW IS REAL-TIME SEEING COMPATIBLE WITH SR?

Oh, and peacegirl? When God turns on the sun at noon, why do observers on earth see it and the reflected light of the moon instantaneously, but not the reflected light off their neighbors for eight and a half minutes?

Questions, questions, questions! My goodness! Well, you said you were here to "ed-u-cate" us.

Ed-U-Cate away!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he has proven this 100%. He shows where his observation originated. He did not create a tautology, as he has been falsely accused of.

It's not a falsifiable concept, first of all so can't be 100% proven by any means, secondly neither "greater satisfaction" nor "dissatisfaction" can be objectively measured, third and most important he simply defined all choices made as those that led to greater satisfaction, which makes the whole thing a tautology.

A-Humans must always make choices that allow them to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

B-How do you know?

A-Because humans always do make choices that allow them to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

If I am wrong, demonstrate it. Feel free to lay the argument out in a logical format that is not tautological nor commits a modal fallacy and we can go from there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You found nothing in Chapter One that explained why man's will is not free? I even gave you the page numbers LadyShea. And yet you tell me his premise was a modal fallacy, when you don't even know what his observations were? And you call this critical analysis?

Pay attention. I said I don't remember that many specific premises, so writing a logical argument in a format like below-

premise yada yada
premise yada yada
conclusion therefore human will is not free

-shouldn't take you very long.

He used a lot of words to explain it, and that's all fine and dandy. I want you to lay it out in a formal logic format, so we can discuss logic

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't imagine borrowing a few sentences in an informal conversation that I found particularly noteworthy, would be considered copyright infringement. But maybe I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The capacity of your imagination irrelevant.

I already told you I credited the examples to the individuals who said them.

I could only prove if I wasn't actually breaching copyright, but if I was I'd have to pay for damages, if there were any. Maybe the rules have gotten tougher since the advent of the internet.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You don't know what you're talking about.

I know there are lawyers who deal specifically with intellectual property on the internet. It's a whole new field.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I said I really don't know, but I know on thing for sure. I didn't copy anything out of a book without giving credit to the author.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I don't know why you keep repeating "out of a book" as though it has some talismanic power to protect you from the consequences of your theft of intellectual property.

If I happened to like a particular sentence that I read, and used it in a paragraph, does that count as plagiarism? We all use sentences that others use. I'm not sure where the line is drawn. I'm definitely not stealing someone's copyrighted material. I found this information below, but like I said, I don't think I'm guilty of plagiarism.

Is plagiarism illegal.

No. Plagiarism is neither a criminal nor civil offence. In fact, plagiarism is not a legal term and is not legally recognised. But breach of copyright or intellectual property rights (IPR) is illegal; if an act of plagiarism breaches copyright or IPR then it is illegal. Not every act of plagiarism is a breach of copyright. For example, you can plagiarise work that has no copyright.

If they were so concerned about being sued, why didn't they make this more clear?

Originally Posted by ChuckF

They put it in plain English in the terms of service to which you agreed. Right there in item 2.1. "You represent that (i) you are the sole copyright owner of the Work and all of its content." You consented to be legally bound by the terms of that document. Did you misrepresent yourself as the sole copyright owner of all of the content of the work, including the portions that you plagiarized?

I tried giving everyone credit for their contribution.

They leave everything up to the author.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

No, they don't. They do not leave the theft of intellectual property "up to the author." It is specifically proscribed in the contractual agreement binding author and publisher. Did you not read the document before consenting to be bound by it?

I did not maliciously steal intellectual property that legally belongs to someone.

You seem really angry.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Maybe I don't like thieves?

I don't like thieves either. I don't consider myself a thief.

I never said I was a lawyer,

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You don't have to be a lawyer. You just have to be not a liar.

I don't think of myself as a liar.

and I never misrepresented who I am, at least not intentionally.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I never said that you misrepresented who you were. I suspected you misrepresented your little book to your publishers though, who reasonably relied upon your knowing misrepresentation.

I did not misrepresent myself Chuck. I'm sorry that you've gotten a bad taste in your mouth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pay attention. I said I don't remember that many specific premises, so writing a logical argument in a format like below-

premise yada yada
premise yada yada
conclusion therefore human will is not free

-shouldn't take you very long.

He used a lot of words to explain it, and that's all fine and dandy. I want you to lay it out in a formal logic format, so we can discuss logic

The reason people have called it a tautology is because they think his proof came from formal logic. It didn't. His proof came from an undeniable observation. Do you remember what his observation was? I don't mean to point a finger at you ONLY, but he is getting blamed for your lack of careful attention and analysis.

[LadyShea]

So readers can't analyze it logically because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, and readers can't analyze it scientifically because it isn't a testable hypothesis nor were we even provided an observed data set, what on Earth makes you think it is anything but assertion or even opinion?

You are being absurd.

Thank you though for the word syllogism, I was not familiar with it.