A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...there is no such thing as the past.

Eternalism



Hey, peacegirl, Daddy said that light travels at a finite speed, and it needs to be present at the eye as a condition of seeing. Then he said that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see it immediately. How's that possible according to Daddy's first two premises, that light travels at a finite speed and needs to be present at the eye as a condition of seeing? So Dadday Dumbkins has contradicted himself.

Guess he should have stayed in school!

[LadyShea]

Here is some further reading

Philosophy, et cetera: Now and Forever
We never notice this in everyday life because the discrepancies are tiny. We cut the space-time loaf in almost identical slices to each other. But the differences can be amplified in two ways: either travel near light-speed (so increasing the angle of the cut), or separate the observers through a huge gulf of space (so even a tiny angle makes for a large end result).

Observers have a set of simultaneous events around them that they regard as composing the present instant. The relativity of simultaneity results in observers who are moving relative to each other having different sets of events in their present instant.

The net effect of the four-dimensional universe is that observers who are in motion relative to you seem to have time coordinates that lean over in the direction of motion, and consider things to be simultaneous that are not simultaneous for you. Spatial lengths in the direction of travel are shortened, because they tip upwards and downwards, relative to the time axis in the direction of travel, akin to a skew or shear of three-dimensional space.

Great care is needed when interpreting spacetime diagrams. Diagrams present data in two dimensions, and cannot show faithfully how, for instance, a zero length spacetime interval appears.Introduction to special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics, especially the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, in which the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal...ion_to_physics

In this critical notice we argue against William Craig's recent attempt to reconcile presentism (roughly, the view that only the present is real) with relativity theory. Craig�s defense of his position boils down to endorsing a �neo-Lorentzian interpretation� of special relativity. We contend that his reconstruction of Lorentz�s theory and its historical development is fatally flawed and that his arguments for reviving this theory fail on many counts.
Presentism and Relativity - PhilSci-Archive

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is some further reading

With reference to the bolded part above, see the Andromeda Paradox (not really a paradox at all), here.

What does the Andromeda scenario seem to show?

Are the past and future as real as the present? Yes.

Is there anything you can do to change, alter or avoid the future? No.

Don’t worry about the future! It’s there!

[LadyShea]

Here lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future when in reality all we ever have is the present?

peacegirl, note that Lessans idea is known as Presentism and is neither new or revolutionary. There is plenty of literature on it going back to Buddha

This was a really good article I think:

Philosophy, et cetera: Now and Forever

Greene asks us to imagine a simplified scenario (ignoring motions of the planets, etc) where Chewie is sitting 10 billion light-years from Earth, and that we are at rest relative to each other. This means that we would slice up spacetime in an identical way, resulting in identical now-lists. But suppose Chewie stands up and starts to walk away from us.

This change in Chewie's state of motion means that his conception of now, his slicing up of spacetime, will rotate slightly. This tiny angular change has no noticable effect in Chewie's vicinity: the difference between his new now and that of anyone still sitting in his living room is miniscule. But over the enormous distince of 10 billion light-years, this tiny shift in Chewie's notion of now is amplified. His now and your now, which were one and the same while he was sitting still, jump apart because of his modest motion.


So which now-list provides the list of existing things? We presumably have to say "both". But then we have to conclude that a very wide range of times can all exist together. For if Chewie were to move away from us at 1000 mph, his now-list would suddenly include events on Earth that from our perspective took place 15,000 years ago! If Chewie's twin brother Dewey moved towards us at that speed, his now-list would instead include earthly events 15,000 years into our future. Chewie and Dewey exist at the same time, yet they disagree (by 30,000 years!) on what earthly events are also occuring at that moment. Both view-points are equally valid. The presentist must take both now-lists as listing existing events. Too bad that we're now stuck with the existence of events which occur thousands of years into our past and future.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching meet the definition of "sense organ."

As does sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't necessary for him to get technical to understand what he meant by "light striking the optic nerve", because it doesn't alter the validity of his claim.

So, his claims can be factually incorrect but still valid. Neat trick.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Apparently it is required, otherwise his form of conditioning doesn't work.

But don't you see, if everybody would do everything Lessans said then everything would be great.

BTW, what are these two great discoveries peacegirl keeps talking about? It can't be "efferent vision".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

BTW, what are these two great discoveries peacegirl keeps talking about? It can't be "efferent vision".

Man's will is not free, (still being debated by those who know anything about it.)

And a two-sided equation, which is not an equation, since it is not stated in mathmetacal terms, and the two sides do not appear to be equal.

Efferent vision is just a stupid 'red herring' introduced by lessans because he had little or no understanding of psychology.

[erimir]

I don't understand how this thread is still going.

We already know that peacegirl is stubborn and ineducable, her/her father's ideas are not only wrong, but ridiculous, and that she'll go back to making the same claims elsewhere once she finally tires of this place.

Has she really said anything new or insightful in the past 100 pages?

[naturalist.atheist]

No free will is a big discovery? Lessans must have lived under a rock.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by erimir

I don't understand how this thread is still going.

We already know that peacegirl is stubborn and ineducable, her/her father's ideas are not only wrong, but ridiculous, and that she'll go back to making the same claims elsewhere once she finally tires of this place.

Has she really said anything new or insightful in the past 100 pages?

I am learning quite a bit doing research for this thread.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW, what are these two great discoveries peacegirl keeps talking about? It can't be "efferent vision".

Man's will is not free as one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction (and this is not a modal fallacy at all!)

Nobody can be forced to do something they don't want to do (you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink)

Therefore nobody can be blamed for their actions

Without blame, nobody can rationalize or justify causing a hurt, so nobody every will cause a hurt as their conscience won't allow it (conscience is predictable)

People think "beautiful" is an objective reality because of the conditioning that can only happen with efferent sight. Using these terms causes hurt so this conditioning will be eliminated by eliminating certain words

World peace

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is all about what is happening in reality. You are weaseling with your nonsense about inaccurate definitions.

I have asked you to explain what is happening in reality if you are unable to define seeing.

Data/information about what is being seen at point A is attained by the eyes at point B. That's my explanation of seeing. Since any two objects (A and B in this case) separated by distance (or space), no matter how close or how far, are also separated by time then seeing is equivalent to "information transfer".

Do you have an explanation for seeing that does not involve data/information from one object being attained by another and the two objects are separated by space and time?

This is the last time I'm answering this question. There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time. Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent, there is no point A and point B which would indicate "information transfer."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Eternalism



Hey, peacegirl, Daddy said that light travels at a finite speed, and it needs to be present at the eye as a condition of seeing. Then he said that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see it immediately. How's that possible according to Daddy's first two premises, that light travels at a finite speed and needs to be present at the eye as a condition of seeing? So Dadday Dumbkins has contradicted himself.

Guess he should have stayed in school!

You're entitled to your beliefs. If you were so sure about them, you wouldn't have to be as defensive as you are, constantly putting Lessans down like a bully who resorts to name calling to make yourself appear superior.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Man's will is not free as one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction (and this is not a modal fallacy at all!)

Nobody can be forced to do something they don't want to do (you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink)

Therefore nobody can be blamed for their actions

Without blame, nobody can rationalize or justify causing a hurt, so nobody every will cause a hurt as their conscience won't allow it (conscience is predictable)

People think "beautiful" is an objective reality because of the conditioning that can only happen with efferent sight. Using these terms causes hurt so this conditioning will be eliminated by eliminating certain words

World peace

That is not all there is to it LadyShea. You are taking a lengthy explanation and condensing it to three sentences. You do not understand this discovery at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As does sight.

So, his claims can be factually incorrect but still valid. Neat trick.

If he said "optic nerve" instead of "retina", it doesn't make a difference in what he was trying to show. He wasn't describing the actual mechanism. If he was, then he could be accused of being wrong because the mechanism was what he was trying to establish. In this case, he was pointing out that light is present, but it doesn't pass along the optic nerve to allow for normal sight. You are trying to discredit him for a non-essential point.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm answering this question. There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time. Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent, there is no point A and point B which would indicate "information transfer."

I know I've said that you have posted some pretty stupid things in the past, but you have out-done yourself this time. All the objects we see on Earth, in the sky, and out into the Universe, are in direct proximity to our eye/brain, therefore space and distance are just an illusion, so that Lessans could explain a well known psychological phenomenon in terms that his uneducated brain could understand. I certainly hope that everyone reads this last post of yours, as it will seal, in everyones mind, just how off the mark yours, and Lessans, Ideas really are. Apparently you are incapable of understanding the concept of time and distance since every thing you preceive is a mental construct inside your own head, ('mind' would have been an inacurate discription).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time.

Your eyes are not separated by space and time from the object they are seeing? Really? That's your explanation of reality?

So you are not separated from your computer monitor by several inches?

Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent

There is physical distance between your physical eyes and the object you are seeing. Measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time. You can't deny this! What are you talking about??

There is no point A and point B which would indicate "information transfer."

What are you talking about??

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not all there is to it LadyShea. You are taking a lengthy explanation and condensing it to three sentences. You do not understand this discovery at all.

Is what I said incorrect though?

You have not provided N.A. with the book, and you won't summarize it for him, so I did.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm answering this question. There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time. Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent, there is no point A and point B which would indicate "information transfer."

I am responding to this yet again because I'm with thedoc, this just takes the cake.

No wonder you hemmed and hawed and euphemized* and obfuscated and dissembled....you think sight is MAGIC and you were trying to avoid admitting it.

*You euphemized even here, the most honest and straightforward of your responses to date.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm answering this question. There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time. Consequently, since there is no distance between objects if the eyes are efferent, there is no point A and point B which would indicate "information transfer."

The earth and the sun are not separated by space and time? Whoa! Heavy, dude! So the reason we could see the sun in real time, if God turned on the sun at noon, is because there is no distance between us and the sun? We are living on the sun? Holy shit!

But, the surface temperature of the sun is ten thousand degrees Farenheit! That is fucking hot! Oh, noes, I am burning up now!

Oh, but wait! If there is no distance between us and the sun, then, when God turns on the sun at noon, why do we have to wait eight and a half minutes to see our neighbors?

[LadyShea]

93 million miles is not space or time! Efferent vision magically negates distance altogether!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, but wait! If there is no distance between us and the sun, then, when God turns on the sun at noon, why do we have to wait eight and a half minutes to see our neighbors?

Davidm, where are your 'contradiction' waves?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Man's will is not free as one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction (and this is not a modal fallacy at all!)

Nobody can be forced to do something they don't want to do (you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink)

Therefore nobody can be blamed for their actions

Without blame, nobody can rationalize or justify causing a hurt, so nobody every will cause a hurt as their conscience won't allow it (conscience is predictable)

People think "beautiful" is an objective reality because of the conditioning that can only happen with efferent sight. Using these terms causes hurt so this conditioning will be eliminated by eliminating certain words

World peace

World peace isn't the half of it!

In Teh Golden Age, women will all go around showing their tits and other "charms" and people will immediately begin fucking on meeting without bothering to even strike up a conversation (will they even know each other's names?) and then be wedded for life, with no possibility of divorce!

However! Rumpy pumpy will take place in bed, but couples will no longer sleep together! Just a quick in-and-out, and then Seymour gets some fucking peace and quiet and doesn't have to make chit-chat with the old lady!

Rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table is fine, provided the little ones are not present.

Do not ever wake your child! To wake your child is to blame it for sleeping!

Mom is going to have to undertake a comprehensive study of the art of cooking! You betcha! Seymour likes spaghetti and meatballs on Monday night, so Mom better make damn sure she produces the best spaghetti and meatballs ever, every Monday night!

There will be no more vaccinations! Vaccinations are just wrong! (Probably they cause mental retardation or something.)

Anyone can be a doctor. Just hang out a shingle saying that you're a doctor! So-called "real" doctors don't know shit!

Everyone alive today will experience the Golden Age, even if it happens after they are dead! Why? Because Man does not stand alone! God has worked it all out. You used to be alive, only you don't remember who you used to be! And you will be alive again and again and again, only you don't know who you will be! But since you will be somebody after you are dead, then you will experience The Golden Age just as soon as scientists discover that we actually live on the surface of the sun.

Hope that clarifies matters.

btw, Lady Shea, I think that the question your quoted is from N.A., not thedoc. Probably an artifact of peacegirl mangling quote tags somewhere, which she always does.

[LadyShea]

I said N.A. but did not check the quote tags. That was my fuck up, fixed now thx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is some further reading

The fact that we see something differently when in a still position versus a moving position, has no bearing on the fact that we see the present. Every thought comes from afferent vision. It is very mixed up, and I'm not going to defend Lessans anymore. You can call it a cop-out, or whatever you want to keep your position, but it is absolutely flawed.