A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I meant. It has nothing to do with the subject matter and should be left out. In other words, what you think of a person is irrelevant to the conversation and should not be broadcasted.

Oooh you scolded me! LOL

You introduced these people to the discussion, and expressed your opinion of them. I did the same.

[LadyShea]

ever changing present

Time is simply a measurement of that change. Without time there could be no change. Motion (or movement from here to there if you prefer) is a change in place over time, for example. We call it the arrow of time because we can only remember in one direction, back. The nature of time is a big mystery and controversy to be sure, lots to think about and explore.

Here, maybe you'll like this guys views "There Is No Such Thing As Time" | Popular Science

Our illusion of the past arises because each Now in Platonia contains objects that appear as “records” in Barbour’s language. “The only evidence you have of last week is your memory. But memory comes from a stable structure of neurons in your brain now. The only evidence we have of the Earth’s past is rocks and fossils. But these are just stable structures in the form of an arrangement of minerals we examine in the present. The point is, all we have are these records and you only have them in this Now.” Barbour’s theory explains the existence of these records through relationships between the Nows in Platonia. Some Nows are linked to others in Platonia’s landscape even though they all exist simultaneously. Those links give the appearance of records lining up in sequence from past to future. In spite of that appearance, the actual flow of time from one Now to another is nowhere to be found.

Or this one

Is Time an Illusion?: Scientific American

it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

There are plenty of real scientists discussing time and whether it exists and what it is, you need not look to crackpots to find differing views.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no shifting from one person to another. That still implies there's a connection between A and B.

So does saying that any particular person will get born again and again. No connection then it's not the same person, meaning no-one has been reborn.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure you can do it, but you need to admit that what you are basing your reasoning and subsequent conclusions on are based on a theoretical construct.

We do. When we are refuting your father's claims with overwhelmingly empirically supported scientific theory we say so. And when we are refuting them with directly observed empirical facts we point this out too. We also point out when your own claims are flat out incoherent and contradictory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oooh you scolded me! LOL

You introduced these people to the discussion, and expressed your opinion of them. I did the same.

First off, if you took this as a scold you will definitely have plugs (or cotton, take your pick) in your ears. You won't listen to anything I have to say now because you will be on the defensive.. I'm not scolding you, I'm just telling you that your opinion of someone takes away from what you're trying to prove objectively. Lastly, how can you compare introducing someone (which I have done) with namecalling? I don't know where you're coming from LadyShea. Can you see the dynamics going on here?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no shifting from one person to another. That still implies there's a connection between A and B.

LOL, you dumb ass, why don't you e-mail Clark or Stewart like I suggest? If there's no reincarnation of a "soul" or some such, and if there is no "shift" of concscious perspective, such that there is an "existential passage" of generic subjectivity from x to y at the time of x's death and y's birth, then what is there? What is Lessans' arguemnt? In point of fact, Lessans, Clark and Stewart are all in exact agreement on this idea.

The point that is being made is that consciousness is not entirely personal, but, as Clark said, generic. All three of them are contending that at death, the context of subjectivity shifts from the dead person to a new living person. This does not mean that the dead person has any connection to the living person, as he might if a soul transmigrated from the person who has died to the new person who is being born.

You can't even understand Lessans' own writings. Not that he understood them, either; if he had, he would have cringed in mortification at how stupid he was.

[LadyShea]

First off, if you took this as a scold you will definitely have plugs (or cotton, take your pick) in your ears. You won't listen to anything I have to say now because you will be on the defensive.. I'm not scolding you, I'm just telling you that your opinion of someone takes away from what you're trying to prove objectively. Lastly, how can you compare introducing someone (which I have done) with namecalling? I don't know where you're coming from LadyShea. Can you see the dynamics going on here?

Telling me what I should or shouldn't do regarding expressing my opinions about people is a scold. You are still scolding me. You are telling me to mind my manners or play nice or some shit.

You are just mad that I think the people you agree with and use to support your positions are mostly assholes and cranks. In fact you originally brought up Sam Harris thinking we might care about his opinion more because he is "one of us"...you hoped our positive opinion of a fellow atheist would help your argument. I don't think you truly care that I am namecalling, I think you are upset that you can't find anyone credible and/or widely respected that seems to support your views.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no table of contents because he didn't want people opening the book at random. You have to read the first three chapters to have any understanding of how it's extended. I can offer the four parts of the book if that helps.

That would be great, thanks. I just need a place to start from. I want to pretend that we're getting it together to send an email to that guy that David keeps mentioning that agrees with some sections of the book already. It's easier for me to think about it in some context and that sounds like your best bet for a place to start.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's okay, as long as I know how to decipher which mood you're in, so I know when to back off.

If my husband ever figures it out I'll ask him to clue you in

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's hard to keep my mouth shut when people are using what they have been taught as proof that my father was wrong. It forces my hand even though it may hurt my cause rather than help it. It probably is better to keep my mouth shut, but they have to also because they cannot use their theories (which they are) as a reason to reject this discovery as if it has no merit.

I guess I'm just not feeling very sympathetic right now because there's something that I'm trying to learn about so that I can talk about it intelligently to people with real expertise without annoying them. I feel like my brain is going to explode, I'm reading (sort of) hundreds of pages a day about things that I barely understand, signed up for a course and the weirdest part is that if I can get through it and understand it no one is ever going to want to talk to me about it in the depth that I want to go anyway unless I'd like to go back to school and get a masters degree. Maybe my misery just wants some company but I feel like I can't disagree with things that I haven't bothered to understand in detail without sounding like an idiot.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can there be a trajectory through space/time when this fourth dimension doesn't exist except as a mathematical construct without any counterpart in nature, as Sebain points out.

You've misspelled the crackpot's name. If you are going to bleat about his drivel, at least spell his name right!

He doesn't "point out" anything. As Dragar explained, he made a stupid math error. Hence everything he wrote is garbage. Can you address Dragar's explanation of his error on four-velocity? No, right? Thought not.

The "fourth dimension" is time. So time does not exist?

How can there be a worldline when there is no such thing in reality? If only the present exists,...

All locations in space and time exist.

Originally Posted by davidm

You are making major assumptions that the causes of clocks changing are due to time dilation, which is a theoretical construct. You just can't bear the thought that there is only the ever changing present, no arrow of time.

Time dilation is routinely observed. See the references that have already been given you. Have you already forgotten the discussion of muons? Or did it go over your pinpoint of a head?

Time dilation is not the cause of clocks changing. Time is not a substance. The slowing of clocks in intense gravitational fields or at high speeds relative to outside observers, and the slowing of all other physical processes, just IS time dilation. Again, time dilation is routinely observed in nature. It should be reiterated that if real-time seeing were true, time dilation could not be observed. We don't see in real time. If we did, the theory of relativity would never have been formulated.

As for the myself and everyone else here, we can "bear" whatever reality is like, because we all want to know what reality is like and not live in a fantasy world. It is you who cannot bear the fact that your father was a buffoon. It bears repeating that only you have a personal stake in any of these discussions.

BTW, your father extolled Einstein in his book (without realizing that Einstein's discoveries ruled out his contentions.) Now you are back to opposing Einstein (when earlier you didn't). So, you are now saying that your infallible father made a mistake in extolling Einstein.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter at this point because people think my father is a crackpot. So he has company now. This guy gives at least some support to what no one will recognize or take seriously. No wonder anyone who goes against science would be seen as a nutter. Just keep in mind there have been numerous times throughout history where a person was vindicated because he turned out to be right.

And thousands upon thousands of crackpots with manifestos who never, ever were.

And indeed: there are many crackpots with manifestos. Your father is certainly not the only one. Some of them are wrong in a similar way to him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I guess I'm just not feeling very sympathetic right now because there's something that I'm trying to learn about so that I can talk about it intelligently to people with real expertise without annoying them.

What you're asking for is impossible. Sure, it's possible to summarize in a paragraph of two what Lessans claimed (even though peacegirl herself is unable to do so). But once you do that, the ideas that are being summarized are so obvioiusly preposterous that anyone with experitise will either be annoyed by them, or just laugh out loud at them.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by davidm

What you're asking for is impossible. Sure, it's possible to summarize in a paragraph of two what Lessans claimed (even though peacegirl herself is unable to do so). But once you do that, the ideas that are being summarized are so obvioiusly preposterous that anyone with experitise will either be annoyed by them, or just laugh out loud at them.

I'm just trying to help her put together a letter but how the ideas are received is her thing to work out. I can help with form but not content. I like challenges and it would be pretty cool if she walked out of one of these conversations with something tangible even if I don't agree with the stuff.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'm just trying to help her put together a letter but how the ideas are received is her thing to work out. I can help with form but not content. I like challenges and it would be pretty cool if she walked out of one of these conversations with something tangible even if I don't agree with the stuff.

I understand; evidently you do this stuff for a living and like challenges. So, here's the summary. See if you can put this in a form that won't have people either annoyed or clutching their bellies with laughter. Because, honestly, I've read the book, and this is an accurate summary:

SUMMARY OF BOOK

Man’s will is not free, but he is compelled of his own free will to move in the direction of his greatest satisfaction. Thus, Thou Shalt Not Blame; but once this is understood, it will be impossible for anyone to be compelled of his own free will to strike the first blow, because he knows that if he does, he will not be blamed for it. From this undeniable mathematical truth, all conflict will come to an end.

We see everything in real time, without having to wait for the light from distant events to reach our eyes, in contradiction of 400 years of empirically confirmed science. Also, we project words onto a screen of undeniable substance.

We are born again and again, even though we have no connection whatsoever with the new people being born.

From all of this, it necessarily follows that universal utopian world peace will ensue, and all economic disparities will cease. Also, homosexuality will vanish, and my wife will put out on the dinner table (provided the little ones aren’t present). And we’ll all get to wear translucent sex robes and fall in love with the genitals of the first member of the opposite sex whom we meet, and mate for life.

END SUMMARY

What I have suggested is that she change the title of the book to "The Crackpot," and market it as a parody of a crackpot making a self-important "discovery." That MIGHT be marketable.

[ChristinaM]

I think that I'm picturing something that's a bit less specific but more detailed than just saying that it's an amazing discovery that will change the world. Something along the lines of mentioning the different disciplines and concepts that it touches on but without saying what the conclusions are might work. ATM I'd probably try to read anything if I knew that it was going to be about neuropsychology but if the blurb made it clear that I already disagreed with the conclusions then I would just move on.

I guess that I'm doing it for the same reason that all of you are trying to explain scientific concepts to her. Besides, it's a hell of a lot easier than neurology is.

[davidm]

OK, less specific but more detailed than just saying it is an amazing disocvery that will change the world:

This book features a profound new slant on the free-will determinism debate, in which we find a mathematical relation between humans always moving toward greatest satisfaction, and as a consquence of understanding this, refusing to strike the first blow in any relationship.

It also portrays a dynamic new understanding of the nauture of light and sight, and how we illicitly project words onto objects and persons in the world that lead us to making unsupported judgments about the world. Once this fact about how we really see is laid bare, the projection of judgments will come to an end.

Finally, the book points out a previously undisclosed connection between conciousness and death, and what we can look forward to upon our demise.

These three disclosures, taken together, will lead to a world quite different from the one we have hitherto experienced.

See? I can do this.

[ChristinaM]

Not bad . That would make me curious enough to at least look at it to find out how he thinks that could happen. I'll be honest - I have a terrible time reading this stuff because of the style but then again I can't stand reading Hawthorne either because of all of the damn commas and he's considered to be a great author and I overuse them too. The rest of you don't seem to have that hard of a time focusing on it without being distracted by the style so maybe it isn't hopeless that some people will read all of it.

[davidm]

Do you have your own PR firm or something? Maybe I could do this kind of stuff for you on a freelance basis.

I've got the credentials in the Words field, believe me. As we like to say where I work, "Words Am Us."

[ChristinaM]

I'm retired now but between visits in and out of tech management I've done a lot of nonprofit work, grant writing, government work and community organizing about homeless services and community management and that pretty much comes down to marketing ideas and getting other people to pay attention and hopefully endorse or pay for them. A some point when she isn't feeling so overwhelmed I want to talk to her about keeping her eye on the prize which often means biting your tongue and not reacting to every negative comment defensively or with a lecture on manners.

My writing is OK when I take it seriously and I was very good at getting big government grants and contracts but I'm way too long-winded at first and have to edit it over and over to make it more concise, have someone else proofread it to remove extraneous commas and if necessary have a lawyer review it to rip out all of my unnecessary editorial comments that are only going to get me in trouble. I'm terrible at writing speeches because the way that I write isn't how I speak and I can't read it comfortably so I just use bullet point notes and wing it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In fact you originally brought up Sam Harris thinking we might care about his opinion more because he is "one of us"...you hoped our positive opinion of a fellow atheist would help your argument.

To be fair, this is a common and successful PR practice - especially for scientific and technical fields, expert testimony is given a lot of weight in decision making. For that matter, if a friend whose opinion I regard highly "likes" some product on Facebook, I'm more likely to consider buying it.

Drug manufacturers do this all the time - they don't have sales people present to the doctors, they have other doctors present their original (favorable) research.

This has limited applications, though. I'm more likely to pay attention to a product recommended by experts, but that's no guarantee. Based on my current familiarity with Lessans' book, I'm more likely to think the expert spokesperson was smoking something that day. (I doubt peacgirl has the funds to bribe them.)

Quite honestly, any expert that might me reconsider my current position isn't going to get past the huge red crackpot flags in the introduction before writing him off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Even if, under extreme provocation, LS would feel compelled to compromise her own moral integrity that would not necessarily mean that she had ceased to believe in those moral values. Human beings are capable of doing things that they believe are wrong without altering their belief that doing those things is wrong.

No one is arguing this. This would be the worst possible choice in any other circumstance, but the best choice given the position she is in.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'm retired now but between visits in and out of tech management I've done a lot of nonprofit work, grant writing, government work and community organizing about homeless services and community management and that pretty much comes down to marketing ideas and getting other people to pay attention and hopefully endorse or pay for them. A some point when she isn't feeling so overwhelmed I want to talk to her about keeping her eye on the prize which often means biting your tongue and not reacting to every negative comment defensively or with a lecture on manners.

My writing is OK when I take it seriously and I was very good at getting big government grants and contracts but I'm way too long-winded at first and have to edit it over and over to make it more concise, have someone else proofread it to remove extraneous commas and if necessary have a (-lawyer) scientist review it to rip out all of my unnecessary editorial comments that are only going to get me in trouble. I'm terrible at writing speeches because the way that I write isn't how I speak and I can't read it comfortably so I just use bullet point notes and wing it.

Tis a pity Lessans didn't do this, we could have been reading a 50 page, or less, book instead.

[Vivisectus]

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

[ChristinaM]

It would be interesting to ask peacegirl to comment on each of those points and explain whether they do or don't apply to this work and why but it would probably entail another 1,000 pages of pure hilarity.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by davidm

This book features a profound new slant on the free-will determinism debate, in which we find a mathematical relation between humans always moving toward greatest satisfaction, and as a consquence of understanding this, refusing to strike the first blow in any relationship.

It also portrays a dynamic new understanding of the nauture of light and sight, and how we illicitly project words onto objects and persons in the world that lead us to making unsupported judgments about the world. Once this fact about how we really see is laid bare, the projection of judgments will come to an end.

Finally, the book points out a previously undisclosed connection between conciousness and death, and what we can look forward to upon our demise.

These three disclosures, taken together, will lead to a world quite different from the one we have hitherto experienced.

Peacegirl, the more that I read this the more I like it. I don't think that it says anything that you would object to or that will make your father sound silly. It doesn't give away the conclusions before they read the book but it gives people a good sense of the subjects that will be discussed. It sounds to me like what you've been saying all along but in fewer words and it's very well written and sounds professional. You even get to keep the word mathematical. How does it sound to you?