We've sent probes to every single planet in the Solar System, not to mention many moons, some asteroids, and some comets.
Have they landed on these planets or are they orbiting them?
FYI, Orbiting a planet or a moon requires more precision than just landing on the surface, too close and the probe spirals in and crashes, too far out and it just curves around and goes away from the body in question. You really have no understanding of planetary mechanics, but you persist in asking stupid questions. You should really try to learn something about the subject before making any comments about it. You are just parading your ignorance, for everyone with half a brain, to see. However, you seem to be quite happy in your own little dream world, Perhaps someday you'll wake up?
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I do not care what you think about Lessans' claim regarding the eyes. ... I believe he was right even if, by all appearances, it looks like he was wrong.
....[/thread]
Appearances are often misleading. Seeing is not always believing.
Correct. And it is a good thing that we have learnt not to believe everything we see. Look at the sun, for instance. To our eye it appears to move across the horizon when in fact it is the earth's rotation around its own axle thhat gives us this impression. Likewise, the sun appears to our eyes where it was in fact eight minutes earlier. Science teaches us that.
You have yet to provide even a single shred of experimental evidence supporting your dad's theory that we can see astronomical bodies in the exact location they appear to be at the time we perceive them.
You say we've gone to many targets, so show me the proof that without this light-time correction these target would never have been reached.
He already showed you the proof. Did you fail to read, or understand, his elementary mathematical proof that if we employed Lessanology, our probels would always miss Mars? Or are you just lying again, and pretending he didn't show you the maths? Good thing NASA pays no attention to Lessanology!
But the truth is we have not amassed enough evidence to show that it is the light-time adjustment that is the cause for such precise landings. We've only gone to one planet.
Gosh, you are fucking stupid.
Even if we had gone to only one planet, plus the moon, those excursions alone disprove Lessans. But ... get ready for the nest post!
Have they landed on these planets or are they orbiting them?
What, do you live in an underground bunker filled with unsold copies of your idiot father's comic book? Even the dimmest person, lacking all curiosity about the real world, would know, as the Lone Ranger said, that we've visited every goddamned planet in the solar system! It's true we haven't visited Pluto, but Pluto is no longer classified as a planet.
It does not make any difference whether we merely orbit or land on these other worlds. In either case, we would miss them by HUGE margins if we used Lessanology instead of SCIENCE. What part of the Lone Ranger's maths about Mars did you fail to grasp? He mathematically proved that we would miss Mars every time if we used Lessanology!
But, you ask … irrelevantly, of course, but still … have we LANDED on other worlds besides Mars?
YES!
What do you think this is a photo of, peacegirl? Because it sure ain't either Earth or Mars!
What about this? Where do you think this was taken? Cuz it sure wasn't taken on Earth or Mars, or on the world where the photo above was taken!
About that first photo (you can go away now, peacegirl, stuff like this doesn't interest your tiny mind): Something WEIRD is happening on that world. The first weird thing is that it is the only world that we know of, besides earth, with standing bodies of liquid on its surface! Of course it's not water -- since it's way, WAY farther away than Mars, ice would always be rock solid. No, this world has lakes of liquid hydrocarbons!
(There is, though, it seems, a globe-girdling ocean of liquid water underground!)
The weirdest part is that, unexpectedly, hydrogen is disappearing near this world's surface, and scientists have not been able to find the acetylene they expected. Could … something … in or around those lakes of liquid hydrocarbons be breathing hydrogen, eating acetylene and releasing methane?
Probably not. But it's a live option, the prevailing conditions hinting at life (though not life as we know it!) predicted by a NASA astrobiologist in 2004 and later confirmed. Time will tell what's really causing these strange conditions.
That second photo, by the way, was taken on a world so hot that it could have lakes of liquid lead!
How fascinating REALITY and SCIENCE is, peacegirl, and not the crack-headed fantasies of religion and also your ridiculous father's idiotic book.
BTW, you DID say, repeatedly, that the light was at the retina even though it hadn't reached the retina yet. You even lectured us on how you knew that this great truth would be hard for us to understand! Care me to dredge up the post where you said this, and embarrass you yet again?
She is just being stupidly obtuse and obfuscatory.
This post was entirely motivated by the opportunity to use the word "obfuscatory".
Oh! I really like that word, can I borrow it? Please!
No, but I will sell it to you for 200€. Alternatively, you could just steal it.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
About that first photo, of a world that peacegirl, in her sad and embarrassing ignorance, never even knew we landed on, below is a photo of one of its wondrous hydrocarbon lakes:
And behold, a hydrocarbon river! In a world of hydrocarbon rain. The river is 200 miles long, and is said to resemble the Nile.
These wondrous discoveries were made possible by people who paid no attention at all to a billiard hustler with delusions of grandeur.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
I'm not disputing that what we see needs to be corrected due to stellar aberration...
Good, but irrelevant as we are discussing planetary aberration. Why can't you read?
Why are you being so rude? I am not being rude to you. I do not believe that this adjustment in light correction is a game changer. I know you are trying to make me look foolish because I am not an astrophysicist, and you think that you will catch me in a contradiction, or worse, an ignorant response. All I can tell you is that I do not believe this correction has the kind of impact on the claim of efferent vision that you think it does. If you want to explain the following in more detail, be my guest.
Planetary aberration
Planetary aberration is the combination of the aberration of light (due to Earth's velocity) and light-time correction (due to the object's motion and distance), as calculated in the rest frame of the Solar System. Both are determined at the instant when the moving object's light reaches the moving observer on Earth. It is so called because it is usually applied to planets and other objects in the solar system whose motion and distance are accurately known.
but this does not rule out the [theory; using this term so you won't get bent out of shape] that we see in real time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
What a weasel! You originally complained this wasn't discussed anywhere:
"I don't see it discussed anywhere, not even on the Nasa website where there are tons of articles."
That's why we're talking about this, not to disprove your (already thoroughly disproved) ideas of vision. Why won't you argue honestly? Instead you should say "Oh, I guess NASA does discuss this somewhere," not try and move the goalposts.
I didn't see it discussed. Maybe I didn't look in the right places.
Quote:
The speed of light measurement plays an important role in many important calculations but this does not prove that we actually see in delayed time. It only proves that we need the speed of light to accurately predict where something is located in reference to velocity and distance which obviously has to be accounted for to get an accurate position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Weasel! Read the text:
"...the resulting position vector indicates where the target "appears to be" from the observer's location. "
Appears to be. As in: it's not really where we see it. NASA agrees with us, not you.
This goes back to the basic dispute as to whether matter is interpreted from light afferently, or whether we can see matter in real time. I know NASA agrees with you, not me. If their disagreement proved that Lessans was wrong, I wouldn't be discussing this, but disagreement is not proof that they are right.
Let's say Suzie manages to book some time on a really big telescope to look at some very distant star for her very important research. She is told she can have it from midnight to 2am 6 months from now. She must send the operators the exact sky coordinates to program into the computer to point the telescope for her at her appointed time, she cannot make any adjustments herself, whatever she sends is what will be used. If it's not pointed correctly, she will not see what she needs to.
Her calculations need to include what factors, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with her calculations in that she is looking at a particular part of the sky. But the results do not negate real time seeing. When it's morning, we see light approaching, true? In other words, if the Sun is lightyears away, we would see morning after 8 minutes. But light does not produce an image; it just produces full spectrum light. Light itself would not give us an image of matter because images, or the partial spectrum, is not being reflected. We are seeing the object due to light's presence ONLY. The wavelength that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time as believed. Do you get what I'm saying? I doubt it.
You seem to have misunderstood the question. How does she make her calculations? What must she do to get the correct coordinates to send to the telescope operators?
Also, if it takes light from the Sun 8 minutes to reach us, that makes it 8 light minutes away. You don't even know what a light year is do you?
How is it even possible that a person has been alive and more or less conscious during the past 40 years, and yet thinks that the only extraterrestrial bodies we've sent probes to are Mars and Luna?
I mean, I've met people who strike me as having exactly zero curiosity about the world around them, yet they can tell you at least a little about the Mariner, Viking, Pioneer, and Voyager programs. Because their discoveries were big news -- the sort of thing that was on the front page of every single newspaper.
Surely, the level of ignorance that peacegirl displays cannot possibly be anything but deliberate? Assuming it's genuine, that is. I'm still not entirely convinced that she isn't some kind of incredibly persistent troll or weird performance artist who's just trying to see how long she can string people along with her inanity. Or that she's just plain attention-starved, and has hit on an effective way to get people to pay attention to her.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Surely, the level of ignorance that peacegirl displays cannot possibly be anything but deliberate?
I think you forget is that you are the only one in the dialogue between you and PeaceGirl trying to actually make sense of it all. PG doesn't have to: she has her faith that her father is right no matter what, and that you can just work back from that. So she can trot out nonsense like "An observer somewhere else would see the same celestial object but maybe at a different angle.", even though in the context of what you said that makes no sense whatsoever.
The "logic" is simple: her father was right about everything all the time, so whenever there is a conflict between what he says and what we can actually see, then somehow her father has to be right anyway, so we must be looking at the universe the wrong way. "Something else must be going on". There is no burden of proof on her fathers work, no requirement for a coherent explanation of what we can observe, no requirement to even supply the data on which he supposedly based his conclusions. There is no need to actually go into how this "something else" works, or to stop and wonder about the implications.
So while you have to laboriously come up with some sort of rational response, doing all the legwork to write out in simple terms just why what she says is so ludicrous, PG doesn't actually have to think that far. All she does is repeat the phrase "something else must be going on" in slightly different words. Anything will do, as long as it sounds vaguely like an explanation, even if it is on an extremely shallow level.
If you treat her point of view like a rational position, then it seems absurd to the point where you wonder if this isn't some sort of long drawn-out joke. But it isn't a rational point of view: it is one based on the belief in a fundamental truth and an absolute good.
If you think you already know a fundamental truth, you have no more need for understanding: there is nothing to figure out. Things are a certain way, and you can assume that everything else just fits in somehow.
It is a lot like debating creationists. An inability to explain why God designed us with an appendix does not threaten their worldview in the slightest. The fact that people with a more scientific frame of mind feel the need to actually try to explain what they see is what makes debates between the two groups so uneven. The same happens here on a daily basis.
How is that? You say things and don't explain them. Guess that's your way of sounding authoritative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I've already corrected you on this as well. Free will has multiple definitions in the philosophical literature. Libertarian contra-causal free will is only one of them.
What are the multiple definitions of free will...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
There is libertarian and compatibilist free will for starters. Only one of these is contra-causal.
You keep saying that but when the rubber meets the road you cannot produce a situation where a person is actually "free" or in control of his choices. Being in control of one's choices in the sense that one could have chosen otherwise is the only condition in which free will (even the kind that compatibilists use) is an actual reality and could be used to justify blameworthiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
On a practical level compatibilism serves a purpose, but upon deeper analysis it fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You haven't offered any deeper analysis, and you haven't shown it to fail. Your only objection is that it isn't libertarian free will.
What do you think I've been trying to do? I'm trying to show you that the compatibilist definition of "free" works only as a way to try to eliminate the contradiction but it does not prove that we actually have free will. Giving special privilege to only those who have a more difficult time making changes due to the intensity of their emotion does not render those who don't have this type of intensity, free. Determinism is not wishy washy and does not attribute some to have it and some not. As long as there is a meaningful difference when comparing alternatives, even if the difference is not as compelling or irresistible as others, this principle still applies as any universal law would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have not let me show you how not holding people to account actually increases responsibility to a much higher degree, and without the need for any kind of blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You aren't capable of showing that. All you can do is make stupid assumptions about conscience for which you have zero support.
There is a lot of support, not just coming from Lessans. There are more and more articles being written that show we all have a budding conscience that is independent of any parental teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can you blame someone for their actions if their actions are determined by forces beyond their control?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
By blaming them. An action can still be under a person's control even when ultimately caused by factors beyond their control. All it requires is that the person's deliberation be a part of the causal chain.
Obviously, an action is within a person's control to the extent that nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to do. But what he chooses to do is not within his control because he is compelled to choose that which is the most preferable when given two or more alternatives. These are the two principles which make up the two-sided equation. You are missing these two concept entirely, as if they don't exist.
p. 67 To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary —
Thou Shall Not Blame — (for this seems mathematically impossible since
it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and
punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a
de-confusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact
revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal
this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not
have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to.
As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death
cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He
is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his
environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment
of time he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to
another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely
crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment
of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals that he has
mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move
in the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is
compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country
against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes
simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion and he
must choose something to do among the various things in his environment
or else commit suicide.
Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers
do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was
judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for
freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to
their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to
do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered
worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words
and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another
is done only because he wants to do it which means that his preference
gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Free will is not contra-causal by definition.
Of course it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, it isn't. Only libertarian free will is contra-causal by definition. This is NOT the only kind of free will.
Saying this without a true explanation means absolutely nothing. You tend to do this when push comes to shove because I don't think you even have an adequate explanation. All you do is keep repeating the same definition of compatibilist free will, and tell me that it's logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are lost in the recesses of your faulty logic. And this argument is so emotional for you that I will never be able to convince you of its flaws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You are projecting your own emotional state. This isn't emotional for me at all. At best it is mildly amusing. You can't convince anyone of these alleged flaws because you don't know of any.
I believe I have expressed flaws. You never even address my refutation. You just keep repeating the same thing and hope that no is able to see what you're doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Your argument fails because you keep myopically focusing upon one single definition to the exclusion of all others, and then pretending it's the only one. It isn't.
What others are there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Compatibilist free will. Duh.
There you go again, you are going in circles without truly addressing my dispute as to why compatibilist free will doesn't really exist except by making it a useful definition because it allows people to justify the blame and punishment that our entire justice system is based on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you blame someone for their actions (whatever actions you deem are free ones), you are not a determinist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Wrong. Compatibilists can and do blame people whilst remaining determinists with respect to human actions and choices.
Of course they do, but they are not really determinists because if they were they could not accept the logic, which is contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...because determinism is a universal law that says ALL actions are beyond one's control, and as such no one is worthy of blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, it isn't. Determinism doesn't say that at all. That's only what you are fallaciously inferring from determinism.
No, this is the definition of hard determinism. We have no control over our choices, therefore we could not have done otherwise. There is no parallel world that could exist except in one's wild imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only problem is that being free of physical and psychological constraints is still not free in the sense that a person could have done otherwise under those exact same conditions, even with the knowledge that he would be punished if caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spcemonkey
So what? Why should anyone care about that kind of freedom? What would be the advantage of having it?
Anyone would care about this kind of freedom because this kind of freedom would hopefully deter some of the bad guys from doing what is wrong. But it has a boomerang effect and you aren't listening to why this kind of purported freedom (which justifies punishment) is actually preventing the really bad guys who don't care about your compatibilist threats of punishment, from doing what is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So where is the freedom if he could not have done any differently Spacemonkey?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What matters is the freedom to have been able to act differently under different but relevantly similar conditions.
No, that doesn't fly Spacemonkey. The threat of punishment often will not change a behavior under relevant similar conditions unless a person changes his outlook, and most outlooks that have any beneficial longlasting effects do not come from punishment (just desert) but from understanding and compassion, which then changes the antecedent conditions to where he would not want to do the same thing again.
Being in control of one's choices in the sense that one could have chosen otherwise is the only condition in which free will (even the kind that compatibilists use) is an actual reality
Could one have acted otherwise had (s)he wanted to act otherwise? What part of the whole complex process of making a decision to act and then acting on it is considered the "will"?
Quote:
he is compelled to choose that which is the most preferable when given two or more alternatives.
So this means we can't choose our preferences. Is our preference our "will"? Can we consciously influence our preferences by reading, learning, contemplating, visualizing?
How is that? You say things and don't explain them. Guess that's your way of sounding authoritative.
Go back and read what you were replying to. You were arguing against yourself again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You keep saying that but when the rubber meets the road you cannot produce a situation where a person is actually "free" or in control of his choices. Being in control of one's choices in the sense that one could have chosen otherwise is the only condition in which free will (even the kind that compatibilists use) is an actual reality and could be used to justify blameworthiness.
You asked what the multiple definitions of free will were, so I gave you two. And being able to have chosen otherwise is perfectly compatible with determinism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What do you think I've been trying to do?
Get attention? Lie and weasel as much as you have to to convince yourself you haven't already been refuted a thousand times over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm trying to show you that the compatibilist definition of "free" works only as a way to try to eliminate the contradiction but it does not prove that we actually have free will.
It doesn't prove that we have contra-causal free will, but then it isn't meant to. It is uncontroversial that we have compatibilist free will, so what else does it need to prove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Giving special privilege to only those who have a more difficult time making changes due to the intensity of their emotion does not render those who don't have this type of intensity, free. Determinism is not wishy washy and does not attribute some to have it and some not. As long as there is a meaningful difference when comparing alternatives, even if the difference is not as compelling or irresistible as others, this principle still applies as any universal law would.
What are you even talking about? Where did this gibberish about intensity of emotion come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is a lot of support, not just coming from Lessans. There are more and more articles being written that show we all have a budding conscience that is independent of any parental teaching.
You have zero support. Lessans' required assumption about conscience is much stronger than the mere existence of a "budding conscience" before teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Obviously, an action is within a person's control to the extent that nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to do. But what he chooses to do is not within his control because he is compelled to choose that which is the most preferable when given two or more alternatives. These are the two principles which make up the two-sided equation. You are missing these two concept entirely, as if they don't exist.
I'm not missing that at all. It's a stupid tautology that proves nothing. You just keep changing the topic whenever you're replying to something you don't understand or have no response to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Saying this without a true explanation means absolutely nothing. You tend to do this when push comes to shove because I don't think you even have an adequate explanation. All you do is keep repeating the same definition of compatibilist free will, and tell me that it's logical.
Once again you are changing the subject. You wrongly claimed that free will is contra-causal by definition. Now you're blabbing about true and adequate explanations. What do you think needs explaining?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I believe I have expressed flaws. You never even address my refutation. You just keep repeating the same thing and hope that no is able to see what you're doing.
You haven't presented any flaws. You haven't offered any refutation. You're just repeating the same stupid mistakes and claims over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There you go again, you are going in circles without truly addressing my dispute as to why compatibilist free will doesn't really exist except by making it a useful definition because it allows people to justify the blame and punishment that our entire justice system is based on.
There you go again changing the subject. You asked me what other definitions of free will there are, so I told you. What else would you have me do in response to such a question? Compatibilist free will most certainly does really exist - it just isn't the contra-causal kind of free will you want to argue against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course they do, but they are not really determinists because if they were they could not accept the logic, which is contradictory.
Of course they're really determinists. There is nothing contradictory about compatibilist logic at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, this is the definition of hard determinism. We have no control over our choices, therefore we could not have done otherwise. There is no parallel world that could exist except in one's wild imagination.
Who asked about hard determinism? You were talking about determinism, not hard determinism. Compatibilists are not hard determinists, so the implications of hard determinism are irrelevant when it comes to evaluating compatibilism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Anyone would care about this kind of freedom because this kind of freedom would hopefully deter some of the bad guys from doing what is wrong. But it has a boomerang effect and you aren't listening to why this kind of purported freedom (which justifies punishment) is actually preventing the really bad guys who don't care about your compatibilist threats of punishment, from doing what is right.
You're just meaninglessly stringing words together again. What does libertarian free will have to do with better deterring bad guys? Why would anyone want their reasons not to determine their choices? Libertarian free will would make our choices random and remove them from our control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that doesn't fly Spacemonkey. The threat of punishment often will not change a behavior under relevant similar conditions unless a person changes his outlook, and most outlooks that have any beneficial longlasting effects do not come from punishment (just desert) but from understanding and compassion, which then changes the antecedent conditions to where he would not want to do the same thing again.
Who cares? Punishment doesn't have to be a perfect solution for compatibilist free will to be the only kind worth having. I want to be free from external constraints, but I don't want my choices to be free from being caused by my own reasons. The freedom to have been able to act differently under different but relevantly similar conditions is still the only kind of freedom that matters.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I'm not disputing that what we see needs to be corrected due to stellar aberration...
Good, but irrelevant as we are discussing planetary aberration. Why can't you read?
Why are you being so rude? I am not being rude to you. I do not believe that this adjustment in light correction is a game changer. I know you are trying to make me look foolish because I am not an astrophysicist, and you think that you will catch me in a contradiction, or worse, an ignorant response. All I can tell you is that I do not believe this correction has the kind of impact on the claim of efferent vision that you think it does. If you want to explain the following in more detail, be my guest.
Planetary aberration
Planetary aberration is the combination of the aberration of light (due to Earth's velocity) and light-time correction (due to the object's motion and distance), as calculated in the rest frame of the Solar System. Both are determined at the instant when the moving object's light reaches the moving observer on Earth. It is so called because it is usually applied to planets and other objects in the solar system whose motion and distance are accurately known.
but this does not rule out the [theory; using this term so you won't get bent out of shape] that we see in real time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
What a weasel! You originally complained this wasn't discussed anywhere:
"I don't see it discussed anywhere, not even on the Nasa website where there are tons of articles."
That's why we're talking about this, not to disprove your (already thoroughly disproved) ideas of vision. Why won't you argue honestly? Instead you should say "Oh, I guess NASA does discuss this somewhere," not try and move the goalposts.
I didn't see it discussed. Maybe I didn't look in the right places.
Quote:
The speed of light measurement plays an important role in many important calculations but this does not prove that we actually see in delayed time. It only proves that we need the speed of light to accurately predict where something is located in reference to velocity and distance which obviously has to be accounted for to get an accurate position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Weasel! Read the text:
"...the resulting position vector indicates where the target "appears to be" from the observer's location. "
Appears to be. As in: it's not really where we see it. NASA agrees with us, not you.
This goes back to the basic dispute as to whether matter is interpreted from light afferently, or whether we can see matter in real time. I know NASA agrees with you, not me. If their disagreement proved that Lessans was wrong, I wouldn't be discussing this, but disagreement is not proof that they are right.
Let's say Suzie manages to book some time on a really big telescope to look at some very distant star for her very important research. She is told she can have it from midnight to 2am 6 months from now. She must send the operators the exact sky coordinates to program into the computer to point the telescope for her at her appointed time, she cannot make any adjustments herself, whatever she sends is what will be used. If it's not pointed correctly, she will not see what she needs to.
Her calculations need to include what factors, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with her calculations in that she is looking at a particular part of the sky. But the results do not negate real time seeing. When it's morning, we see light approaching, true? In other words, if the Sun is lightyears away, we would see morning after 8 minutes. But light does not produce an image; it just produces full spectrum light. Light itself would not give us an image of matter because images, or the partial spectrum, is not being reflected. We are seeing the object due to light's presence ONLY. The wavelength that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time as believed. Do you get what I'm saying? I doubt it.
You seem to have misunderstood the question. How does she make her calculations? What must she do to get the correct coordinates to send to the telescope operators?
I did understand the question LadyShea, so stop patronizing me, will you? It would involve time, velocity, orbit, and other factors. It would not involve the time-light correction because this could turn out to be incidental, not essential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Also, if it takes light from the Sun 8 minutes to reach us, that makes it 8 light minutes away. You don't even know what a light year is do you?
The distance light travels in one year. Again, you are making every effort to make me look stupid, but it's not going to work.
Being in control of one's choices in the sense that one could have chosen otherwise is the only condition in which free will (even the kind that compatibilists use) is an actual reality
Could one have acted otherwise had (s)he wanted to act otherwise?
Of course a person could act otherwise if they had wanted to, but the fact that they didn't want to renders that choice an impossibility at that moment in time.
The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What part of the whole complex process of making a decision to act and then acting on it is considered the "will"?
The will is part of the brain, and behind the will is the agent whose brain is making the choice to do this thing or that. But the choice is not freely willed; it is a choice based on many determinants which renders the choice UNFREE.
Quote:
he is compelled to choose that which is the most preferable when given two or more alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So this means we can't choose our preferences.
True, we can't choose what we will ultimately prefer because this is not up to us as free agents. This is up to our genetics and environment, which we have absolutely no control over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Is our preference our "will"? Can we consciously influence our preferences by reading, learning, contemplating, visualizing?
Obviously, what we contemplate influences what we prefer, but this is also not within our control. We aren't in charge of what information is at our disposal that give us an edge in the contemplative process. Obviously, learning, reading, visualizing, contemplating are all factors that go into the mental process that helps us to determine which choice is the most preferable, but, let me repeat, none of this is within our control. We cannot take credit for being the authors of our fortunate fate, just as we cannot take the blame for being authors of our unfortunate fate.
We are continually reacting to external stimuli, getting feedback, learning from our mistakes, and making better choices the next time a similar situation presents itself. Spacemonkey believes that threats of blame and punishment are the ultimate deterrent because these threats will compel someone to make a better choice the next time around, but as history shows it is not always a deterrent when someone does not care about the possible harm that could come to him if he is caught, and usually these people are the worst offenders of all. How do we control those people, if punishment doesn't work? Through a revolutionary leap that causes a change in consciousness, and that's what this discovery is all about.
Oh, I long ago gave up any hope thar peacegirl possesses even the tiniest shred of rationality where Lessans' claims are concerned.
But it defies belief that she could be unaware that we've sent probes to planets other than Mars. How could anyone be that isolated from the world around them? That and her other displays of ignorance regarding things every normal Third-Grader knows about suggest that a good deal of her ignorance is deliberate.
Of course, it may not be conscious on her part -- maybe it's like Morton's Demon, and her brain automatically filters out anything and everything that might in any way threaten her beliefs. Indeed, her behavior is entirely consistent with this hypothesis. Maybe we should come up with a name for the phenomenon -- Lessans' Demon, perhaps?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Surely, the level of ignorance that peacegirl displays cannot possibly be anything but deliberate?
I think you forget is that you are the only one in the dialogue between you and PeaceGirl trying to actually make sense of it all. PG doesn't have to: she has her faith that her father is right no matter what, and that you can just work back from that. So she can trot out nonsense like "An observer somewhere else would see the same celestial object but maybe at a different angle.", even though in the context of what you said that makes no sense whatsoever.
The "logic" is simple: her father was right about everything all the time, so whenever there is a conflict between what he says and what we can actually see, then somehow her father has to be right anyway, so we must be looking at the universe the wrong way. "Something else must be going on". There is no burden of proof on her fathers work, no requirement for a coherent explanation of what we can observe, no requirement to even supply the data on which he supposedly based his conclusions. There is no need to actually go into how this "something else" works, or to stop and wonder about the implications.
So while you have to laboriously come up with some sort of rational response, doing all the legwork to write out in simple terms just why what she says is so ludicrous, PG doesn't actually have to think that far. All she does is repeat the phrase "something else must be going on" in slightly different words. Anything will do, as long as it sounds vaguely like an explanation, even if it is on an extremely shallow level.
If you treat her point of view like a rational position, then it seems absurd to the point where you wonder if this isn't some sort of long drawn-out joke. But it isn't a rational point of view: it is one based on the belief in a fundamental truth and an absolute good.
If you think you already know a fundamental truth, you have no more need for understanding: there is nothing to figure out. Things are a certain way, and you can assume that everything else just fits in somehow.
It is a lot like debating creationists. An inability to explain why God designed us with an appendix does not threaten their worldview in the slightest. The fact that people with a more scientific frame of mind feel the need to actually try to explain what they see is what makes debates between the two groups so uneven. The same happens here on a daily basis.
The irony is that my father did more rational thinking than all of you put together. It just so happens that his discovery leads us to a fundamental truth and an absolute good. So the religious are way ahead of the game in their deep and abiding faith that this world is no accident and that God (the intelligence that governs our universe) is in charge and knows a lot more than we do. The gig is up!
Oh, I long ago gave up any hope thar peacegirl possesses even the tiniest shred of rationality where Lessans' claims are concerned.
But it defies belief that she could be unaware that we've sent probes to planets other than Mars. How could anyone be that isolated from the world around them? That and her other displays of ignorance regarding things every normal Third-Grader knows about suggest that a good deal of her ignorance is deliberate.
First of all not everyone follows what Nasa is doing because they have other interests, and not all except very large happenings are on the news like the Challenger tragedy. I'll bet that if Jay Leno asked the question how many planets were visited by probes people would not know what he was talking about let alone know whether they landed or just orbited sending data back to Earth, so don't single me out. Anyway, I wasn't considering orbiting probes when I said only Mars was visited. I was talking about probes that have landed. I'm curious as to why you bother to be here. I know. You want to correct my mistakes, but you certainly are using schoolboy antics to incriminate me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Of course, it may not be conscious on her part -- maybe it's like Morton's Demon, and her brain automatically filters out anything and everything that might in any way threaten her beliefs. Indeed, her behavior is entirely consistent with this hypothesis. Maybe we should come up with a name for the phenomenon -- Lessans' Demon, perhaps?
Funny I must say. But it's not true. My brain does not automatically filter out anything and everything that might in any way threaten my beliefs. I think his analysis is just as strong and does provide a way to empirically test his conclusions.
I think his analysis is just as strong and does provide a way to empirically test his conclusions.
Yes - a simple (though expensive) empirical test is aim a space probe at a planet using Lessans' theories and see how accurately it hits the target.
Happily, the tests have already been done for you (in a slightly modified form) thereby saving you the cost of doing the tests yourself: the probes have been aimed at planets NOT using Lessans' theories and have arrived perfectly accurately - so we have empirical proof that at least one of Lessans' ideas (his 'instant seeing' theory) is completely wrong.
How is that? You say things and don't explain them. Guess that's your way of sounding authoritative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Go back and read what you were replying to. You were arguing against yourself again.
My reasoning is so much sounder than yours, it's got to be a protective mechanism on your part that you don't see this, because you don't want determinism to be true. You wouldn't be able to take credit for your brilliance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You keep saying that but when the rubber meets the road you cannot produce a situation where a person is actually "free" or in control of his choices. Being in control of one's choices in the sense that one could have chosen otherwise is the only condition in which free will (even the kind that compatibilists use) is an actual reality and could be used to justify blameworthiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You asked what the multiple definitions of free will were, so I gave you two. And being able to have chosen otherwise is perfectly compatible with determinism.
Your definition means nothing where reality is concerned. How many times do I have to tell you this? It is just a way to get around the fact that free will and determinism are completely and irrefutably incompatible. If everything we do is beyond our control, then your definition does not symbolize reality in the slightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What do you think I've been trying to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Get attention? Lie and weasel as much as you have to to convince yourself you haven't already been refuted a thousand times over?
Be careful because you're treading thin ice. You are using a fake analysis to try and make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about, but it is you that cannot deal with the fact that your logic, your reasoning, is not sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm trying to show you that the compatibilist definition of "free" works only as a way to try to eliminate the contradiction but it does not prove that we actually have free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -"Spacemonkey"
It doesn't prove that we have contra-causal free will, but then it isn't meant to. It is uncontroversial that we have compatibilist free will, so what else does it need to prove?
Your definition is uncontroversial, but it's extremely limited in what it can do. If you don't want to find a better way to create the kind of environment that will hold people to their own moral account, then don't, but don't tell me that your definition of free will means anything more than giving you permission to blame and punish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Giving special privilege to only those who have a more difficult time making changes due to the intensity of their emotion does not render those who don't have this type of intensity, free. Determinism is not wishy washy and does not attribute some to have it and some not. As long as there is a meaningful difference when comparing alternatives, even if the difference is not as compelling or irresistible as others, this principle still applies as any universal law would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What are you even talking about? Where did this gibberish about intensity of emotion come from?
OCD and other psychological addictions, that's what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is a lot of support, not just coming from Lessans. There are more and more articles being written that show we all have a budding conscience that is independent of any parental teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You have zero support. Lessans' required assumption about conscience is much stronger than the mere existence of a "budding conscience" before teaching.
No, his recognition that conscience exists (although not developed because an infant has no experiences in which his conscience can be exercised) is exactly what they are finding out. I'm not surprised at all since more and more scientific testing will only confirm that he was right all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Obviously, an action is within a person's control to the extent that nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to do. But what he chooses to do is not within his control because he is compelled to choose that which is the most preferable when given two or more alternatives. These are the two principles which make up the two-sided equation. You are missing these two concept entirely, as if they don't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not missing that at all. It's a stupid tautology that proves nothing. You just keep changing the topic whenever you're replying to something you don't understand or have no response to.
Just because you don't see the truth in these two facts is irrelevant. They are not circular. You are holding yourself up as being some kind of intellectual better, which you are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Saying this without a true explanation means absolutely nothing. You tend to do this when push comes to shove because I don't think you even have an adequate explanation. All you do is keep repeating the same definition of compatibilist free will, and tell me that it's logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Once again you are changing the subject. You wrongly claimed that free will is contra-causal by definition. Now you're blabbing about true and adequate explanations. What do you think needs explaining?
You can create any definition you want (which compatibilists have done very well), but the ones that have the most impact without contradiction are the two that were mentioned. These are mutually exclusive concepts and any serious determinist (which you are not) will tell you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I believe I have expressed flaws. You never even address my refutation. You just keep repeating the same thing and hope that no is able to see what you're doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You haven't presented any flaws. You haven't offered any refutation. You're just repeating the same stupid mistakes and claims over and over again.
You are such a copy cat. This is where we have to part ways. I'm wasting too much time with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There you go again, you are going in circles without truly addressing my dispute as to why compatibilist free will doesn't really exist except by making it a useful definition because it allows people to justify the blame and punishment that our entire justice system is based on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
There you go again changing the subject. You asked me what other definitions of free will there are, so I told you. What else would you have me do in response to such a question? Compatibilist free will most certainly does really exist - it just isn't the contra-causal kind of free will you want to argue against.
I can make up any definition of free will I want to. That doesn't make it reflective of reality. I can say I have free will if I live without any rules and can do as I please. But being free of certain restrictions, which allows me to have more options, does not mean I have freedom of the will, the kind of free will that serious philosophical debates are comprised of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course they do, but they are not really determinists because if they were they could not accept the logic, which is contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Of course they're really determinists. There is nothing contradictory about compatibilist logic at all.
It is not sound. It is not based on reality. This is exactly why John Searle is not interested in discussing compatibilism. It's fundamentally flawed. I have nothing more to say to you on this issue. You are myopic to the point of being blind, and there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, this is the definition of hard determinism. We have no control over our choices, therefore we could not have done otherwise. There is no parallel world that could exist except in one's wild imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Who asked about hard determinism? You were talking about determinism, not hard determinism. Compatibilists are not hard determinists, so the implications of hard determinism are irrelevant when it comes to evaluating compatibilism.
The only determinism that makes sense is hard determinism, although Lessans shows the confusion as it relates to moral responsibility in his two-sided equation (which you know nothing about). If we are determined beings (i.e., our actions are caused or compelled), then any other definition is just another sleight of hand attempt at making two opposing worldviews appear compatible when they aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Anyone would care about this kind of freedom because this kind of freedom would hopefully deter some of the bad guys from doing what is wrong. But it has a boomerang effect and you aren't listening to why this kind of purported freedom (which justifies punishment) is actually preventing the really bad guys who don't care about your compatibilist threats of punishment, from doing what is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You're just meaninglessly stringing words together again. What does libertarian free will have to do with better deterring bad guys?
What does compatibilist free will have to do with deterring bad guys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why would anyone want their reasons not to determine their choices?
No on would want their reasons not to determine their choices. What are even blathering about Spacemonkey? Reasons determine choices, and...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Libertarian free will would make our choices random and remove them from our control.
And so would hard determinism remove our choices from our control. Again, how can we have control when we don't choose our preferences freely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that doesn't fly Spacemonkey. The threat of punishment often will not change a behavior under relevant similar conditions unless a person changes his outlook, and most outlooks that have any beneficial longlasting effects do not come from punishment (just desert) but from understanding and compassion, which then changes the antecedent conditions to where he would not want to do the same thing again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Who cares? Punishment doesn't have to be a perfect solution for compatibilist free will to be the only kind worth having.
That is true, if the alternative is mayhem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I want to be free from external constraints, but I don't want my choices to be free from being caused by my own reasons.
Of course you don't want them to be random, but having your own reasons supports the idea of preference, which is causal. My frustration right now is reaching an all time high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The freedom to have been able to act differently under different but relevantly similar conditions is still the only kind of freedom that matters.
No it is not. If I don't find it preferable to stop what I'm doing due to your threats of punishment, I will not change no matter how free you think I am to act differently in a similar situation. So how good can this kind of freedom really be?
This may explain the resistance to new thought, even when the demonstration as to its mathematical veracity is perfectly sound.
Nowhere does the human capacity to form and hold beliefs become more stark than when clear scientific data challenge the assumptions of someone’s personal beliefs. It would be easy to spin a story line about how a particular person with a set of religious values resisted the biological analysis of this or that finding in an effort to reaffirm his or her belief. There are many such stories, but they miss the point. Scientists themselves are just as resistant to change a view when confronted with new data that suggest their view is incorrect. All of us hold on to our beliefs, and it now appears that men are even more tenacious about not letting go than are women.
<snip>
Interestingly, it turns out that scientists are slower to change their views in the face of new data than are preachers.
Re: A revolution in thought
I do not believe that this adjustment in light correction is a game changer. I know you are trying to make me look foolish because I am not an astrophysicist, and you think that you will catch me in a contradiction, or worse, an ignorant response. All I can tell you is that I do not believe this correction has the kind of impact on the claim of efferent vision that you think it does. If you want to explain the following in more detail, be my guest.
Linear Mode
