A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

thedoc, you're spamming.

Now I get it, you're just upset that I'm not multi-posting, good for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Those 'premises' are how we built the computer you're using, you idiot. They're not premises at all: they're facts about the world we've discovered. Sorry it doesn't line up with your crackpot views you inherited from your dad.

You realise this doesn't matter? You're just one amusing nutter ranting on a fairly irrelevant forum on the internet. There are lots like you, with their own crackpot ideas, and you're indistinguishable from all of them. Meanwhile, we'll keep on ignoring everything your dad said, and things will keep working and vaccines will keep saving lives, and all of this nonsense you're spouting will be forgotten. You get that, right? That you're not convincing anyone of anything, and are mostly presenting your father's work here for cheap laughs?

Stop wasting your time. I'm not going to go all N.A. on you and tell you to get help, but why don't you stop with this obsession for a bit?

It's not an obsession. It's a calling. I dislike being here as much as you dislike my being here, but it's the lesser (right now) of two evils. I am working on other things and when I find a better outlet I will be gone (once again). Regardless of what you think, these discoveries (all three) can and will bring world peace whether it's in my lifetime or not. Why can't you just leave this thread and move on if you dislike it so much? You won't have to waste your time, which you obviously feel you're doing if you believe I'm wasting mine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What do you mean by "can be seen"? Do you mean if we can make out details about the structure of the light source?

Yes, that's what I mean. Per the Fizeau example, they distanced themselves 5 miles apart. How can a candle (the light source) be seen that far away in this rudimentary experiment? Yes, he did use a clever way to figure out the speed of light. I'm not disputing that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no foreknowledge. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Originally Posted by GdB

reaction has nothing to do with what I am saying.
This is the important part:
You magically change the modality of the occurrence when it is in the past. It is that simple. If something once was possible in the future, then it was possible, even if we now know what really happened.

No one is disputing that it was a possible option before the fact.

No GdB, it is not the same. You can choose dish 7 is a true statement before the moment of choice. You could have chosen dish 7 once the choice is made is false. You could have chosen dish 7 if you had wanted to, but you didn't want to because there were better alternatives [in comparison] rendering choice 7 an impossibility. Therefore, you could not have chosen dish 7 under the same exact circumstances.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The preferable choice is determined by the law of greater satisfaction, which you completely ignore.

Originally Posted by GdB

I ignore it, because it is wrong. Choosing according my preferences, or better, being able to act according my preferences, is all what free will is about. We had this already many times at CFI. Your understanding of free will implies that people only would be free if they would be free to do what they do not prefer. That is absurd.

That's not it at all. Having options does not grant us free will. It only gives us options. The only way free will would exist is if we could choose A or B equally which is impossible when we are comparing meaningful differences that push us [out of necessity] in one direction only. What is choice other than contemplating which option is most preferable? You are making a mockery out of choice?

Originally Posted by GdB

So here you repeat all errors again in on short paragraph:

The only difference when the choice is made, is that it happened, that we now all know what your choice was, and that, as the event lies in the past, cannot change anymore. But surely you could have done otherwise, in the simple modal meaning I explained.

You could not have done otherwise given the same exact circumstances. This is the big fallacy and cannot be used to support the "free will" compatibilist view you are trying to convince me of.

Originally Posted by GdB

I cannot say 'tomorrow I will eat in a restaurant: I can choose between 10 dishes', and then afterwards say 'yesterday I have eaten in the restaurant: I could not choose between 10 dishes'.

Who is saying that? You seem to be of the belief that having options is equivalent to having free will. The confusion is with how free will is being defined. And I'm not yelling at you just because I have some words in caps. It's for emphasis only.

Originally Posted by GdB

At physical level there exist no possibilities, no choices, no humans: only natural processes that are, at coarse level, determined.

What do you mean by "at physical level there exist no possibilities? At physical level (the dimension we live in) we have choices, possibilities, and humans exist (they are the agents of choice), but having choices does not grant us free will. If you understood Lessans' proposition at all, you would have understood why having choices is not equivalent to having free will of any kind.

Originally Posted by GdB

So if you want to consistent with your 'you could not have done otherwise once that choice was made' (please stop yelling at me) you should formulate the sentences as follows:

• It is determined what I will choose to eat, so I can only take the dish I will take: but I do not yet know what I will eat.
• It was determined what I would choose to eat, I could only take the dish that I took: but now I know what I have chosen.

Okay, fair enough.

A. It is determined what I will choose to eat, so I can only take the dish I will take: but I do not yet know what I will eat.

B. It was determined what I wold choose to eat, I could only take the dish that I took: but now I know what I've chosen.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What am I selling? I don't think you understand what spamming is. Peacegirl does. Just because I get on line occasionally, and make several posts at a time, does not make it spam.

Bullshit. In any case, 6 posts in a row is flooding, especially if there is no real content.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's what I mean. Per the Fizeau example, they distanced themselves 5 miles apart. How can a candle (the light source) be seen that far away in this rudimentary experiment? Yes, he did use a clever way to figure out the speed of light. I'm not disputing that.

You're disputing that the light source is bright enough to be seen, but you're not disputing that the experiment measured the speed of light? As usual, you're not making sense.

In the original experiment, the light source was a high-intensity lamp and not a candle ("La lumière était empruntée à une lampe disposée de manière à offrir une source de lumière très-vive.") Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences / publiés... par MM. les secrétaires perpétuels

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's what I mean. Per the Fizeau example, they distanced themselves 5 miles apart. How can a candle (the light source) be seen that far away in this rudimentary experiment? Yes, he did use a clever way to figure out the speed of light. I'm not disputing that.

The Fizeau experiment didn't use a candle. But according to this website, we can see a candle flame from thirty miles away using the naked eye on a dark night. The observer, and/or the candle, would have to be on mountains as thirty miles would put the candle below the horizon on normal terrain.

...if you were standing atop a mountain surveying a larger-than-usual patch of the planet, you could perceive bright lights hundreds of miles distant. On a dark night, you could even see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) away.

The scientists found that for study participants to perceive such a flash of light more than half the time, the subjects required between 54 and 148 photons to hit their eyeballs. Based on measurements of retinal absorption, the scientists calculated that a factor of 10 fewer photons were actually being absorbed by the participant's rod cells.

Interestingly, frogs eyes are even more sensitive than ours: experiments have shown that a frog's eye can react to a single photon of light, under ideal conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You're disputing that the light source is bright enough to be seen, but you're not disputing that the experiment measured the speed of light? As usual, you're not making sense.

In the original experiment, the light source was a high-intensity lamp and not a candle ("La lumière était empruntée à une lampe disposée de manière à offrir une source de lumière très-vive.") Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences / publiés... par MM. les secrétaires perpétuels

You're right. I thought the second time they did the experiment (51/2 miles apart), they were using a candle. It really makes no difference what the light source was; how could it be seen in a mirror with the naked eye 5 1/2 miles away? Obviously, he was able to measure the speed of light at this distance. Here is the youtube video again.

Fizeau, experiment - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The Fizeau experiment didn't use a candle. But according to this website, we can see a candle flame from thirty miles away using the naked eye on a dark night. The observer, and/or the candle, would have to be on mountains as thirty miles would put the candle below the horizon on normal terrain.

Interestingly, frogs eyes are even more sensitive than ours: experiments have shown that a frog's eye can react to a single photon of light, under ideal conditions.

Interesting.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being in the field of view (line of sight) OF THE OBJECT is not the same thing as saying in the OBJECT'S FIELD OF VIEW, which is what you rightly objected to.

Yes, it is the same. The 'of the object' is the possessive; that's what the apostrophe followed by an 's' means: "object's field of view" is the same as "field of view of the object", just as "Harry's house" is the same as "the house of Harry". Or "England's population" is the same as "the population of England".

So what is the field of view of my coffee mug? Or if you prefer: what's my coffee mug's field of view?

So how would you say it then given this definition?

The way you use the phrase has nothing to do with the definition you give (the distance subtended by an angle at 1000 yards). That's why I called you out on it: you're reciting nonsense.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really makes no difference what the light source was; how could it be seen in a mirror with the naked eye 5 1/2 miles away?

What? It makes no difference what the light source was? It makes all the difference. How do you think we can see stars? What if the light source is an atomic bomb?

Obviously, he was able to measure the speed of light at this distance. Here is the youtube video again.

How the fucking fuck would he be able to measure the speed of light without seeing the light in the device?

You still have no idea how the experiment works, right?

Explain it in your own words. No link, no youtube video, just tell us how the damn experiment works.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Bullshit. In any case, 6 posts in a row is flooding, especially if there is no real content.

It's almost as if you didn't read them, but it's OK, the ignore function is useful at times.

BTW, which is it, was I spamming, or Flooding, or both?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, it is the same. The 'of the object' is the possessive; that's what the apostrophe followed by an 's' means: "object's field of view" is the same as "field of view of the object", just as "Harry's house" is the same as "the house of Harry". Or "England's population" is the same as "the population of England".

So what is the field of view of my coffee mug? Or if you prefer: what's my coffee mug's field of view?

The way you use the phrase has nothing to do with the definition you give (the distance subtended by an angle at 1000 yards). That's why I called you out on it: you're reciting nonsense.

This is the first sentence in Wiki which is what I meant, although I didn't express it right.

The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the first sentence in Wiki which is what I meant, although I didn't express it right.

The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment

Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That definition is just a definition. I know what field of view means.

Your sentence "efferent vision puts the observer in the field of view of the object" is still nonsense.

What is the field of view of my coffee mug, given it doesn't see anything of the observable world at all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What? It makes no difference what the light source was? It makes all the difference. How do you think we can see stars? What if the light source is an atomic bomb?

How the fucking fuck would he be able to measure the speed of light without seeing the light in the device?

You still have no idea how the experiment works, right?

Explain it in your own words. No link, no youtube video, just tell us how the damn experiment works.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "How the fucking fuck would he be able to measure the speed of light without seeing the light in the device?" He was able to determine the speed of light by using a toothed wheel. As the wheel began to spin faster and faster the light was occluded (he couldn't see it anymore) because it was hitting the tooth and not passing through the notch. Based on the distance between the two stations (the light source being the first station and the mirror being the second which was 51/2 miles away), the speed of the wheel, and the number of notches in the wheel, he was able to calculate the speed of light by 2% of its actual value.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That definition is just a definition. I know what field of view means.

Your sentence "efferent vision puts the observer in the field of view of the object" is still nonsense.

What is the field of view of my coffee mug, given it doesn't see anything of the observable world at all?

I already told you I didn't express it right. Why are you harping on this? This does nothing to discredit efferent vision.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really makes no difference what the light source was; how could it be seen in a mirror with the naked eye 5 1/2 miles away?

What do you mean by that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What do you mean by that?

I can't imagine being able to see a reflection of the light source that far away. Maybe I'm wrong here.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you I didn't express it right.

So far you don't appear to know what you were even wanting to express.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't imagine being able to see a reflection of the light source that far away. Maybe I'm wrong here.

Well of course you're wrong. Otherwise the experiment wouldn't work and no one could get a value for the speed of light out of that experiment.

[ceptimus]

You can see the moon (for example) which is a quarter of a million miles away - and you can see the moon almost as well when you look at its reflection in a hand mirror.

...or perhaps you can't? But most people can anyway.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you I didn't express it right. Why are you harping on this? This does nothing to discredit efferent vision.

Yes, we certainly don't need this to discredit efferent vision, efferent vision is discredited by definition. This is being used to discredit you, which at this time isn't necessary.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You can see the moon (for example) which is a quarter of a million miles away - and you can see the moon almost as well when you look at its reflection in a hand mirror.

...or perhaps you can't? But most people can anyway.

Yeah, whatever, ceptimus. Let's not lose track of what's truly important here, namely that "[w]e hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You can see the moon (for example) which is a quarter of a million miles away - and you can see the moon almost as well when you look at its reflection in a hand mirror.

...or perhaps you can't? But most people can anyway.

We couldn't see a reflection of the moon if the mirror was 5 miles away from where we were standing, could we? A hand mirror is right next to us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Well of course you're wrong. Otherwise the experiment wouldn't work and no one could get a value for the speed of light out of that experiment.

I think you're misunderstanding me. If a mirror is 5 miles away, we wouldn't be able to see the reflection of the lamp in that mirror. We would see the light on its return as it enters our eyes which is how he was able to calculate the speed of light. I'm not disputing this.