A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so what's your point?

How big, maximum, can the hole be so that the light is at the back of the box instantly?

You are saying that if there is a small hole like in a pinhole camera, the light is there instantly. When the hole is so big that the front is completely open, you're saying that the light takes 8 minutes to get there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Of course they do. Do you know what "projection" means? Look it up.

In the sense that the eyes, camera, pinholes, create the image and "Project it", no they don't, they only allow the light to pass through, and only in that sense can they be said to project an image. It seemed to me that Peacegirl was using it in the sense of the eye,camera, pinhole creating the image and "projecting" it onto the screen. The correct terminology would be to say that the lens transmits the light to the retina or film to create an image. Projection has too many meanings to be accurate,

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In the sense that the eyes, camera, pinholes, create the image and "Project it", no they don't, they only allow the light to pass through,

And they project it onto a surface like every imaging device.

Give up, you're talking out of your ass.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

How big, maximum, can the hole be so that the light is at the back of the box instantly?

You are saying that if there is a small hole like in a pinhole camera, the light is there instantly. When the hole is so big that the front is completely open, you're saying that the light takes 8 minutes to get there.

Peacegirl has said a lot of things that do not match reality.

[Florence Jellem]

Hello, boys, it's Flo.

My nephew, davidm, is vacationing in the Pacific Northwest, and has vowed not to sign on to an Internet message board or even return to New York City until he has bought up all the now-legal pot in the state of Washington. Just now he raved to me over the phone:

"I want every last bud in Washington, Aunt Flo. Do you understand? EVERY LAST GODDAMNED MARIJUANA BUD!"

Sometimes I think that boy read too much Hunter S. Thompson in his youth.

However, he has asked me, on his behalf, to file this dispatch from the Internet News Service that he owns:



Peacegirl

TRENDS IN CYBERSPACE
Crackpot From Hell Returns to Her Demented, 13-Year-Old Message Board Quixotic Fucktard Quest

Cuz FTW, Moar Lulz, Plz! Kthnxbye

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) – OMFG, moar lulz, plz! Kthnx!

That’s what 3 message board lurkers the world over are howling, now that peacegirl, aka the Crackpot From Hell, has returned to the thread she started here in March 2011, then abandoned late last year after copy-pasting a bunch of shit by hugga-wugga relativity-deniers and some demented wackadoodle who maintains that the true value of pi is 4.

In addition, peacegirl has been flogging her father's fucktard book for some 13 years at various venues in cyberspace.

“Ding, dong, the Ding Dong is back,” sang out a delighted E. Mota Kahn, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation. “This is as good as when spring comes, and you get to take a roll in the hay with your honey – or do the ol’ rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table (provided no little ones are present), which is an essential component of Lessanology, along with translucent sex robes, scantily-clad young’uns and genital love.”

Behold as Blubberhead babbles on – again! – about how light is at the eye instantly, even though it takes time to get there! Thrill yet again to her pathetic failure to grasp compatibilist free will! Watch her commit – over and over! – the modal fallacy, no matter how many times the explanation of the fallacy has been shoved down inside one of her ears, only to ooze out the other ear and fall on the floor with a moist plop because there is nothing between the two ears to hold the information!

“What’s really hilarious,” a giggling Kahn noted, “is that at one time, peacegirl used a Victor Hugo quote as a sig: ‘There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.’ And yet, her ‘idea whose time has come’ has been stopped cold, not by all the world’s armies, or even one of them, but by a handful of part-time posters on a lonely message board on the outskirts of cyberspace that no one even links to.”

“Ha, ha, ha!” Kahn elaborated. “Ha, ha, ha!”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Hello, boys, it's Flo.

My nephew, davidm, is vacationing in the Pacific Northwest, and has vowed not to sign on to an Internet message board or even return to New York City until he has bought up all the now-legal pot in the state of Washington. Just now he raved to me over the phone:

"I want every last bud in Washington, Aunt Flo. Do you understand? EVERY LAST GODDAMNED MARIJUANA BUD!"

Sometimes I think that boy read too much Hunter S. Thompson in his youth.

However, he has asked me, on his behalf, to file this dispatch from the Internet News Service that he owns:



Peacegirl

TRENDS IN CYBERSPACE
Crackpot From Hell Returns to Her Demented, 13-Year-Old Message Board Quixotic Fucktard Quest

Cuz FTW, Moar Lulz, Plz! Kthnxbye

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) – OMFG, moar lulz, plz! Kthnx!

That’s what 3 message board lurkers the world over are howling, now that peacegirl, aka the Crackpot From Hell, has returned to the thread she started here in March 2011, then abandoned late last year after copy-pasting a bunch of shit by hugga-wugga relativity-deniers and some demented wackadoodle who maintains that the true value of pi is 4.

In addition, peacegirl has been flogging her father's fucktard book for some 13 years at various venues in cyberspace.

“Ding, dong, the Ding Dong is back,” sang out a delighted E. Mota Kahn, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation. “This is as good as when spring comes, and you get to take a roll in the hay with your honey – or do the ol’ rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table (provided no little ones are present), which is an essential component of Lessanology, along with translucent sex robes, scantily-clad young’uns and genital love.”

Behold as Blubberhead babbles on – again! – about how light is at the eye instantly, even though it takes time to get there! Thrill yet again to her pathetic failure to grasp compatibilist free will! Watch her commit – over and over! – the modal fallacy, no matter how many times the explanation of the fallacy has been shoved down inside one of her ears, only to ooze out the other ear and fall on the floor with a moist plop because there is nothing between the two ears to hold the information!

“What’s really hilarious,” a giggling Kahn noted, “is that at one time, peacegirl used a Victor Hugo quote as a sig: ‘There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.’ And yet, her ‘idea whose time has come’ has been stopped cold, not by all the world’s armies, or even one of them, but by a handful of part-time posters on a lonely message board on the outskirts of cyberspace that no one even links to.”

“Ha, ha, ha!” Kahn elaborated. “Ha, ha, ha!”

You're as disgusting now as you were in 2011. Nothing has changed.

[Florence Jellem]

I am as disgusting now, as I was in 2011!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

I am as disgusting now, as I was in 2011!

Wow! you joined in 2015 and you were disgusting in 2011, 4 years earlier, Just how did you manage that. Is Peacegirl projecting again? She needs to explain that to Buttface.

[But]

Get back to your shop class, you fucking idiot.

[LadyShea]

Please describe and differentiate the physical properties of the lenses found on cameras and lenses used for magnification, and explain why one allows instantaneous light focusing and the other requires light to travel to its location before it can focus it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please describe and differentiate the physical properties of the lenses found on cameras and lenses used for magnification, and explain why one allows instantaneous light focusing and the other requires light to travel to its location before it can focus it.

OMG, once again LadyShea, there is no difference in this respect. What works in the present theory works in this theory, so there is nothing here that can prove Lessans wrong. You just don't get it.

[But]

Bump

Originally Posted by But

How big, maximum, can the hole be so that the light is at the back of the box instantly?

You are saying that if there is a small hole like in a pinhole camera, the light is there instantly. When the hole is so big that the front is completely open, you're saying that the light takes 8 minutes to get there.

[GdB]

Let's go back a little:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A magnifying glass does not have the same properties as a camera lens. The light would be striking the lens at 12:08, but if the magnifying glass was put in front of a camera lens, the image would show up on the film at 12:00, although much larger.

Magnifying Glass Lens! How to use a Magnifying Glass as a DSLR Lens - YouTube

First, a camera lens is a magnifying glass. The only speciality is that it has a rather short focal length, so that on the small distance between lens and film/photo-chip, it can project a sharp picture on the film. Your youtube link shows that when you take the lens of a DSLR you must keep the magnifying glass at a great distance to get a picture on the photo-chip. So I have no idea why you say they are different.

Just to be sure that you checked: the guy on your video takes away the lens from his camera, and then uses the magnifying glass as lens for the camera. Right?

Now you say that when the sun is turned on there is first a picture of the sun on the photo-chip, and then after 8 minutes the light falls on the lens, the light goes through it and is concentrated on the photo-chip and... What? Does that make sense? What happens with the light falling through the lens? Why do we need the lens when the projection of the sun is already on the photo-chip?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see the object in real time whether it was made larger by the magnifying glass, or not. It does nothing to negate the claim.

Yes, this is the misunderstanding above that I wanted to make sure of that you understand: the guy in the video removes the lens of his DSLR-camera. If he would not have done this he would not get a larger image of the sun, but a blurred one. Just take a magnifying glass, and try to see something far away bigger. You will not succeed. You do not understand anything of optics.

I try to order your reactions on my propositions, your reactions in bold, mine in italic.

1. The image of the sun is pictured immediately on the film (photo chip in these days...) in the photo camera.
   Right
   OK, so here I understood you. Of course it is wrong, but let's go on.
   
   
2. The image of the sun made by the magnifying glass appears immediately on the screen behind the magnifying glass
   A magnifying glass doesn't work like a camera. It enlarges what we see, or what the camera sees.
   Sorry, as said above, a magnifying glass works like a camera. If you use a magnifying glass to light a fire, you make a small image of the sun on a piece of paper, that then because of the concentration of the light, is so hot that the paper starts burning. Now if it is true that the image of the sun appears immediately on the paper, the paper should already start to burn before the light, i.e. the energy of the sun reached the magnifying glass. Does that make sense?
   
   
3. Around the shadow of the magnifying glass the sunlight appears only after 8 minutes
   I don't want to compare a magnifying glass to a pinhole camera. Let's stick to cameras or eyes, okay?
   No. Pinhole cameras, real photo cameras work along the same lines: light fall through the pinhole or the lens, and project the environment on the backdrop.
   
   
4. The image of the sun behind a pinhole appears immediately on the screen
   Right.
   OK, understood. But of course do not agree.
   
   
5. If the hole is too big to create an image of the sun, the screen is only lit after 8 minutes.[/quote]
   No, it would just show a blurred image on the screen.
   So if I have a hole in a big box with the size of a basket ball, the backside of the box is lit immediately, during its environment becomes only visible in the sun's light after 8 minutes? And what in my room? The sunlight falls through the window, which is just a very big hole, so it makes a very blurred picture of the sun. And what if I put carton for my window, say with a hole of 2 by 2 meter? Do I have just less light in my room, or a bit less blurred picture of the sun? Do I see the furniture in my room immediately in this blurred picture of the sun in my room, or only after 8 minutes?
   

Maybe as a small change in view about the pinhole camera. It is true, the light that does fall through the pinhole is not affected by the pinhole. It just goes straight on. However, by blocking all other light around the hole, the light is stopped that would otherwise disturb the projection by the pinhole. For light that just goes through the pinhole, or goes to the place where the pinhole would be, nothing changes. So it is true what was said before: a pinhole does nothing with the light. The matter around the pinhole does something: it blocks light.

[peacegirl]

[quote=GdB;1232181]Let's go back a little:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A magnifying glass does not have the same properties as a camera lens. The light would be striking the lens at 12:08, but if the magnifying glass was put in front of a camera lens, the image would show up on the film at 12:00, although much larger.

Magnifying Glass Lens! How to use a Magnifying Glass as a DSLR Lens - YouTube

First, a camera lens is a magnifying glass. The only speciality is that it has a rather short focal length, so that on the small distance between lens and film/photo-chip, it can project a sharp picture on the film. Your youtube link shows that when you take the lens of a DSLR you must keep the magnifying glass at a great distance to get a picture on the photo-chip. So I have no idea why you say they are different.

Just to be sure that you checked: the guy on your video takes away the lens from his camera, and then uses the magnifying glass as lens for the camera. Right?

Now you say that when the sun is turned on there is first a picture of the sun on the photo-chip, and then after 8 minutes the light falls on the lens, the light goes through it and is concentrated on the photo-chip and... What? Does that make sense? What happens with the light falling through the lens? Why do we need the lens when the projection of the sun is already on the photo-chip?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see the object in real time whether it was made larger by the magnifying glass, or not. It does nothing to negate the claim.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, this is the misunderstanding above that I wanted to make sure of that you understand: the guy in the video removes the lens of his DSLR-camera. If he would not have done this he would not get a larger image of the sun, but a blurred one. Just take a magnifying glass, and try to see something far away bigger. You will not succeed. You do not understand anything of optics.

I try to order your reactions on my propositions, your reactions in bold, mine in italic.[LIST=1][*]The image of the sun is pictured immediately on the film (photo chip in these days...) in the photo camera.
Right
OK, so here I understood you. Of course it is wrong, but let's go on.

[*]The image of the sun made by the magnifying glass appears immediately on the screen behind the magnifying glass
A magnifying glass doesn't work like a camera. It enlarges what we see, or what the camera sees.
Sorry, as said above, a magnifying glass works like a camera. If you use a magnifying glass to light a fire, you make a small image of the sun on a piece of paper, that then because of the concentration of the light, is so hot that the paper starts burning. Now if it is true that the image of the sun appears immediately on the paper, the paper should already start to burn before the light, i.e. the energy of the sun reached the magnifying glass. Does that make sense?

[*]Around the shadow of the magnifying glass the sunlight appears only after 8 minutes
I don't want to compare a magnifying glass to a pinhole camera. Let's stick to cameras or eyes, okay?
No. Pinhole cameras, real photo cameras work along the same lines: light fall through the pinhole or the lens, and project the environment on the backdrop.

[*]The image of the sun behind a pinhole appears immediately on the screen
Right.
OK, understood. But of course do not agree.

[*]If the hole is too big to create an image of the sun, the screen is only lit after 8 minutes.

No, it would just show a blurred image on the screen.

Originally Posted by GdB

So if I have a hole in a big box with the size of a basket ball, the backside of the box is lit immediately, during its environment becomes only visible in the sun's light after 8 minutes? And what in my room? The sunlight falls through the window, which is just a very big hole, so it makes a very blurred picture of the sun. And what if I put carton for my window, say with a hole of 2 by 2 meter? Do I have just less light in my room, or a bit less blurred picture of the sun? Do I see the furniture in my room immediately in this blurred picture of the sun in my room, or only after 8 minutes?

Maybe as a small change in view about the pinhole camera. It is true, the light that does fall through the pinhole is not affected by the pinhole. It just goes straight on. However, by blocking all other light around the hole, the light is stopped that would otherwise disturb the projection by the pinhole. For light that just goes through the pinhole, or goes to the place where the pinhole would be, nothing changes. So it is true what was said before: a pinhole does nothing with the light. The matter around the pinhole does something: it blocks light.

I'm so not interested in this discussion, it's not even funny. Nothing that has been said discounts or negates real time vision. That's the point that seems to have been lost. Whatever happens with pinholes or lenses works exactly the same way whether our vision is afferent or efferent, so I'm not sure what people are trying to prove using this example. This, therefore, has NOTHING to do with his proof of efferent vision, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with his claim of determinism. I know you are trying to use this "fabricated" fallacy (which it is not) in order to create doubt in his other claim.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've heard you, and nothing compatibilism has to say reconciles free will with determinism. We either have free will or we don't. There are no in betweens.

I don't have an in-between. There is no in-between between determinism and indeterminism. But compatibilist free will needs determinism. Without enough, or adequate determinism, we could not have free will: we would be random deciding dice. Of course if you define determinism as 'excluding all kinds of free will' then you are right. But that is a strange definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Giving a definition that says as long as a person is free of physical or emotional constraint gives a person a free choice is cherry picking the behaviors that are considered unfree, and those that are considered free only by definition.

It is only inconsistent with your strange definition of determinism. If a determined conscious state machine is aware of the the moral consequences of his actions, he is responsible for his actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you recall that definitions mean NOTHING as far as reality is concerned? They only serve a useful purpose but they don't prove the reality of free will.

This remark is so stupid. If this is true then the same holds for your definitions: you define free will as 'being able to do otherwise in exact the same situation, including my brain states'. That is also a definition, and it has nothing to do with reality, because we can never can get the exact situation back to see if it really is so. It is a useless definition. Same for your definition of determinism, as excluding this kind of free will: as your definition of free will is empirically empty, so is your definition of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is all well and good, but how can you judge him when this ability to accurately assess the moral dimensions of his actions, is also part and parcel of a causal pattern of events leading to whatever action he chooses to take?

Every action is part of a causal network, i.e. is completely caused. So what? Important is that my actions are caused by motives that I recognise as my own. Then I feel responsible for my actions, and I can be made responsible for my actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please remember that having a choice without constraint of any kind does not grant one free will, even in the compatabilist sense.

Huh? Why would it not grant free will in the compatibilist sense? Please explain!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the conventional definition of free will which doesn't prove its actual existence; it's just another definition.

Yes, this is the conventional definition. And making responsible is a conventional reaction on this free will. Do you think that money does not exist, because it is also 'just conventional'? 'Reality' is not just physical reality, it is also the reality that is 'built on top of physical reality'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot get people to take responsibility in a blame filled society. It hasn't worked (the prisons are filled to capacity), and it never will, as long as people can justify what they're doing even at the risk of getting caught and having to face the consequences.

That is for another time: but what does behaving responsibly mean when people have no possibility to do otherwise than they do? What is responsibility, from my own point of view, balancing all pros and contras, and decide based on them? Does that not presuppose some form of free will?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bump

If there is no lens to speak of (and a pinhole acts like a lens so lets not go there again) there would be nothing to gather light and project it onto the film, so yes that is true; it would take 8 minutes for light coming from the Sun to reach the Earth, which has NEVER been disputed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, once again LadyShea, there is no difference in this respect. What works in the present theory works in this theory, so there is nothing here that can prove Lessans wrong. You just don't get it.

This is not aligned with your previous responses as to when- 12:00 or 12:08 -photosensitive paper would react to the newly ignited Sun in different scenarios involving various lenses.

How can I "get it" when your answers are incomplete and inconsistent?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm so not interested in this discussion, it's not even funny. Nothing that has been said discounts or negates real time vision.

Well of course it does. You claim that light can be instantly at the film or retina, and that doesn't fucking happen in reality.

I repeat:

How big, maximum, can the hole be so that the light is at the back of the box instantly?

You are saying that if there is a small hole like in a pinhole camera, the light is there instantly. When the hole is so big that the front is completely open, you're saying that the light takes 8 minutes to get there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I don't have an in-between. There is no in-between between determinism and indeterminism. But compatibilist free will needs determinism. Without enough, or adequate determinism, we could not have free will: we would be random deciding dice. Of course if you define determinism as 'excluding all kinds of free will' then you are right. But that is a strange definition.

It is only inconsistent with your strange definition of determinism. If a determined conscious state machine is aware of the the moral consequences of his actions, he is responsible for his actions.

This remark is so stupid. If this is true then the same holds for your definitions: you define free will as 'being able to do otherwise in exact the same situation, including my brain states'. That is also a definition, and it has nothing to do with reality, because we can never can get the exact situation back to see if it really is so. It is a useless definition. Same for your definition of determinism, as excluding this kind of free will: as your definition of free will is empirically empty, so is your definition of determinism.

Every action is part of a causal network, i.e. is completely caused. So what? Important is that my actions are caused by motives that I recognise as my own. Then I feel responsible for my actions, and I can be made responsible for my actions.

Huh? Why would it not grant free will in the compatibilist sense? Please explain!

Yes, this is the conventional definition. And making responsible is a conventional reaction on this free will. Do you think that money does not exist, because it is also 'just conventional'? 'Reality' is not just physical reality, it is also the reality that is 'built on top of physical reality'.

That is for another time: but what does behaving responsibly mean when people have no possibility to do otherwise than they do? What is responsibility, from my own point of view, balancing all pros and contras, and decide based on them? Does that not presuppose some form of free will?

I am running late for an appointment. Will be back shortly and answer your questions.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm so not interested in this discussion, it's not even funny.

It is not funny. It is bloody serious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing that has been said discounts or negates real time vision.

Yes, it does. Your refusal to go into it shows that you know it, but do not want to loose your face.

Answer my questions, and those of But and LadyShea. You shy away because you know you are inconsistent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This, therefore, has NOTHING to do with his proof of efferent vision,

Lessans has a proof??? Tell us!

[Dragar]

It's pretty funny watching peacegirl evading But's question.

By the way, any luck explaining mirrors without light, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not aligned with your previous responses as to when- 12:00 or 12:08 -photosensitive paper would react to the newly ignited Sun in different scenarios involving various lenses.

How can I "get it" when your answers are incomplete and inconsistent?

I misunderstood you. Photographic film would interact with the Sun at 12:00 because the light from the Sun would already be at the film if the Sun was in the camera's field of view, just like the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's pretty funny watching peacegirl evading But's question.

By the way, any luck explaining mirrors without light, peacegirl?

Dragar, who in the world said mirrors can be explained without light? Not me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

It is not funny. It is bloody serious.

Yes, it does. Your refusal to go into it shows that you know it, but do not want to loose your face.

Answer my questions, and those of But and LadyShea. You shy away because you know you are inconsistent.

Lessans has a proof??? Tell us!

People balk at his demonstration so I don't feel like repeating it. If you have a desire, purchase the book and read it carefully. It may change your outlook in a positive way.

[But]

Hellooooo

Originally Posted by But

How big, maximum, can the hole be so that the light is at the back of the box instantly?