A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

She doesn't know. She has never had one before.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Why are you insulting V's intelligence with weak-ass, easily refuted excuse making like this? Do you do that with all potential allies?

No, usually when several people start agreeing and supporting her ideas, she will abandon the forum to find another where she can get the abuse and hostility she craves to feed her martyr complex.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

She doesn't know. She has never had one before.

Perhaps she has forgotten, but we had barely scratched the surface and I hadn't read the book yet, so several people were enthused about her claims of what the knowledge could do. A few were getting a bit impatient because she seemed to be holding back the text till she got everyone to agree that what she was proposing was a good idea.

[thedoc]

FYI, I found chapter 10 on my computer, so now I can read it again, when I feel up to it.

[Angakuk]

Enthused? I don't think so. Go back and read the first page. The closest thing to almost enthusiasm was the Bro-Man welcoming her and Gonzo's "The thread is relevant to my interests." Neither of which really counts as enthusiam.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

the word proportional doesn't work here. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You need to find a different word or explain your unusual defnition

Sorry, but the definition fits perfectly.

pro·por·tion·al
prəˈpôrSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
corresponding in size or amount to something else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Spacemonkey and I are still waiting for your answers...

I am not answering these questions any more. They don't apply therefore the answers to the question of efferent or afferent cannot be found this way. Spacemonkey wants me to explain my position coming from the afferent model, which can't be done.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Enthused? I don't think so. Go back and read the first page. The closest thing to almost enthusiasm was the Bro-Man welcoming her and Gonzo's "The thread is relevant to my interests." Neither of which really counts as enthusiam.

I should have been more specific, it was many years ago on a different forum, before she came to Freethought Forum. That forum is gone now, but not because of Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No GdB. It still doesn't work in your favor.

Originally Posted by GdB

Because? You do not like clear definitions, so it is always clear what we are talking about?

Did you forget that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality? You are using a strawman in your usage of the word "free."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the entire point that was made as to why your idea of "free will" is a strawman.

Originally Posted by GdB

Because?

Because you are using a definition of freedom that does not actually mean we have freedom of the will

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will go through each of his five strawman points in another post.

Originally Posted by GdB

Great! I am waiting for it.

Read the 6 strawmen fallacies, especially number 1, 3, and 4. We can go over each one separately.

http://breakingthefreewillillusion.c...man-fallacies/

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I continue to maintain that compatibilism is not the answer.

Originally Posted by GdB

The answer to what? Compatbilism is naturalistic way of understanding free will, opposed to LFW.

I'm sorry GdB, but this kind of free will is not in dispute. That's why it's a strawman. Unfortunately, it does not address the will at all. You keep using these definitions as if you are in the clear, and you're not.

Originally Posted by GdB

It is not a solution to the problems of the world. But to solve the problems of the world we should not use false reference points like LFW, or that people are just causal objects.

Where did you come up with the idea that we are just causal objects? Conscious creatures are a part of the causal process. Where does anyone say that just because we are caused (or compelled) to do what we do, that we are robots without the ability to think and make decisions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is similar to naturalism. You believe that punishment is necessary for people who have reasons for doing what they do. They can think rationally about right and wrong and if they choose wrong, they need to be punished.

Originally Posted by GdB

For me that is not the most important point. My point is that people should be treated as responsible subjects, and not as causal objects. Just simply saying that we have no free will makes people causal objects.

It does nothing of the sort. Having no free will does not remove our responsibility in the decisions we make. That's what this book demonstrates.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe that the free will skeptic is saying let chaos rule.

Originally Posted by GdB

Me neither. But I know there are free will sceptics who would prefer a society where people are manipulated instead to regard them as responsible subjects.

Manipulated? Is this what you're afraid of? I never heard of people wanting to manipulate just because they are free will skeptics. When the knowledge that man has no free will is understood and the principles of this book are applied on a global scale, responsibility will increase, not decrease, which is what many philosophers are unnecessarily afraid of.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You have zero time for the simple, easily repeatable effective strategies Vivisectus suggested, yet you have multiple hours per day to squabble with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision.

Why are you insulting V's intelligence with weak-ass, easily refuted excuse making like this? Do you do that with all potential allies?

You can judge me all you want Maturin. It's easy to post a comment on a thread versus sitting down and concentrating on an article that uses links to other articles. This might be easy for you, but it's not for me because I've never done it. It feels like a big undertaking that I don't want to start until the end of November when other obligations are out of the way. If you don't like my reasons, too bad!

[But]

Bump

Originally Posted by But

So the Sun is huge in relation to the Earth. Is a candle huge in relation to someone in the room?

What do you mean and what does this have to do with this mysterious nanosecond that you made up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, it doesn't have to be huge. Is the Sun huge in relation to someone on Earth? No, it looks like a ball. The comparison has to do with the fact that both of these objects are within our field of view in the efferent account. As a result, both objects are seen by the observer and both objects can be compared even though a candle is within a room versus the Sun being millions of miles away. The proportionality remains the same, which removes delayed time from the equation.

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time for all intents and purposes; there's nothing mysterious about it) for the light to increase in its luminosity. Remember, it would have to be bright enough for it to be seen. I was trying to distinguish this amount of time from the 8 minutes that is believed it would take for us to see the Sun. Just as we cannot register how fast light travels when we light a candle, the same goes for the Sun because we are not talking about traveling light reaching Earth even though that is occurring. We are talking about efferent vision, which works just like the candle example. Imagine that the Sun and the observer are in an enclosed box. The Sun is on one end and the observer is on the other. The Sun is turned on (similarly, the candle is turned on). It takes the light a nanosecond from the Sun (the candle) to reach the observer (the person on the other side of the box), which cannot be registered by the eye. It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away) as long as the object and the observer are within the box (a closed system). All this means is that the object is within our field of view, which is deemed unnecessary in the afferent view because of the belief that light is bringing the information to the eye. The object could be destroyed but we would still get a delayed image. Not so if Lessans is right.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it

Of course he did. You're just making stuff up.

because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement because it's the smallest unit of time; there's nothing mysterious about it)

A nanosecond is not the smallest unit of time. Where did you get that nonsense from?

Just as we cannot register how fast light travels when we light a candle,

As you've been told a million times, measuring devices have absolutely no problem precisely registering time intervals like that.

the same goes for the Sun because we are not talking about traveling light reaching Earth even though that is occurring.

You're making absolutely no sense.

We are talking about efferent vision, which works just like the candle example. Imagine that the Sun and the observer are in an enclosed box. The Sun is on one end and the observer is on the other. The Sun is turned on (the candle is turned on). It takes the light a nanosecond from the Sun (the candle) to reach the observer (or the person on the other side of the box), which cannot be registered by the eye. It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away) as long as the object and the observer are within the box. All this means is that the object is within our field of view.

You're so confused, it boggles the mind. Why on Earth do we have to put things in a box? Why should it work that way? Why should it make no difference how far apart the objects are?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it …

Except, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID.

...because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time…

LOL, you stupid little shit, a nanosecond is NOT the shortest period of time; moreover, your idiot father did NOT say we saw stuff in a nanosecond; he said we saw stuff instantly.

The following units of time are all SHORTER THAN a nanosecond: Planck Time is the SHORTEST unit of time, followed by the yoctosecond, the zeptosecond, the attosecond, the femtosecond, and the picosecond. Only THEN do we come to the nanosecond. The nanosecond is a fucking ETERNITY compared to Planck Time!

Good fucking christ nailed to a telephone pole, you are the STUPIDEST goddamned thing on earth!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Except, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID.

Oh come on, David. By now you should realize that what a Lessans SAYS means exactly diddly shit. All that matters is what the Lessans in question MEANT, and you know what he meant!

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

Planck Time is the SHORTEST unit of time

Not really.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you forget that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality?

That's right! So if some brainless dingleberry were to, say, define "scientific" as synonymous with "undeniable," the definition would mean nothing because it's bereft of correspondence with reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

Not really.

It't the time it takes a photon to travel one Planck length. What interval of time could be shorter?

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

It't the time it takes a photon to travel one Planck length. What interval of time could be shorter?

A diddlededoo-second for instance, which is 10^⁻50 seconds. Or pick whichever of those useless Greek prefixes fits.

[davidm]

It's my understanding that Planck length/mass/time holds if spacetime is quantized. If not, then we get something different. In any case, the relevant point is that a nanosecond is NOT the shortest unit of time. And even if it were, it doesn't matter: Lessans said nothing about nanoseconds or quantized spacetime. He said we saw shit INSTANTANEOUSLY. This is wrong; peacegirl's confabulations about nanoseconds represent yet another desecration of the Holy Text. Just like her claims about light and sight. As I pointed out years ago, her claims about light and sight are NOT the claims that her father made. They're different, though both are still laughably wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

A diddlededoo-second for instance, which is 10^⁻50 seconds. Or pick whichever of those useless Greek prefixes fits.

The point being, I think, that a duration of 10^⁻50 seconds isn't possible if spacetime is quantized.

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

The point being, I think, that a duration of 10^⁻50 seconds isn't possible if spacetime is quantized.

If.

If it's broken up into chunks which are exactly that size, and ideas like that are pretty much speculation at this point.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

If.

If it's broken up into chunks which are exactly that size, and ideas like that are pretty much speculation at this point.

Right, we don't know. But as noted above, regardless of whether spacetime is quantized or not, there are durations orders of magnitude shorter than a nanosecond.

How did peacegirl glom on to a "nanosecond," given that she doesn't read anything but her father's book, and consequently doesn't know anything? It came from a thought experiment we set up some time back showing that at a certain short distance, it would take the photons from a lighted candle one nanosecond to travel to an eye. Since then she has been off to the races; and Lessans' "instantly" has been inexplicably converted to "a nanosecond"!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time for all intents and purposes; there's nothing mysterious about it) for the light to increase in its luminosity.

All this means is that the object is within our field of view, which is deemed unnecessary in the afferent view because of the belief that light is bringing the information to the eye. The object could be destroyed but we would still get a delayed image. Not so if Lessans is right.

No he didn't, Lessans said instantly and he meant instantly, not a nanosecond later. Now you're just making shit up to make it sound like you know something about what you are talking about, but in reality your posts are just as stupid as they ever where. Equal in stupidity to what your father wrote in his book.

I note that you are back to bickering about light and vision with people who disagree and argue with you, and not posting about free will and determinism where Vivisectus is trying to help you. You continue to demonstrate your craving for abuse and hostility rather than the good will and support that Vivisectus is offering. Simply a Martyr complex.

[But]

Here is something else:

Time-of-flight camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's another thing that wouldn't work if vision was instantaneous.

What cameras like these do is nothing less than recording how long it takes the camera to see the object.

That's basically the same thing as the experiment with the photodiode, but this one involves a complete image.

What do you say, peacegirl?