A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

I was reading an article lately that suggested that dogs and cats can see more of the spectrum than humans can. Before that I watched a program that suggested that dogs see in dark and light, so if both are true, dogs see much differently than humans. A photograph records the spectrum that humans can see, does it record beyond the spectrum of human vision. If not, then a photograph of a dogs master would look different to the dog than the image it sees in real life. If so how different is the image in the photo from the image the dog really sees, could Lessans be right? However does the film and the photo paper record into the spectrum beyond human vision and did the photos used in the experiment have this capability. If the photos used in the experiments had the same spectrum range as a dogs vision then the photo would look the same to the dog, and the tests would be valid, Lessans was wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

peacegirl claimed that this thread is closed. Oddly enough, it still seems to be open, since I can post here.

Just another example of her lies, it seems.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I vowed never to discuss this book with anyone here again. It's futile not because the book has no value. Just the opposite. That thread is now closed.

Quoted for future reference.

[Vivisectus]

Maybe you can only see it efferently now?

[Stephen Maturin]

I can't see it at all anymore. I'll need to have the dogs read it for me.

[Angakuk]

[ChuckF]

I heard this thread was closed so I came to check but it looks like I can still post in it so there must be a bug in the forum and I have reported this thread to a moderator thank you everyone.

[Vivisectus]

So if I want to post here, but OG says the thread is closed, I get right of way because it would take more than one person to not post in this thread. That is scientifically undeniable, that is.

[Angakuk]

OG?

[Vivisectus]

I was trying real hard to come up with something for that, but I got nothing so I am forced to admit it was just a typo.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

OG?

OG in the "original gangsta" sense refers to a person who exemplifies old school kick-assery.

OG in the Lessantonian sense refers to breathtakingly prolix incoherence touching upon every subject of consequence to the archetypal chronically butthurt aluminum siding salesman, i.e., "original gibberish."

[But]

Basics of Space Flight Section II. Space Flight Projects

peacegirl, have you figured out yet why spacecraft navigation works?

[Stephen Maturin]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I vowed never to discuss this book with anyone here again. It's futile not because the book has no value. Just the opposite.

The book certainly has value, it is quite entertaining as Theatre of the Absurd, and can be used as a cautionary tale for those contemplating a criticism of science.

[thedoc]

When my older daughter was in HS she got involved with a theater group and she got the lead in "The Bald Soprano" so I got to rehearse it with her. Unfortunately the other members of the cast didn't learn their lines as well and the play was never preformed, but I got to know the play pretty well.

[peacegirl]

This article seems to support Lessans' third discovery. No reply necessary.

There is no death, only a series of eternal ‘nows’
Robert Lanza is the head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine and professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina. His latest book, together with Bob Berman, is Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death (2016).

Bob Berman is an astronomer. He hosts the radio show Strange Universe with Bob Berman. He is the author of Zoom: How Everything Moves (2014) and, together with Robert Lanza, Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death (2016).

Edited by Pam Weintraub

Would absolute proof that death is illusory change the way you live your life?

Here we tell you what happens after you’re dead. Seriously. Okay, it’s not so serious, because you won’t actually die.

To lay the groundwork, let’s recap the scientific view of death: essentially, you drop dead and that’s the end of everything. This is the view favoured by intellectuals who pride themselves on being stoic and realistic enough to avoid cowardly refuge in Karl Marx’s spiritual ‘opium’ – the belief in an afterlife. This modern view is not a cheerful one.

But our theory of the universe, called biocentrism, in which life and consciousness create the reality around them, has no space for death at all. To fully understand this, we need to go back to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, one of the pillars of modern physics. An important consequence of his work is that the past, present and future are not absolutes, demolishing the idea of time as inviolable.

‘If you try to get your hands on time,’ said the physicist Julian Barbour, ‘it’s always slipping through your fingers. People are sure that it’s there but they can’t get hold of it. Now my feeling is that they can’t get hold of it because it isn’t there at all.’

He and many other physicists see each individual moment as a whole, complete and existing in its own right. We live in a succession of ‘Nows’. ‘We have the strong impression that [things] are there in definite positions relative to each other,’ says Barbour. ‘[But] there are Nows, nothing more, nothing less.’

Indeed, Einstein’s colleague, John Wheeler (who popularised the word ‘black hole’) also postulated that time is not a fundamental aspect of reality. In 2007, his ‘delayed-choice’ experiment showed that you could retroactively influence the past by altering a particle of light, called a photon, in the present. As light passed a fork in the experimental apparatus, it had to decide whether to behave like particles or waves. Later on (after the light had already passed the fork),a scientist could turn a switch on or off. What the scientist did at that moment retroactively determined what the particle actually did at the fork in the past.

These and other experiments increasingly show that the flow of time is illusory. But how can we make sense of a world where time doesn’t exist? And what does it tell us about death?


cont. at: There is no death, only a series of eternal ‘nows’ | Aeon Ideas

[ChuckF]

I thought this thread was closed?

[Vivisectus]

I think it is now the thread where you are allowed to agree with Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I thought this thread was closed?

It's closed as far as any further discussion from me. This was an interesting article. I am not discussing it, just sharing it.

[ChuckF]

Wait is this thread still open? I heard it was closed. Did someone forget to close it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This article seems to support Lessans' third discovery. No reply necessary.

[I][B]There is no death, only a series of eternal ‘nows’

Reincarnation that is not reincarnation? It's in the mysterious chapter 10, read it at your own peril, Eye bleeding boredom etc. Lessans 3rd non-discovery, it's an old idea whose time will never come.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill

If John Stuart Mill said that, he needs a fresh light, his burned out light bulb is only good for use in a dark room.

[Stephen Maturin]

‘If you try to get your hands on time,’ said the physicist Julian Barbour, ‘it’s always slipping through your fingers.’

Ah yes, the Steve Miller hypothesis.

show spoiler

Steve Miller Band Fly Like An Eagle - YouTube

But hey, this is good news. Since time doesn't exist, nothing actually precedes anything else. Thus, there's no causation and determinism is officially dead.

Good thing this thread's already closed. Otherwise, that time doesn't exist stuff really would have done a number on ol' Seymour's first discovery.

[davidm]

Wait ... isn't this thread closed?

I'm pretty sure the mods/admins locked it. How did it get opened again? Mods? Admins? Is there anybody out there???

We used to have that jumping skunk lady as Weekend Admin but I'm pretty sure she went way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Ah yes, the Steve Miller hypothesis.

show spoiler

But hey, this is good news. Since time doesn't exist, nothing actually precedes anything else. Thus, there's no causation and determinism is officially dead.

Good thing this thread's already closed. Otherwise, that time doesn't exist stuff really would have done a number on ol' Seymour's first discovery.

You're digging a hole for yourself. This just shows me your ignorance and how little you understand. Keep making fun of him. You will be seen as the ignorant one.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ 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.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’

<snip>

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from
previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at
a mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was
doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does
not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the
word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that
something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four
is not caused by two plus two, it is that already. As long as history has
been recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled
until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of
ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the
millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was
supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently
because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of
satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as
the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these
laws.

[thedoc]

Lessans had the almost unique, and amusing ability to claim one thing and then argue and prove the opposite. That is just one of his charms that comes out so clearly in the book.