A revolution in thought

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GdB, you know less than he does because you haven't been here long enough. This just goes to show how biased people are in a bad way. Everyone is biased to a degree, but this takes the cake.

DavidM is saying:

According to Lessans we see in real time.

You are saying:

You understand nothing David! On the contrary:

According to Lessans we see in real time.

But hey, logic is not your strongest skill, everybody noticed that already:

1. Light has a velocity of 3x10^8 m/s.
2. So sun light needs 8 1/2 minutes to reach the earth, and our eyes.
3. When the sun suddenly ignites we see the light immediately.
4. The light we see needs no time to get to our eyes.

Slowly I am getting to think that you are saying there are two different kinds of light. Light that enlightens our environment, which travels with 3x10^8 m/s, and another kind of light, that comes directly from the light source, and needs no time to get to us. No wonder you do not want to answer Spacemonkey's question if they are the same photons...

PS WOW! I started page 1900! Party!
There is coke, beer, and Lagavulin (my favourite single malt).
Everybody can choose what (s)he wants, except Peacegirl. She will be forced by what gives her the biggest satisfaction. I'm sorry Peacegirl, no choice for you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

DavidM is saying:

According to Lessans we see in real time.

You are saying:

You understand nothing David! On the contrary:

According to Lessans we see in real time.

But hey, logic is not your strongest skill, everybody noticed that already:

1. Light has a velocity of 3x10^8 m/s.
2. So sun light needs 8 1/2 minutes to reach the earth, and our eyes.
3. When the sun suddenly ignites we see the light immediately.
4. The light we see needs no time to get to our eyes.

Slowly I am getting to think that you are saying there are two different kinds of light. Light that enlightens our environment, which travels with 3x10^8 m/s, and another kind of light, that comes directly from the light source, and needs no time to get to us. No wonder you do not want to answer Spacemonkey's question if they are the same photons...

PS WOW! I started page 1900! Party!
There is coke, beer, and Lagavulin (my favourite single malt).
Everybody can choose what (s)he wants, except Peacegirl. She will be forced by what gives her the biggest satisfaction. I'm sorry Peacegirl, no choice for you!

You actually believe that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction gives you no choice? This just shows me how confused you really are. As far as the whole light/sight fiasco, Spacemonkey's logic doesn't negate Lessans' claim, but the only way to know who is right is to see if Lessans' findings are correct regarding how the eyes work. No one has actually proven him wrong. I'm not interested in pursuing this subject anymore. I posted an audio where Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett expressed their differences and similarities. Did you listen to it?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he meant David. He meant the opposite. With a powerful enough telescope we would see someone in the present, not the past. You understand less than I imagined, if that's possible.

OMFG, you are even stupider than I imagined, if that's possible!

"With a powerful enough telescope we would see someone in the present, not the past." That's exactly what I said that he said; NOT the opposite of it! (It's dead wrong, of course. We have telescopes so powerful they see to the frontier of the observable universe, and they all show the universe as it was billions of years ago.)

WTF is wrong with you, srsly?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the whole light/sight fiasco, Spacemonkey's logic doesn't negate Lessans' claim, but the only way to know who is right is to see if Lessans' findings are correct regarding how the eyes work. No one has actually proven him wrong.

No one has proven him wrong to your satisfaction, but we all know that will never happen, no matter how strong the proof.

Everyone else gets it, though. No one else thinks his ideas on vision have any merit, and if you ever hope to have Lessans be taken seriously, you won't, not with this as part of the book.

Of course, you won't have much success with his determinism proof by modal fallacy, either.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually believe that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction gives you no choice?

But no free choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the whole light/sight fiasco, Spacemonkey's logic doesn't negate Lessans' claim, but the only way to know who is right is to see if Lessans' findings are correct regarding how the eyes work.

The problem is that your claims are contradictory when the 'light' in every statement is the same light. And a contradictory claim must not be examined at all. Don't you see a contradiction between 2 and 4?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually proven him wrong.

Oh yes, we know how eyes work, and we know there is only on kind of light, so that it takes 8 1/2 minutes before we would see the sun if it suddenly ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I posted an audio where Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett expressed their differences and similarities. Did you listen to it?

Not yet. Last time I was aware of their discussion, they were pretty irritated of each other...

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually proven him wrong.

You're delusional.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No one has proven him wrong to your satisfaction, but we all know that will never happen, no matter how strong the proof.

Everyone else gets it, though. No one else thinks his ideas on vision have any merit, and if you ever hope to have Lessans be taken seriously, you won't, not with this as part of the book.

Of course, you won't have much success with his determinism proof by modal fallacy, either.

There is no modal fallacy because determinism, in the way it is explained, does not mean predicting in advance a particular outcome, as if out of necessity. I have explained this, but you are stuck in a groove and can't think beyond it. As far as the other part of the book, it gives me no pleasure to think that people won't investigate further because they believe they've proven him wrong, but I have no control over this.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I posted an audio where Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett expressed their differences and similarities. Did you listen to it?

I can't find the link anymore. Can you post it again?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No one has proven him wrong to your satisfaction, but we all know that will never happen, no matter how strong the proof.

Everyone else gets it, though. No one else thinks his ideas on vision have any merit, and if you ever hope to have Lessans be taken seriously, you won't, not with this as part of the book.

Of course, you won't have much success with his determinism proof by modal fallacy, either.

There is no modal fallacy because determinism, in the way it was explained, does not mean predicting a particular outcome necessarily. I have explained this, but you won't listen. As far as the other part of the book, it gives me no pleasure to think that people won't investigate further because they believe they've proven him wrong, but I have no control over this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

But no free choice.

True. Having options is the very foundation of human thought and decision making, but this does not mean one's choice is free.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the whole light/sight fiasco, Spacemonkey's logic doesn't negate Lessans' claim, but the only way to know who is right is to see if Lessans' findings are correct regarding how the eyes work.

Originally Posted by GdB

The problem is that your claims are contradictory when the 'light' in every statement is the same light. And a contradictory claim must not be examined at all. Don't you see a contradiction between 2 and 4?

If light is revealing the object (1st premise), it stops being contradictory. It only becomes contradictory when it is believed the light itself is reflected across space/time where it strikes the eye and gets interpreted as an image in the brain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually proven him wrong.

Originally Posted by GdB

Oh yes, we know how eyes work, and we know there is only on kind of light, so that it takes 8 1/2 minutes before we would see the sun if it suddenly ignited.

No one said there is more than one type of light, You're making stuff up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I posted an audio where Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett expressed their differences and similarities. Did you listen to it?

Originally Posted by GdB

Not yet. Last time I was aware of their discussion, they were pretty irritated of each other...

This was another conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I can't find the link anymore. Can you post it again?

Free will Revisted:

SoundCloud - Hear the world’s sounds

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What traveling have the photons at the film/retina at 12:00 done? Where did they travel from? Where did they travel to? And how long did it take?

I'm just trying to get you to honestly answer questions instead of running away and then lying about what you have or have not answered.

I believe it was because you became uncomfortable about having to LIE about having answered my questions, which you are still presently evading.

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
PG: I already agreed that light travels [Yes?]
2. Did they come from the Sun?
PG: Light comes from the Sun [Yes?]
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
PG: Light is at the film but not due to travel time [No?]
PG: Light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic [Huh?]
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
PG: Light travels at a finite speed [Yes?]
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
PG: Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited [No?]

Are the above queried Yes/No interpretations accurate?

If so, then you now have light at the retina at 12:00 which came from the Sun, which is traveling light yet somehow didn't get from the Sun to the film/retina by traveling, and which never left the Sun until at or after 12:00. So...

6. If these photons (which are at the film/retina at 12:00) came from the Sun, then when were they ever at the Sun? (Name a time when these photons were at the Sun)

7. What traveling did these photons do, if they didn't travel from the Sun to the film/retina? How can they be traveling photons if they haven't traveled from their source to their present location? (Name a time when these photons were traveling, or specify a distance they have traveled)

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then why are you so terrified of discussing it? Why refuse to answer questions about it? You clearly know full well that your account is contradictory.

Then what traveling has the light at the film/retina at 12:00 done? Where did it travel from and to? How long did it take? YOU are denying that this light travels.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So how does it get from the Sun to the film/retina on Earth without traveling there? All photons are traveling photons, remember, so if it didn't travel then it isn't light. You are still contradicting not only physics and logic, but also yourself.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I already told you that in regard to efferent vision, there IS no getting there. The light is already there (the object is within our optical range) at the retina/film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. We know light travels at a high speed and is finite, but this does not negate the claim that we see in the present, not the past. The very foundation of your argument --- which is based on the afferent account --- is why we can't see eye to eye (no pun intended ) on anything regarding this subject. You say it doesn't matter whether the eyes are efferent or afferent, light still has to get there. I say you are wrong in your analysis, but you refuse to even look.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Oh my goodness, you're just repeating the same old mantra over and over again, but your entire approach is wrong based on your belief that the nonabsorbed photons get reflected through space/time. I am not going to get into this again because it's not the conclusive proof that you think it is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that in regard to efferent vision, there IS no getting there. The light is already there (the object is within our optical range) at the retina/film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. We know light travels at a high speed and is finite, but this does not negate the claim that we see in the present, not the past. The very foundation of your argument --- which is based on the afferent account --- is why we can't see eye to eye (no pun intended ) on anything regarding this subject. You say it doesn't matter whether the eyes are efferent or afferent, light still has to get there. I say you are wrong in your analysis, but you refuse to even look.

That doesn't answer what I asked. If the photons at the film/retina are traveling photons that came from the Sun, as you said, then you need to explain how they got from the Sun to the film/retina.

So far you are contradicting yourself by positing traveling photons from the Sun which never traveled and which were never at the Sun.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goodness, you're just repeating the same old mantra over and over again, but your entire approach is wrong based on your belief that the nonabsorbed photons get reflected through space/time. I am not going to get into this again because it's not the conclusive proof that you think it is.

You are just weaseling again because you cannot answer simple questions and you know your account is pure BS. Note that there is nothing at all in my post above about nonabsorbed photons being reflected through space/time. I wonder how long it will be before you revert to lying about having answered my questions.

[davidm]

I brought various illicit drugs for the party. Feel free to choose.

The argument peacegirl presents commits at least one and possibly two modal fallacies. She has equivocated on whether a contingent act is necessary before the fact. If she says that it is, that is modal fallacy no. 1.

She has clearly stated that an action becomes necessary after the fact. This is bullshit. It violates the principle of the fixity of modal status, which is that propositional truth (the correspondence theory of truth, that truth inheres in descriptive propositions of the world) cannot change their modal status. Necessary truths are always necessary and contingent truths are always contingent.

Hey, peacegirl, aren't you embarrassed that you falsely claimed that I failed to correctly describe Lessans' argument about Rigel and Columbus? No, of course not, you have no shame and will not apologize even for the most egregious whoppers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That doesn't answer what I asked. If the photons at the film/retina are traveling photons that came from the Sun, as you said, then you need to explain how they got from the Sun to the film/retina.

So far you are contradicting yourself by positing traveling photons from the Sun which never traveled and which were never at the Sun.

There is such a disconnect between us that there will never be a resolution. I have always maintained that light travels, and it begins at the Sun. I also have said countless times that distance and time are not part of this account. We are already within the field of view of the object (which must be present) where light provides a mirror image, but only if the object meets the requirements of size and brightness. Even though light is traveling, due to the fact that the photons are revealing the object (the opposite of bringing the info to the eyes through space/time), it doesn't matter which photon is present at the eye. Photons are constantly being replaced by new ones. That's it in a nutshell after 5 years of going back and forth and making no progress. If this claim is ever taken seriously, I'm sure there will be people who can break it down even better. Until then, you can ponder it or you can scrap the whole thing and move on. It's entirely up to you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is such a disconnect between us that there will never be a resolution.

Because you keep contradicting yourself and refusing to answer simple questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have always maintained that light travels, and it begins at the Sun.

Did the photons at the film/retina at 12:00 come from the Sun? When were they at the Sun, and what traveling have they done?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also have said countless times that distance and time are not part of this account.

And yet they are a part of reality. So you need to account for them if your claims are to match reality. You need to account for how photons from the Sun can end up at the film/retina 90 million miles away in zero time.

But of course you can't, because your whole account is a complete load of bollocks. So instead you must continue lying and evading, no matter how silly it makes you look.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even though light is traveling, due to the fact that the photons are revealing the object (the opposite of bringing the info to the eyes through space/time), it doesn't matter which photon is present at the eye. Photons are constantly being replaced by new ones.

No such replacement can begin until after the first emitted photons have had time to reach the film/retina, which is 8min after you need them to be there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I brought various illicit drugs for the party. Feel free to choose.

The argument peacegirl presents commits at least one and possibly two modal fallacies. She has equivocated on whether a contingent act is necessary before the fact. If she says that it is, that is modal fallacy no. 1.

A contingent act is not necessary before the fact only because our predictions are based on very little information. If God was looking down, he would know which contingent act (based on all of the determinants that we are not privy to) was necessary given that person's life experience combined with his predilections, heredity, and personality.

Originally Posted by davidm

She has clearly stated that an action becomes necessary after the fact. This is bullshit. It violates the principle of the fixity of modal status, which is that propositional truth (the correspondence theory of truth, that truth inheres in descriptive propositions of the world) cannot change their modal status. Necessary truths are always necessary and contingent truths are always contingent.

I am not making a modal fallacy because I am not predicting in advance what choice must be made necessarily. So how am I committing this violation? I am not prescribing how the world must be either. I am only describing how the world works. You're right, nature doesn't prescribe but that's not what I'm doing.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, aren't you embarrassed that you falsely claimed that I failed to correctly describe Lessans' argument about Rigel and Columbus? No, of course not, you have no shame and will not apologize even for the most egregious whoppers.

Lessans never said we would see a past event from Rigel. That's what he was disputing.

[Vivisectus]

p. 117 Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope?

This passage is an excellent example of why this book is so much fun to discuss. If the guy had been merely ignorant then it would have just been a bit sad. But it is so chock-full of condescension and a sort of lazy self-satisfaction.

I mean it would have been so easy to just check if he was correct or not. Take a photograph of distant stars and see if they show up in different spots from where you can observe them with the naked eye. Crack open a book about the anatomy of the human eye and see if there are any afferent nerves in them. Attain a high-school level knowledge of physics. All of these can be done cheaply and without spending a lot of time or effort. At the very least it would have meant he would not make an ass of himself when he tried to describe what he was disagreeing with.

But no - despite not bothering to even do the most basic kind of due diligence, here he is condescendingly chiding a science teacher in a pretend conversation for allegedly just accepting what she is told without understanding the evidence. As if we just assume the eye works the way we think it does without checking!

On and on he proses, without the slightest awareness of just how foolish it makes him look.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you keep contradicting yourself and refusing to answer simple questions.

Did the photons at the film/retina at 12:00 come from the Sun? When were they at the Sun, and what traveling have they done?

And yet they are a part of reality. So you need to account for them if your claims are to match reality. You need to account for how photons from the Sun can end up at the film/retina 90 million miles away in zero time.

But of course you can't, because your whole account is a complete load of bollocks. So instead you must continue lying and evading, no matter how silly it makes you look.

No such replacement can begin until after the first emitted photons have had time to reach the film/retina, which is 8min after you need them to be there.

Back to the same old argument as if you heard nothing I said. You are stuck in a groove just like the old needles that got stuck in the grooves of a record and it would keep repeating the same thing over and over again until it drove you crazy. You're driving me crazy.