A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for your input! Eventually though I'm going to have to mention his claims because that's why I signed up.

Of course. I’m just suggesting you ease into it. If you claim in your first post you have the solution to world peace, you will scare everyone off.

[davidm]

Try something like this:

Hi, all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. I’m new here and haven’t had too much of a chance to look around yet, so I wonder how many people are interested in discussing this.

[Crumb]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Try something like this:

Hi, all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. I’m new here and haven’t had too much of a chance to look around yet, so I wonder how many people are interested in discussing this.

Maybe your thoughts about how I present myself would be better than coming off too strong. I haven't posted yet because once I do, I'm probably going to be bombarded with questions that could easily be answered if people read one of his 6 books or listened to his audio. Just the thought of answering the same questions that I've tried to answer here for years does not excite me. I was given approval so all I have to do is post. I know these forums are not the best where a discovery is concerned and where the author is unknown, but I don't have a lot of choice at this point unless I can reach the likes of Sam Harris or other determinists who could catapult this discovery into the public arena.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe your thoughts about how I present myself would be better than coming off too strong. I haven't posted yet because once I do, I'm probably going to be bombarded with questions that could easily be answered if people read one of his 6 books or listened to his audio. Just the thought of answering the same questions that I've tried to answer here for years does not excite me. I was given approval so all I have to do is post. I know these forums are not the best where a discovery is concerned and where the author is unknown, but I don't have a lot of choice at this point unless I can reach the likes of Sam Harris or other determinists who could catapult this discovery into the public arena.

Give it a shot and see what happens. Maybe I’ll even try to help you out a little. I’m actually a very nice person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think it is well known to everyone here that peacegirl has been promoting her nonsense on the Internet for at least ten years.

Once in a while over the past couple of years I’ve amused myself by looking at some of those old threads, silently shaking my head and occasionally laughing out loud at her old twaddle, same as the new twaddle.

What is amusing (but also sad) is that she is exactly the same now, as she was then. She appears to be incapable of learning anything. She cannot even adapt her methods or style of presentation when confronted with unrelenting failure.

I was also aware that she used to post, years ago, on the old iidb board, which is now freeratio. I’ve skimmed through those archived threads in the past, but only recently, out of curiosity mixed with masochism, did I take a closer look at them. There are at least five of them. They appear to number more than 10,000 total posts! That is less than half the number of total posts in the thread here, but there, of course, they ultimately mercy-locked her drivel.

They’re on this page, the “New Discovery” threads.


When the place was iidb, before the change to freeratio, her threads were relegated to – where else? ~Elsewhere~! At freeratio, they are now archived in the Psueodoscience forum, naturally!

I skimmed randomly through those archived threads, which date back, mind you, six years. It was an eye opener. Everything that she was taught here, she was taught there first. I had assumed that we were the first persons to deconstruct her drivel in painful detail, because the former threads were locked forthwith. But no! The iidb people explained to her about lasers bouncing off the moon, how NASA calculates trajectories to Mars, what light actually is and how it behaves, etc. etc. etc., the whole drill we know so well. They also explained how and why Lessans’ claims about free will and determinism were vacuous, tautological nonsense. All this took place six fucking years ago. At one point someone posted this message to her (bold face his):

So what did she do? All the lessons that the brilliant people taught her there, she stuffed down one of the memory holes in the rotted Swiss cheese that passes for her brain, and hit the DELETE button. Gone! Brain reset! And so here, we had to go over the same ground that was trod there. Still to no avail, of course!

There were a few interesting wrinkles there, however, that we have not, to the best of my recollection, seen here.

Pressed on her relation to Lessans, she stated:

She also stated:

She also had a different “model” for her light and sight idiocy, which I don’t think she has tried to promote here. This was before she dreamed up the “mirror image” bullshit that she uses now, and before her immortal, “Voila! We see!”

There, she asserted that when God turns on the sun at noon, people immediately see it on earth because, even though the photons are at the sun and not at the retina, the wavelength and frequency of the light IS at the eye, even though the photons are not.

Just lean back, sigh, close your eyes, smile, maybe have a stiff drink, and savor the sheer, unprecedented idiocy of that claim.

I belly-laughed as I read through the subsequent pages. As the responses rolled in to her assertion, you could practically hear, behind the pixels on the screen, the sounds of jaws creaking ajar, and you could sense eyes widening. You could hear them thinking: “Surely – surely – she jests!” But no! For page after page, she stuck to this demented idea, even as her interlocutors pointed out that to suggest that wavelength and frequency are separate from photons, would be like saying that if a dog weighed 55 pounds, then the 55 pounds and the dog are separate objects! But she stuck to her guns, oh yes she did! That’s peacegirl!

Of course she got all mixed up with cameras and the eye there, as she did here, and got caught out there, as she has here, in the contradiction that if cameras are afferent but eyes are efferent, then the pictures that cameras take should differ from what the eyes see. But, they don’t.

And!

She told them she was waiting for the proofs. Waiting for the proofs? It has been six fucking years, peacegirl. If you ain’t got them proofs by now, I suggest you get a new publisher!

And:

And:

Finally, yes, there as here, she was going to be moving on shortly! She was just going to have to leave and take this knowledge elsewhere because the people at iidb were such big meanies and they resented Lessans because he threatened their world view, of course!

There – as here! – she came barging unannounced onto a stage before an audience of learned, intellectual people. There, as here, she rode in wearing a clown suit, with her big red clown shoes furiously pumping at the pedals of a unicycle while she attempted to juggle, swallow a sword and eat fire at the same time. Meanwhile, she had a tall pole balanced atop her red clown’s nose, at the top of which dinner plates were whirling around like dervishes.

Within moments the juggling pins crashed to the floor, the fire burned the curtains, and the sword wound up inside her ass as she lost control of the unicycle, which went flying into the audience while she was dumped onto the stage. The dinner plates were smashed to bits around her, and the pole that she had used to balance them bonked her on the head.

Standing up and undeterred, sword still stuck up her ass, she stamped her foot and demanded applause for a command performance, and warned her stunned onlookers that unless she received the obeisance due her, she would take all her stage props and go home. But then there, as here, she refused to leave the stage even as the house lights were dimmed and the majority of the audience fled to the exits. A few doughty souls remained behind amid a sea of empty seats to rubberneck in awe at the train wreck that she is. From time to time they shouted out questions to her and she replied in her native tongue, bafflegab. Eventually, at iidb, they pried her from the stage with a crowbar and locked the theater, not without fumigating it first.

Peacegirl, years from now your grandkids will surf the Net, probably via a chip in their brains that will connect them wirelessly to it, the whole Internet a 3D sensorium inside their heads. They will seek out memories of you and Seymour Lessans. They could have learned that Seymour was a champion pool player, which is way cool. Instead, thanks to your unstinting decade-long (so far!) efforts in cyberspace, they’ll learn instead that his main claim to fame is that he was one of history’s biggest crackpots.

You’ve dug the poor man a digital hole ten years deep that can never be filled in again. You should quit digging. If you quit now, at least you won’t make the hole even deeper for him.

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

OMG, I can't stop laughing regarding your recollection David. I haven't had a belly laugh like this in a long time although some of your rendition was typical of your dislike of Lessans, for whatever reason. I don't even think you know. You keep talking about brilliant people at iidb. Appeal to authority or brilliance holds no place in a fair and open discussion. No one has a monopoly on truth by virtue of someone having a degree. Look what happened to Gregor Mendel who was considered an amateur. Now he is considered the father of genetics and Nageli, a footnote. It is true that I was not clear as to how light and sight work. My analogies fell flat, but that in no way indicates he was wrong. It is incorrect that light would not at the eye if we saw the Sun explode. If we see efferently, the light WOULD be at the eye and the interpretation of what is seen would be exactly the same. The only difference if he is correct is that we see in real time, not delayed. And David, his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is NOT a tautology. Where did you get this idea? Nevertheless, I have to give it to Maturin for posting this and for you David for your witty, albeit, inaccurate responses. You crack me up!

[davidm]

Peacegirl, if you are unable to summarize the discovery in your own words, no one is going to take you seriously. You cannot expect people to read through a chapter or chapters that you yourself can’t even summarize.

Summary:

We are always moving toward greater satisfaction. This is in our nature. Thus, we have no free will — no freedom other than to move toward greater satisfaction.

But the corollary of this is that nothing can make us do, what we do not want to do.

We often want to strike back at others, because they have struck a first blow. And we have no power to resist this want, because striking a first blow provides the most satisfaction, which we are always moving toward.

However, once it is realized that we have no power to resist moving toward greater satisfaction, we will stop blaming people for their actions, and they will stop blaming us for ours.

But once we do this, we will no longer desire to strike a first blow. This is because we know we will no longer be blamed for striking a first blow. Blame is our justification for striking a first blow. Take away the justification, and you take away the desire. Conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow.

Under those circumstances, NOT striking a first blow, will be the greater satisfaction, toward which we are always compelled by our nature to move. And, since nothing on earth can make us do, what we do not want to do, nothing will make us strike a first blow.

Under such circumstances conflict, war, strife, and evil will disappear.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Try something like this:

Hi, all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. I’m new here and haven’t had too much of a chance to look around yet, so I wonder how many people are interested in discussing this.

This sounds good. I am glad you're helping me because it's exhausting trying to agonize over how to introduce myself and this discovery. I do understand why you think I should soften it a little. Is it okay if I use your intro? I still am hesitating to post because of the years I already tried. Unless there is a different crowd who is truly interested in determinism in particular, I'd be a masochist for sure if I went down that rabbit hole again. I also don't have that much time to answer everyone's questions if they haven't read anything. I'm working on improving my website and trying to learn what I can do to market on a low budget. If I do decide to take the plunge, this will be my first post. Thanks for your help.

Revolution in Thought: A New Look at Determinism and Free will

Hi, all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. I’m new here and haven’t had too much of a chance to look around yet, so I wonder how many people are interested in discussing this.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This sounds good. I am glad you're helping me because it's exhausting trying to agonize over how to introduce myself and this discovery. I do understand why you think I should soften it a little. Is it okay if I use your intro? I still am hesitating to post because of the years I already tried. Unless there is a different crowd who is truly interested in determinism in particular, I'd be a masochist for sure if I went down that rabbit hole again. I also don't have that much time to answer everyone's questions if they haven't read anything. I'm working on improving my website and trying to learn what I can do to market on a low budget. If I do decide to take the plunge, this will be my first post. Thanks for your help.

Revolution in Thought: A New Look at Determinism and Free will

Hi, all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. I’m new here and haven’t had too much of a chance to look around yet, so I wonder how many people are interested in discussing this.

Sure, use the intro.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, if you are unable to summarize the discovery in your own words, no one is going to take you seriously. You cannot expect people to read through a chapter or chapters that you yourself can’t even summarize.

Summary:

We are always moving toward greater satisfaction. This is in our nature. Thus, we have no free will — no freedom other than to move toward greater satisfaction.

But the corollary of this is that nothing can make us do, what we do not want to do.

We often want to strike back at others, because they have struck a first blow. And we have no power to resist this want, because striking a first blow provides the most satisfaction, which we are always moving toward.

However, once it is realized that we have no power to resist moving toward greater satisfaction, we will stop blaming people for their actions, and they will stop blaming us for ours.

But once we do this, we will no longer desire to strike a first blow. This is because we know we will no longer be blamed for striking a first blow. Blame is our justification for striking a first blow. Take away the justification, and you take away the desire. Conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow.

Under those circumstances, NOT striking a first blow, will be the greater satisfaction, toward which we are always compelled by our nature to move. And, since nothing on earth can make us do, what we do not want to do, nothing will make us strike a first blow.

Under such circumstances conflict, war, strife, and evil will disappear.

If I posted this, people would laugh. I am not sure if you are, once again, creating lulz or if you really are trying to understand. If they are truly interested, they can read the beginning chapters of the 6 books I worked on publishing for the last year. I won't do more than what they are willing to do to meet me halfway.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are partially correct in your summary, but too much is missing. If I posted this, people would laugh. I'm not willing to take a chance like that. If they are truly interested, they can read the beginning chapters of the 6 books I worked on publishing for the last year. I won't do more than what they are willing to do to meet me halfway.

You say I am party correct. Fill in what is missing. I guarantee you no one is going to take you seriously unless you can summarize the finding. AFTER summarizing it, is when you ask people to read the relevant chapters, to let the author flesh out the case for his claim. This is how it works with everything, peacegirl. Quantum mechanics is the nost daunting and perplexing theory ever put forth, yet the most successful. Yet it can be summarized, like so:

Quantum mechanics deals first with the submicroscopic world, where it has been discovered that quantum particles do not adhere to the laws of Newton.

Particles can be in many places at the same time, as described by a mathematic formulation called the wave function.

Particles that are quantum-entangled with each other can influence each other at arbitrary distances, even on opposite sides of the universe, in violation of Newtonian locality.

Particles can disappear on one side of a barrier and reappear on the other side, without touching the barrier.

Particles adopt a particular position and momentum only after observed, calling into question a mind-independent reality.

When particles are observed, they adopt their qualities according to probability, undermining the thesis of determinism.

Quantum mechanics therefore calls into question the three pillars of classical mechanics: locality, realism, and determinism.

Quantum mechanics shows up most clearly at the submicroscopic level, but the whole world, including big things like people, are quantum mechanical.

See how easy that was?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You say I am party correct. Fill in what is missing.

There is too much missing to fill it in. I wanted to be nice, but in truth it's a terrible summary. I really don't think you understand this discovery at all. People do not strike a first blow for the reasons you gave. This summary would baffle anyone, and they would lose interest. I don't know if you're being sincere because you have tried very hard in the past to discredit the author for reasons I don't quite understand. Maybe you can't deal with his claims because they are opposite of what you believe is true. Or maybe you think he was a homophobe, which is another lie and a poke at him for lulz only.

Originally Posted by davidm

I guarantee you no one is going to take you seriously unless you can summarize the finding.

Thanks for your input, but I can do the rest. I don't need your summary. I offered enough information for people to read to give them a basic understanding of what this discovery is about. If people demand to be spoon fed, I will move on. I am not dependent on these forums to help me bring this knowledge to light. In the end, it will be their loss if they jump to premature conclusions.

Originally Posted by davidm

AFTER summarizing it, is when you ask people to read the relevant chapters, to let the author flesh out the case for his claim.

I have bent over backwards for years trying to explain in my own words why man's will is not free and what this means for our betterment. In the book The Secret: A Note to the Reader, it is very clear what this book is about. If this doesn't create any interest, then these people should not be on my thread. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is how it works with everything, peacegirl. Quantum mechanics is the nost daunting and perplexing theory ever put forth, yet the most successful. Yet it can be summarized, like so:

Quantum mechanics deals first with the submicroscopic world, where it has been discovered that quantum particles do not adhere to the laws of Newton.

Particles can be in many places at the same time, as described by a mathematic formulation called the wave function.

Particles that are quantum-entangled with each other can influence each other at arbitrary distances, even on opposite sides of the universe, in violation of Newtonian locality.

Particles can disappear on one side of a barrier and reappear on the other side, without touching the barrier.

Particles adopt a particular position and momentum only after observed, calling into question a mind-independent reality.

When particles are observed, they adopt their qualities according to probability, undermining the thesis of determinism.

Quantum mechanics therefore calls into question the three pillars of classical mechanics: locality, realism, and determinism.

Quantum mechanics shows up most clearly at the submicroscopic level, but the whole world, including big things like people, are quantum mechanical.

See how easy that was?

This does not in any way prove that people are quantum mechanical and have free will. That's a huge leap if I ever saw one. The probability factor is not the undergird of this knowledge and does not play into it. We can guess people's future actions based on their past, but there is the probability that they won't act in accordance with our predictions. So what. This does not remove the fact that each person is compelled to move in a particular direction (i.e., the direction that offers greater satisfaction based on his heredity and environment) all through life. Therefore, quantum mechanics does not in any way threaten determinism in the macro world of human interactions.

[peacegirl]

David, I think you are somewhat sincere, but my suspicion runs deep. I'm sure you must have been joking when you offered that summary. You went off the rails by trying to make it look contradictory when Lessans quoted this: "nothing can make a person do anything against his will" which is true. We have no control over the direction of greater satisfaction we are compelled to move (WHICH IS WHY WILL IS NOT FREE), but we have total control over our choice not to do something if we don't want to, or if it is against our will. This has caused great confusion by the way determinism is presently defined, and why people argue against it for good reason. Nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do, not even God himself.

After this, you got really confused. I suggest you also read the first chapters of any of Lessans' six books or mine which makes seven.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I think you are somewhat sincere, but my suspicion runs deep. I'm sure you must have been joking when you offered that summary. You went off the rails by trying to make it look contradictory when Lessans quoted this: "nothing can make a person do anything against his will" which is true. We have no control over the direction of greater satisfaction we are compelled to move (WHICH IS WHY WILL IS NOT FREE), but we have total control over our choice not to do something if we don't want to, or if it is against our will. This has caused great confusion by the way determinism is presently defined, and why people argue against it for good reason. Nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do, not even God himself.

After this, you got really confused. I suggest you also read the first chapters of any of Lessans' six books or mine which makes seven.

See, this is exactly your problem, and why, if you go to iidb, your thread will go nowhere fast. You said I was “partly right.” If that is the case, then why don’t FILL IN the parts I got wrong, or the parts I am missing? Instead, you go tell me to read a chapter I already read years ago!

IOW, you want ME to summarize the work, but you won’t do it yourself, and have never done it yourself, which strongly implies you CAN’T do it, BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT YOURSELF.

Prove me wrong. Again, you said I was “partly right.” So now, in your own words, fill in the missing parts. Correct and complete my summary, which remember you say is “partly right.” Because I GUARANTEE you that the first thing multiple people at iidb will immediately ask you to do, is to SUMMARIZE THE ARGUMENT IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

See, this is exactly your problem, and why, if you go to iidb, your thread will go nowhere fast. You said I was “partly right.”

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, you were partly right when you said we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. But the rest of your summary was much to be desired. We will stop blaming when the world knows that by not blaming (under changed conditions which require a revamping of the economic system), our world will be in a much better place because blame and punishment are only partial deterrents. In fact, the more we punish, the more criminals seem to come out of the woodwork.

Originally Posted by davidm

If that is the case, then why don’t FILL IN the parts I got wrong, or the parts I am missing? Instead, you go tell me to read a chapter I already read years ago!

You only read Chapter One? And you think you have it down pat?

Originally Posted by davidm

IOW, you want ME to summarize the work, but you won’t do it yourself, and have never done it yourself, which strongly implies you CAN’T do it, BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT YOURSELF.

Another false accusation. I cannot put down in a few words the significance of this knowledge when the claims are so fantastic. I have to be very careful how i tread or it will turn out just like here, but without the expletives.

Originally Posted by davidm

Prove me wrong. Again, you said I was “partly right.” So now, in your own words, fill in the missing parts. Correct and complete my summary, which remember you say is “partly right.” Because I GUARANTEE you that the first thing multiple people at iidb will immediately ask you to do, is to SUMMARIZE THE ARGUMENT IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

I will tell them it begins with the knowledge that man's will is not free and why. I will not go into the core of the discovery because it involves understanding the first premise, which is that the past does not CAUSE the present when we only have the present. Get it?

This makes me hesitant to even start. As you know, this is not my first rodeo and I'm not a glutton for punishment. I've been there and done that and I don't want to do it again if I cannot get anyone to READ FIRST, THEN ASK QUESTIONS! That is why forums of this type (moderated or not) are not going to help me. They want to mull over books that have already been studied, which should be the recommendation. Mine has not been read let alone studied, yet they are expecting to understand a discovery (a huge one, mind you) without reading anything. Do you think that's fair to the author? No, it's not, hence all the confusion and misunderstanding.

[davidm]

Peacegirl, I am sincerely trying to WORK WITH YOU to present a valid SUMMARY of the work that you can provide at IIDB, to help you AVOID going down the same rabbit hole that you went down here, and have gone down at all the forums in which you have participated.

Up above, I SUMMARIZED quantum mechanics, the most difficult and counterintuitive theory in the history of science. If someone is interested in QM, he or she can or course go read a book about it, unaided.

BUT, if someone goes to a message board and says, “I have this cool theory called quantum mechanics, which is a revolution in thought” (and QM really IS a revolution in thought) and then people at the board say, “Cool. Can you summarize what the theory is about?” And the person peddling the theory says, “Go read a book about it!” — don’t you see how absurd that is? If someone claims to be a TEACHER of something, then they have to TEACH — they have to summarize the finding first of all. If you can’t do that, then you can’t teach it.

[davidm]

[quote=peacegirl;1404292]

Originally Posted by davidm

I will tell them it begins with the knowledge that man's will is not free and why. I will not go into the core of the discovery because it involves understanding the first premise, which is that the past does not CAUSE the present when we only have the present. Get it?

OK. Great. Start there.

You can say something like:

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinists believe that we have no free will because the laws of nature, in conjunction with past events, CAUSE events in the present, including actions. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present.”

That’s a good beginning. And, I’d add, and you probably should too, that this view of time is consistent with Buddhist teachings, and so the argument has historical precedent.

You are further saying that man has no free will, NOT because of determinism, but becuase of his NATURE — which is to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Right? And so that argument is indeed, so far as I am aware, a NOVEL argument — we lack free will not because of determinism, but because of our nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, I am sincerely trying to WORK WITH YOU to present a valid SUMMARY of the work that you can provide at IIDB, to help you AVOID going down the same rabbit hole that you went down here, and have gone down at all the forums in which you have participated.

Up above, I SUMMARIZED quantum mechanics, the most difficult and counterintuitive theory in the history of science. If someone is interested in QM, he or she can or course go read a book about it, unaided.

BUT, if someone goes to a message board and says, “I have this cool theory called quantum mechanics, which is a revolution in thought” (and QM really IS a revolution in thought) and then people at the board say, “Cool. Can you summarize what the theory is about?” And the person peddling the theory says, “Go read a book about it!” — don’t you see how absurd that is? If someone claims to be a TEACHER of something, then they have to TEACH — they have to summarize the finding first of all. If you can’t do that, then you can’t teach it.

David, I do appreciate your wanting to help me, but you can't blame me for being suspicious of your motives. After all, look at the things you've said about Lessans, and the jokes you made at his expense. I don't see why someone saying, "read this book about quantum mechanics because it cannot be explained in a short summary," would be absurd. I could explain why man's will is not free, which has been a debate going on for centuries. To then try to explain the two-sided equation (which is right there in the beginning chapters of each book; nothing is hidden), would be self-defeating because there would be too many gaps. Why would I shoot myself in the foot knowing the risk of doing this because a summary would never do it justice? Again, the most I can do is explain why man's will is not free. If they want to go further, that's fine, but they will have to be a participant by reading the first three chapters at the very least. It's actually very interesting. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to.

Another issue is that people don't like his claim regarding the eyes. Once this starts up again, I can't get interest in going back to the most important of his discoveries. I do want to say one last thing about sight and light, and that is nothing changes when it comes to light. The only thing that changes is that light IS AT THE EYE if the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen. The photons are no different in real time seeing than in delayed seeing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I do appreciate your wanting to help me, but you can't blame me for being suspicious of your motives. After all, look at the things you've said about Lessans, and the jokes you made at his expense. I don't see why someone saying, "read this book about quantum mechanics because it cannot be explained in a short summary," would be absurd. I could explain why man's will is not free, which has been a debate going on for centuries. To then try to explain the two-sided equation (which is right there in the beginning chapters of each book; nothing is hidden), would be self-defeating because there would be too many gaps. Why would I shoot myself in the foot knowing the risk of doing this because a summary would never do it justice? Again, the most I can do is explain why man's will is not free. If they want to go further, that's fine, but they will have to be a participant by reading the first three chapters at the very least. It's actually very interesting. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to.

Another issue is that people don't like his claim regarding the eyes. Once this starts up again, I can't get interest in going back to the most important of his discoveries. I do want to say one last thing about sight and light, and that is nothing changes when it comes to light. The only thing that changes is that light IS AT THE EYE if the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen. The photons are no different in real time seeing than in delayed seeing.

Peacegirl, NO summary “does justice” to what is being summarized, because all summaries are equivalent to compression algorithms. My quantum mechanics summary would leave people not familiar with QM with their mouths ajar and saying, “that can’t be right.” But THEN they read the book, and with the guidance of a good teacher, find out that it IS right. The same goes for any work, including your father’s work.

You can take my advice or not. If you want, I will help you craft a compelling summary. If not, just go for it. But again, everyone there will ask for a summary, so …

[davidm]

[quote=davidm;1404294]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OK. Great. Start there.

You can say something like:

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinists believe that we have no free will because the laws of nature, in conjunction with past events, CAUSE events in the present, including actions. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present.”
.

This is correct, right? So if you don’t want to do a whole summary, at least start with this. You could add: “Once this is understood, it has important implications for human behavior.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

To bring in Buddhist teachings into this may backfire because Buddhists have many beliefs but don't back them up with scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by davidm

You are further saying that man has no free will, NOT because of determinism, but becuase of his NATURE — which is to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Right? And so that argument is indeed, so far as I am aware, a NOVEL argument — we lack free will not because of determinism, but because of our nature.

It is his nature BECAUSE of determinism. Why should I avoid the word? I just have to clarify the correct definition which Lessans offered, not remove it. Remember when he said "definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned." It has to reflect what is going on in reality. His definition is not only novel, but it's accurate. Do you see how tough this is? The fact that man does not have free will is not the discovery. It's just the gateway in so the discovery can be understood.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;1404298]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is correct, right? So if you don’t want to do a whole summary, at least start with this. You could add: “Once this is understood, it has important implications for human behavior.”

I don't want to overthink it. I just want to write what comes to mind and if they think I'm a troll, oh well. I can't be over concerned that if I don't answer their questions in the way they want, they will lose interest. They probably will lose interest anyway because my father used the word God in his writings, even though he only meant "the laws that govern our universe. That might still not be enough for atheists.

[davidm]

[quote=peacegirl;1404302]

Originally Posted by davidm

I don't want to overthink it. I just want to write what comes to mind and if they think I'm a troll, oh well. I can't be over concerned that if I don't answer their questions in the way they want, they will lose interest. They probably will lose interest anyway because my father used the word God in his writings, even though he only meant "the laws that govern our universe. That might still not be enough for atheists.

Sure, write whatever you want, of course. I’ll even try to help you out, just not on the light and sight stuff. I would avoid that entirely if I were you, at least in the beginning. Focus on the determinism/free will thing.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I do appreciate your wanting to help me, but you can't blame me for being suspicious of your motives. After all, look at the things you've said about Lessans, and the jokes you made at his expense. I don't see why someone saying, "read this book about quantum mechanics because it cannot be explained in a short summary," would be absurd.

If you're looking for a motivation, I think davidm likes to teach/help people, and he hates that you eschew intellectual convention to do things your own way —which has been entirely unsuccessful for decades.

David's summary of quantum mechanics is probably wrong, but it's also not wrong. It's not complete, and making a summary naturally leaves something out. A summary lets the reader know what they might engage with, and it lets the reader know the writer understands the content enough to provide a summary.

David knows much more about this than me, but all published papers have an abstract. If the practice has endured centuries, it has some value to the reader. Why are you denying your potential readers that value?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

If you're looking for a motivation, I think davidm likes to teach/help people, and he hates that you eschew intellectual convention to do things your own way —which has been entirely unsuccessful for decades.

David's summary of quantum mechanics is probably wrong, but it's also not wrong. It's not complete, and making a summary naturally leaves something out. A summary lets the reader know what they might engage with, and it lets the reader know the writer understands the content enough to provide a summary.

David knows much more about this than me, but all published papers have an abstract. If the practice has endured centuries, it has some value to the reader. Why are you denying your potential readers that value?

Right. Peer-reviewed papers in science, philosophy, history and other fields have abstracts, short summaries of the content and the argument being presented. A compression algorithm. Then the papers flesh out the summaries.