A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no data/information from one object being attained by another since the objects are not separated by space and time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your eyes are not separated by space and time from the object they are seeing? Really? That's your explanation of reality?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When sight is not dependent on the transference of the image due to light, there is no time involved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sight is dependent on information from point A being attained at point B.

You say the information is not carried with light, that still leaves you to explain how the information gets from point A to point B.

There is no point A and point B.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are not separated from your computer monitor by several inches?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is. And light travels at a finite speed, but efferent sight is not dependent on the time it takes for that image to reach me due to light; it sees the monitor instantly. I think you forgot that light is a condition of sight; do you even know what that means?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about light, I am talking about information (the properties of what is being seen).

I've already answered this. If efferent vision is true, what we are seeing does not involve time. Processing what we see is secondary to sight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it's not the light carrying the information between A and B, then it must be the eyes or the brain somehow reaching out over that distance. How does that work?

The eyes see instantly. The brain then is able to process that information to form new connections. The brain doesn't have to reach out over any distance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not possible for information to be attained "instantly", it has to get from point A to point B by some mechanism.

Not if the eyes are efferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deny that there is measurable, objective, physical distance which means space and time when we're talking about light, but we're talking about efferent vision which implies that the image does not have to travel, not even a nanosecond, to be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The measurable, objective, physical distance applies to all things, including information, not just light.

That's true when it comes to the other senses, but not to sight (if Lessans is right). The brain processes the information it receives from the eyes, but that is step two in the process.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wrong. Information at point A is attained at point B. You have to explain how that happens. It cannot be attained without traversing the distance.

I can't repeat myself anymore. That's what efferent vision is. There is no traversing distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have concluded wrongly. Information has traversed the distance between the two points.

You have to explain how.

I explained efferent vision. If it's correct, that's all I need to explain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The past is an important part of one's memory. But if you should lose your memory, there is no such thing as the past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If one loses their memory there is no past in that person's personal perception. But as you said, perception is not reality.

It's not just about perception that makes the past an unreality. The past is only a memory, which is why memory is so important. The past does not exist in reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Perception is not reality. We can have 100 different perceptions, but one reality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The past exists in reality, and in the perception of those who have not lost their memories.

Yes, it is a relation that can be used to make decisions about the present, but in actuality the past is gone. There is nothing you can point to and say, "This is the past."

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is really all quite simple. If you are looking at something (whether afferently or efferently) it is over there and you are over here. Therefore, the object you are viewing is seperated from you, the viewer, by the distance between here and there. Do you dispute this?

The object is separated from you, but it's within your field of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes don't know that within their field of vision they are looking at an object that is over there.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your eyes do not perceive distance and see a 3 dimensional world? Of course they know "over there".

Your eyes perceive distance, but what you see is seen instantly because there is no time element. This doesn't take away from your ability to see in 3 dimensions because our eyes perceive distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They see the object because it is there to be seen due to there being no information transfer on the waves of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In reality, information at point A is attained at point B. Something is traversing that distance. What is it? Your brain waves? Some kind of eye aura?

You keep saying that, and I keep denying that. I'm repeating myself only because you keep repeating yourself, and it's getting boring for everyone.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She posted the first two chapters at this other forum here if you want to read it

New Discovery - FrostCloud Forums

I'm not sure if thanks are in order. I skimmed through some of it. It's like watching a dog chase its tail.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The last thing in the world you want to happen is for me to read the first two chapters. If you think I'm critical now based on your cherry picked quotes about "efferent vision" then just imagine what would happen if I had access to the full bore nonsense.

It's okay to be critical, but at least have the text in front of you. How can you criticize something you haven't read? It makes no sense natural.atheist.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Have you learned nothing from all the reactions you've received in the last 400+ pages? Are you that deluded?

That's because they refuse to let me continue since they won't accept the premises. He explained why man's will is not free and they keep saying it's a modal fallacy, which it is not. They keep saying conscience doesn't work in a predictable way. And they have no understanding of why responsibility goes up, not down, in a world of no blame. They aren't even a little bit curious as to how these principles work in the real world because they keep telling me this is mere speculation. They are 100% wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm not sure if thanks are in order. I skimmed through some of it. It's like watching a dog chase its tail.

This group was especially nasty. I was glad when I left because I knew it was a lost cause.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because they refuse to let me continue since they won't accept the premises. He explained why man's will is not free and they keep saying it's a modal fallacy, which it is not. They keep saying conscience doesn't work in a predictable way. And they have no understanding of why responsibility goes up, not down, in a world of no blame. They aren't even a little bit curious as to how these principles work in the real world because they keep telling me this is mere speculation. They are 100% wrong.

Sorry, but after 400+ pages nobody could complain that they were not allowed to continue.

What I don't understand is if you are convinced there is no free will, why in the world are you trying to convince anybody of anything?

It's as if you think they have free will!

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it takes 3 cows two weeks to eat two
acres of grass and all the grass that grows on the two acres in two weeks;
and if it takes two cows four weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the
grass grown on the two acres in the four weeks; how many cows would be
required to eat 6 acres of grass in 6 weeks and all the grass that grows on
the 6 acres in the six weeks?

This seems to be just an exercise in simultaneous equations.

If we work in units of grass eaten by one cow in one week, and define the two constants:

I = initial grass on an acre
G = grass grown on one acre in a week

Then we can write two equations that summarize the conditions given in the puzzle:

3 x 2 = 2 x I + 2 x 2 x G
2 x 4 = 2 x I + 4 x 2 x G

if we subtract the first equation from the second we get

2 = 4 x G

so G is 1/2 and we can substitute this back into the first equation to get

3 x 2 = 2 x I + 2 x 2 x 1/2

and so I = 2

Now all we have to do is substitute the known values of I and G into the question to find the number of cows, C:

C x 6 = 6 x I + 6 x 6 X G = 6 x 2 + 6 x 6 x 1/2

C = (12 + 18) / 6 = 5

So I think the answer is five cows. Did I get it right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Sorry, but after 400+ pages nobody could complain that they were not allowed to continue.

What I don't understand is if you are convinced there is no free will, why in the world are you trying to convince anybody of anything?

It's as if you think they have free will!

The fact that you say this shows me you don't understand the definition, so we have no basis for communication. How can I broach the subject without there being, at the very least, a basic understanding of what is meant by "no free will"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

This seems to be just an exercise in simultaneous equations.

If we work in units of grass eaten by one cow in one week, and define the two constants:

I = initial grass on an acre
G = grass grown on one acre in a week

Then we can write two equations that summarize the conditions given in the puzzle:

3 x 2 = 2 x I + 2 x 2 x G
2 x 4 = 2 x I + 4 x 2 x G

if we subtract the first equation from the second we get

2 = 4 x G

so G is 1/2 and we can substitute this back into the first equation to get

3 x 2 = 2 x I + 2 x 2 x 1/2

and so I = 2

Now all we have to do is substitute the known values of I and G into the question to find the number of cows, C:

C x 6 = 6 x I + 6 x 6 X G = 6 x 2 + 6 x 6 x 1/2

C = (12 + 18) / 6 = 5

So I think the answer is five cows. Did I get it right?

Ceptimus, I am so sorry but I don't have the answer to this one. I looked everywhere, and I didn't think of asking him to give me the answer before he died. This was a problem given by Sir Isaac Newton, so maybe you could find the answer online. If you do find it, could you let me know if your answer was right? You seem very good at solving puzzles.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you say this shows me you don't understand the definition, so we have no basis for communication. How can I broach the subject without there being, at the very least, a basic understanding of what is meant by "no free will"?

It's as if you took the words right out of my mouth. Come back when you learn the meaning of words and phrases in common use, that is if you can overcome your embarrassment.

[LadyShea]

duplicate

[LadyShea]

They didn't seem especially nasty to me, in fact you even had a few non-skeptics there.

Of course, it's the reader's fault there as it is here, and as it has been everywhere you've posted. In fact this post of yours is very typical of how you talk to people you are trying to convince.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

PG: You are a very cynical group. I have others reading the book and they are not acting this way. I guess the only thing I did wrong was to say it was a discovery because I've gotten hell for this. I'm sorry that you can't believe it is a discovery. One day I will be vindicated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It's as if you took the words right out of my mouth. Come back when you learn the meaning of words and phrases in common use, that is if you can overcome your embarrassment.

If this is the response I'm going to get, there's no sense talking to you. You've already taken the position that he's wrong without a clue as to what he is trying to demonstrate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They didn't seem especially nasty to me, in fact you even had a few non-skeptics there.

Of course, it's the reader's fault there as it is here, and as it has been everywhere you've posted. In fact this post of yours is very typical of how you talk to people you are trying to convince.

I've changed quite a bit since then. You're talking about 4 years ago. That's a long time. Believe me when I say they were especially mean spirited; very raw in their choice of words, and extremely hurtful since I thought people would be at least willing to hear me out. But it was not to be; their responses were filled with ridicule. I told myself that I would never be abused that way again, although it's come pretty close.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

PG: You are a very cynical group. I have others reading the book and they are not acting this way. I guess the only thing I did wrong was to say it was a discovery because I've gotten hell for this. I'm sorry that you can't believe it is a discovery. One day I will be vindicated.

From the very beginning of my online experience which goes back to 2003, it has been a failure. But the failure is not because of Lessans. It's partly due to the venue of the online experience itself, and how people are perceived in a virtual world. Most of the forums I went to had particular worldviews. Some were believers in objectivism, some Nietzscheism, some believed in anarchy, some capitalism, many were atheists like this group, some were religious. Who was I to come to their forum and make huge claims about a discovery? I have to admit if I were sitting on their side of the fence, I would have thought I was a troll too. It's not surprising that I got nowhere.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ceptimus, I am so sorry but I don't have the answer to this one. I looked everywhere, and I didn't think of asking him to give me the answer before he died. This was a problem given by Sir Isaac Newton, so maybe you could find the answer online. If you do find it, could you let me know if your answer was right? You seem very good at solving puzzles.

I just googled a little and found this site:

Newton’s Cows: Mathematical Ruminations « Nicolas Mertens

Looks as though I was right, this time.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is the response I'm going to get, there's no sense talking to you. You've already taken the position that he's wrong without a clue as to what he is trying to demonstrate.

You are right. There is no sense in talking to me if you use words in peculiar ways and do not bother to define how you use them and then get upset when people think you are babbling nonsense.

But the observation still stands.

If you do not think that people have free will, then what in the world do you think you could possibly accomplish here or on any forum for that matter.

It seems that you mean something completely ass backward when you use the term free will. When you use the term free will what you mean is that a person with no free will is still capable of making a choice. Which is not what is usually meant. A rock has no free will because it can't make a choice. It's behavior is determined by the physics of motion. If persons have no free will then their behavior is also determined by some sort of natural or physical law. Which means persons really don't have a choice. This is the concept of determinism.

If you think people have no free will then what in the world do you think you are doing here?

[LadyShea]

People must choose that which leads to greater satisfaction. We know this because after the fact we can simply define any choice made as having been that option that led in the direction of greater satisfaction. You chose left instead of right? You had to have chosen that because left led to greater satisfaction.

Notice the ass-begotten "must" and the proof by definition.

But, peacegirl claims this is neither a modal fallacy, nor circular reasoning.

[davidm]

Or, as Lessans puts it in his own inimitably cockamamie way, people are "compelled by their own free will" to choose what is best.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say "passes along". He said "strike" and "impinge on". He could have said strike the retina which transmutes to impulses along the optic nerve, but he didn't because it wasn't necessary in order to get across his point.

I know that he did not say that light passes along the optic nerve. I even quoted you saying that he didn't say that. My point, which you completely failed to get, was that no one else is saying that light passes along the optic nerve either. So, what does it matter that he also did not say that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is over there and you are over here, which is why we see the effects of finite light traveling from point A to point B, but it's not that way where the eyes are concerned. The eyes don't know that within their field of vision they are looking at an object that is over there. They see the object because it is there to be seen due to there being no information transfer on the waves of light.

An object, over there, contains information (size, shape, color, etc.) about itself. You, over here, look at the object. Prior to seeing said object you did not possess any information about that object. Having seen that object you now possess information about that object, information that you did not possess before you saw the object. The currently accepted theory of vision includes an explanation for how information about the object over there becomes information in your brain, over here. The question then, the one you need to answer, is how does it happen that you, over here, now have information (information that you did not previously possess) about that object over there? In other words, you have now acquired information that you did not previously possess. What mechanism do you propose that accounts for this acquistion of new information?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained efferent vision. If it's correct, that's all I need to explain.

Actually, you haven't. An explanation of efferent vision would, at a minimum, include a description of the mechanism by which it functions. Since you have repeatedly admitted that you don't know how it works you can't honestly claim to have ever explained it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am repeating myself it's because I am answering the same questions over and over.

Incorrect. You are repeating yourself because you are not answering the same questions and you are not answering them over and over. It is true that you are replying to them (some of them, anyway), but you are not answering them. A reply is not necessarily the same thing as an answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because they refuse to let me continue since they won't accept the premises.

That is an out and out falsehood. No one here has prevented you from continuing your explanation and promotion of Lessans' ideas.

I suppose that what you really mean to say is that we have not allowed you to control the direction and the scope of the discussion, to your satisfaction. Too bad, so sad.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From the very beginning of my online experience which goes back to 2003, it has been a failure. But the failure is not because of Lessans.

What is the one common factor in all of your online experiences?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's partly due to the venue of the online experience itself, and how people are perceived in a virtual world.

And how are people perceived in the virtual world that led to the problem? You have chosen repeatedly not to get to know people in any real way, choosing to stick to your topic and perceive them only in relation to their response to this topic.

That doesn't mean the rest of the world perceives others they interact with online in such a shallow and limited way. This sounds like projection on your part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of the forums I went to had particular worldviews. Some were believers in objectivism, some Nietzscheism, some believed in anarchy, some capitalism, many were atheists like this group, some were religious.

And as disparate as these groups are in their worldview, they all rejected Lessans ideas. That doesn't tell you something?

And we are not all atheists. Angukuk is a Christian minister and Vivisectus is a Muslim and Wildernesse is a Christian.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who was I to come to their forum and make huge claims about a discovery? I have to admit if I were sitting on their side of the fence, I would have thought I was a troll too. It's not surprising that I got nowhere.

It's not about that, most people are open to new ideas that make sense and are well presented.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I just googled a little and found this site:

Newton’s Cows: Mathematical Ruminations « Nicolas Mertens

Looks as though I was right, this time.

Thank you so much for the link. For you to figure it out so quickly is quite amazing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You are right. There is no sense in talking to me if you use words in peculiar ways and do not bother to define how you use them and then get upset when people think you are babbling nonsense.

But the observation still stands.

If you do not think that people have free will, then what in the world do you think you could possibly accomplish here or on any forum for that matter.

First you say there's no sense talking to me in peculiar ways because I did not define how I use the term, yet for 100 pages I did define the term and it was discussed. Just because you weren't here doesn't mean I wasn't here. Then you say what can I accomplish here if man's will is not free? It goes back to the definition of "no free will." Although our will is not free, that doesn't mean our choices are fixed and written in stone. We are constantly influenced by previous events that help determine the choices we make from moment to moment. But once a choice is made, we could not have chosen otherwise because we are compelled to pick the choice that [we believe] is the most preferable under our particular circumstances.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

It seems that you mean something completely ass backward when you use the term free will. When you use the term free will what you mean is that a person with no free will is still capable of making a choice. Which is not what is usually meant. A rock has no free will because it can't make a choice. It's behavior is determined by the physics of motion. If persons have no free will then their behavior is also determined by some sort of natural or physical law. Which means persons really don't have a choice. This is the concept of determinism.

I realize that. But just because Lessans is proposing a slightly different definition that includes choice in the sense that the agent is still intact, doesn't make his definition wrong. It actually clarifies what determinism means. Interestingly, it reconciles free will with determinism because it does not remove choice, although our choices are never free when only one choice can be made at each moment in time.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

If you think people have no free will then what in the world do you think you are doing here?

Your question doesn't make sense in the framework of Lessans' definition. All I can say is keep listening and reading.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People must choose that which leads to greater satisfaction. We know this because after the fact we can simply define any choice made as having been that option that led in the direction of greater satisfaction. You chose left instead of right? You had to have chosen that because left led to greater satisfaction.

Notice the ass-begotten "must" and the proof by definition.

But, peacegirl claims this is neither a modal fallacy, nor circular reasoning.

Obviously, you don't understand his proof. Maybe we should start at the beginning and I should post that part.

[LadyShea]

Okay, please explain the proof in your own words. I've read Lessans words, and am apparently unable to comprehend them

[Vivisectus]

I love this particular bit.

"People are compelled to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction"

Only "That which leads to the most satifaction = that which people end up choosing"
And "People are compelled to choose" = "People end up choosing something"

Which means that the true meaning of the statement becomes "People end up choosing that which people end up choosing."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say "passes along". He said "strike" and "impinge on". He could have said strike the retina which transmutes to impulses along the optic nerve, but he didn't because it wasn't necessary in order to get across his point.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I know that he did not say that light passes along the optic nerve. I even quoted you saying that he didn't say that. My point, which you completely failed to get, was that no one else is saying that light passes along the optic nerve either. So, what does it matter that he also did not say that?

For the purposes of our conversation it is irrelevant whether we say "passes through" or "impinges." The bottom line is that impulses coming from the optic nerve do not give us normal sight, if Lessans is correct in his observations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen. So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is really all quite simple. If you are looking at something (whether afferently or efferently) it is over there and you are over here. Therefore, the object you are viewing is separated from you, the viewer, by the distance between here and there. Do you dispute this?

It is over there and you are over here, which is why we see the effects of finite light traveling from point A to point B, but it's not that way where the eyes are concerned. The eyes don't know that within their field of vision they are looking at an object that is over there. They see the object because it is there to be seen due to there being no information transfer on the waves of light.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

An object, over there, contains information (size, shape, color, etc.) about itself. You, over here, look at the object. Prior to seeing said object you did not possess any information about that object.

The only way you would see no object is if your eyes were not open. It has nothing to do with being over there, because there is no "over there" when it comes to seeing efferently. That doesn't mean we don't see three dimension or realize that what we see is "over there".

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Having seen that object you now possess information about that object, information that you did not possess before you saw the object. The currently accepted theory of vision includes an explanation for how information about the object over there becomes information in your brain, over here. The question then, the one you need to answer, is how does it happen that you, over here, now have information (information that you did not previously possess) about that object over there? In other words, you have now acquired information that you did not previously possess. What mechanism do you propose that accounts for this acquistion of new information?

It all goes back to whether we see efferently or not. If we see in real time, what we see is based on what is within our field of vision. That visual field does not travel to our eyes, therefore we see instantly, and then the brain processes. To repeat: Seeing "over there" does not mean we don't see in 3-D. As long as our eyes are working together, we can see depth. Furthermore, the mechanism that allows the brain to see, through the eyes, may not be completely established, but that does not mean it is not a valid observation. That is why empirical evidence can be so misleading. If you give up, it will be unfortunate, because this is my last stop on the philosophy forum circuit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained efferent vision. If it's correct, that's all I need to explain.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, you haven't. An explanation of efferent vision would, at a minimum, include a description of the mechanism by which it functions. Since you have repeatedly admitted that you don't know how it works you can't honestly claim to have ever explained it.

No, I explained the observation as Lessans described, not the empirical data which can be very misconstrued. I admit I don't know the exact mechanism. It's not important until it is established that efferent vision is not folly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am repeating myself it's because I am answering the same questions over and over.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Incorrect. You are repeating yourself because you are not answering the same questions and you are not answering them over and over. It is true that you are replying to them (some of them, anyway), but you are not answering them. A reply is not necessarily the same thing as an answer.

I'm giving you a description. That may not be to your satisfaction, but it is based on astute observation. Throw away his very careful observations (as if they are nothing more than speculation) and it is easy to be convinced that empirical evidence proves him wrong. Don't you see the flaws that can arise from the very testing you claim is proof?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because they refuse to let me continue since they won't accept the premises.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is an out and out falsehood. No one here has prevented you from continuing your explanation and promotion of Lessans' ideas.

You have to be kidding. No one will let me continue. They even said this. They will not be interested in the rest of the book if I can't prove that his premises are true, and that can't be done until you recognize that his observations were spot on. Why do you think we're stuck on page 53? I realize that you and Vivisectus read the first two chapters, but you would not accept my answers to your questions, as if to say my answers had no validity. You are totally off base. I hope you recognize this. With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder we have gotten nowhere.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I suppose that what you really mean to say is that we have not allowed you to control the direction and the scope of the discussion, to your satisfaction. Too bad, so sad.

I am a little sad because I really thought the internet was the answer. I know now it's not. FYI, I have no desire to direct the direction and scope of this discussion except when it is leading to nowhere. All I ever wanted to do was present Lessans' very astute observations and reasoning to the world, which has been denied due to a lot of misguided anger and premature judgment.