A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

You will get responded to in the new thread. More of the same that Lessans used poor reasoning and offered no evidence.

And lol at the Appeal to emotion and adverse consequences...I called that one yesterday.

[ceptimus]

Starting a new thread is a good idea, peacegirl.

Several times, people have told you that you're free to move on in this thread - we could just put the discussion about afferent versus efferent seeing to one side and go on to discussing other aspects of Lessans' work. You're the one that said we shouldn't do that, as the vision thing was an important foundation for what followed.

But having a new thread that excludes the vision aspects is probably better. And if anyone wants to drag the discussion on vision into that thread, you can just direct them back to this one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously doc, I can't even begin to answer you in any intelligent way.

That's for sure, as has been demonstrated for 500+ pages.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it lets me point out where you're wrong, which proves that Lessans is right.

Classic error in logic. It does not follow that point A being wrong proves point B correct. Look it up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said they were equivalent. What does this have to do with anything?

You did. Well, technically I suppose Lessans did, but you parrot everything he claims, so. Just as optics is entirely relevant to the discussion of sight, this is entirely relevant to his claims about free will.

I'll point out here that I have not made a claim about free will one way or the other. We are discussing Lessans' claims and their veracity or lack thereof. He states repeatedly that we must do what we did because we did it. This is ultimately incorrect. Whether we actually have free will or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether Lessans' successfully argues for the latter. He does not.

Do you understand what a necessary truth is? Do you understand what is meant by "X must have happened?" Do you understand the difference between that and the simple fact that X did happen?

Necessary truths are only those things which are impossible any other way. It is a necessary truth that triangles have exactly three sides, because that is how a triangle is defined. If it has more or less then it is not a triangle, and if it is a triangle then it must have three sides.

Actual truths are simply things that are true. If I draw a triangle, the lengths of the sides would be an actual truth, but not a necessary one. It could still be a triangle if the sides were different lengths. That I draw them at specific lengths does not, ipso facto, turn the lengths of the sides into a necessary truth.

This is exactly what Lessans argues to disprove free will, and it is simply not true. Our will may or may not be free, but the only thing we can gather with certainty from Lessans' argumentation is that he is fallible. I know this will be difficult for you to accept, but your personal incredulity will not change the facts.

[LadyShea]

Whether we actually have free will or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether Lessans' successfully argues for the latter.

Good point

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And thedoc is now appointed as the great observer.

I'm a hell of a lot better at observing things than Lessans ever was, I see things as they are, not as I would like them to be, which is what Lessans was doing, and you apparently are blind to everything apart from Lessans book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're wasting too much time on nonsense.

Truer words were never spoken, for example Lessans book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You will get responded to in the new thread. More of the same that Lessans used poor reasoning and offered no evidence.

And lol at the Appeal to emotion and adverse consequences...I called that one yesterday.

I have no idea what you're talking about LadyShea. Appeal to emotion? Yes, I've been emotional but that's because so much is riding on people understanding that this knowledge is not a theory. Consequences? What adverse consequences are you talking about? The consequences of understanding this knowledge are only positive consequences, if you truly understand it. If you don't, all bets are off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Truer words were never spoken, for example Lessans book.

Maybe in the end you helped this cause as much as I can't tolerate your responses because they say nothing. They are based on misunderstandings and defensiveness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Good point

He doesn't argue for the latter; he proves the latter.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

And if anyone wants to drag the discussion on vision into that thread, you can just direct them back to this one.

Except that no-one has granted Peacegirl the authority to tell anyone where they should or shouldn't post, She is not the boss of this forum, and I am certainly not going to let her tell me what to do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't argue for the latter; he proves the latter.

You are using an idiosyncratic definition of "proves"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Classic error in logic. It does not follow that point A being wrong proves point B correct. Look it up.

You're right. Just because something is proved wrong does not necessarily prove something right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said they were equivalent. What does this have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Kael

You did. Well, technically I suppose Lessans did, but you parrot everything he claims, so.

Isn't everyone parroting what they've been taught? Everyone thinks they are right based on the knowledge they've been given. But what if that knowledge is not completely accurate, or incomplete, what then? That's why I say let the best man win.

Originally Posted by Kael

Just as optics is entirely relevant to the discussion of sight, this is entirely relevant to his claims about free will.

I'm not sure what you mean by that except to say that you will not consider that Lessans is right, so there's obviously no discussion. I will continue on but not at the expense of his other discoveries. It's not fair because his first discovery is more important to achieving peace on earth than this discussion.

Originally Posted by Kael

I'll point out here that I have not made a claim about free will one way or the other. We are discussing Lessans' claims and their veracity or lack thereof. He states repeatedly that we must do what we did because we did it. This is ultimately incorrect. Whether we actually have free will or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether Lessans' successfully argues for the latter. He does not.

He absolutely does. Can you explain what his observations were Kael? If you can't, then you're talking nonsense because you have no grasp on Lessans' reasoning.

Originally Posted by Kael

Do you understand what a necessary truth is? Do you understand what is meant by "X must have happened?" Do you understand the difference between that and the simple fact that X did happen?

Yes, X must have happened means that there is a prediction involved. This is not the reasoning Lessans has put forth. When and until you can separate the conventional definition of determinism with the true meaning of determinism, you will continue to argue with me because no one wants to be told that they have no choice in what they do. This is NOT WHAT LESSANS IS SAYING!

Originally Posted by Kael

Necessary truths are only those things which are impossible any other way. It is a necessary truth that triangles have exactly three sides, because that is how a triangle is defined. If it has more or less then it is not a triangle, and if it is a triangle then it must have three sides.

This is in keeping with "no free will." There is never a time that we could have done something differently once the act was done, NOT BEFORE. Therefore, it meets the definition because it is a necessary truth and there are no exceptions.

Originally Posted by Kael

Actual truths are simply things that are true. If I draw a triangle, the lengths of the sides would be an actual truth, but not a necessary one. It could still be a triangle if the sides were different lengths. That I draw them at specific lengths does not, ipso facto, turn the lengths of the sides into a necessary truth.

That's true, and just because what appears to be a free choice because it seems as if someone could do differently than what was done, doesn't mean that he could have done differently.

Originally Posted by Kael

This is exactly what Lessans argues to disprove free will, and it is simply not true. Our will may or may not be free

Wrong. Man's will is not free whether you see it at this moment or not, and you're not going to tell me that Lessans didn't know whereof he spoke, because he did.

Originally Posted by "Kael

... but the only thing we can gather with certainty from Lessans' argumentation is that he is fallible. I know this will be difficult for you to accept, but your personal incredulity will not change the facts.

I never said he wasn't fallible. Einstein was fallible, so how could Lessans not be. We're all fallible. Only God (the intelligence governing our universe) is infallible.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you're talking about LadyShea. Appeal to emotion? Yes, I've been emotional but that's because so much is riding on people understanding that this knowledge is not a theory. Consequences? What adverse consequences are you talking about? The consequences of understanding this knowledge are only positive consequences, if you truly understand it. If you don't, all bets are off.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if nobody comes to it, then I will know the people here are not truly interested in world peace

Your constant "if you don't accept Lessans ideas, we cannot have world peace" is an argument from adverse consequences. Saying we aren't interested in world peace is an appeal to emotion.

Both are used by religious apologists, conspiracy theory proponents, and crystal wavers a lot.

You just follow the woo script without even knowing it, don't you?

[LadyShea]

That's true, and just because what appears to be a free choice because it seems as if someone could do differently than what was done, doesn't mean that he could have done differently.

If it was possible in any circumstances to have done something differently, then yes, he could have done differently.

He didn't do differently.

What he did is the actual truth, but it is not a necessary truth.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Except that no-one has granted Peacegirl the authority to tell anyone where they should or shouldn't post, She is not the boss of this forum, and I am certainly not going to let her tell me what to do.

Oh, I agree.

But the thread starter is often accorded some cooperation if they say something like, "This isn't the thread for discussing that topic - could you please take it to this other thread? - or feel free to start another one, if you prefer."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Oh, I agree.

But the thread starter is often accorded some cooperation if they say something like, "This isn't the thread for discussing that topic - could you please take it to this other thread? - or feel free to start another one, if you prefer."

Agreed, but if something is brought in that directly effects the topic she should not be allowed to dismiss it because she doesn't like it. Just look at this thread, there is much that disproves her position, and she tries to ignore it, hand wave it away, or tell people not to post that info, because it shows how wrong she is.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, X must have happened means that there is a prediction involved.

No, it doesn't. No prediction of any kind is required to define a necessary truth. It would still be a necessary truth whether it was predicted or not.

When and until you can separate the conventional definition of determinism with the true meaning of determinism

This is just more waffling and wankery by means of idiosyncratic definitions. There is no legitimate reason to invent new definitions for words when trying to prove something.

you will continue to argue with me because no one wants to be told that they have no choice in what they do.

That is not why I am arguing with you, though I daresay calling it an argument is rather generous. Again: Whether our will is free or not is not what I am disputing. I am disputing your conviction that Lessans proves the case either way. He does not.

This is in keeping with "no free will." There is never a time that we could have done something differently once the act was done, NOT BEFORE. Therefore, it meets the definition because it is a necessary truth and there are no exceptions.

No. You're missing the point yet again. Whether a truth is necessary does not change before or after the event. If it was not a necessary truth before the event it cannot be a necessary truth after the event. Possible and actual truths are the only ones that change before and after an event.

That's true, and just because what appears to be a free choice because it seems as if someone could do differently than what was done, doesn't mean that he could have done differently.

Who said anything about a "free choice?" I very carefully did not say that I chose to draw them at specific lengths, only that I did so, and that it remains possible for other lengths to be used and still accomplish the act of drawing a triangle. Thus, the lengths used are not a necessary truth of the drawn triangle, only an actual truth.

Whether it seems I could have chosen the lengths or whether I actually could have chosen the lengths is not in dispute at the moment. The only thing in dispute is Lessans' attempt to prove that I could not have chosen them, and why it fails.

Wrong. Man's will is not free whether you see it at this moment or not, and you're not going to tell me that Lessans didn't know whereof he spoke, because he did.

Actually, the statement "our will may or may not be free" cannot be false, since it covers all possibilities. It also doesn't convey anything meaningful, for the same reason. This is a form of tautology. It wasn't meant to convey anything meaningful, or to support either free will or lack thereof, only to point out that which one is actually the case is not in dispute. Only Lessans' "proof" is in dispute. His proof being incorrect does not have any bearing on whether our will is actually free or not.

You do understand that, right? You understand that it is possible to incorrectly argue something that is actually true? That I could tell you that the sky appears blue because Smurfs are constantly splattering against the crystalline dome of the sky, and still be completely wrong despite the fact that the sky does indeed appear to be blue?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, if what you're saying is true we shouldn't be able to see any object that is closer to us because light would be traveling too fast to see it.

peacegirl, we don't 'see' light. Light landing on our retinas is seeing, just like pressure waves striking our ear drums is hearing. (Yes, I know you disagree, but we are discussing your objection to the 'standard' explanation.)

Now, let's try again. You know the speed of light. So if you want to test this claim that we can see an object only by virtue of its previously emitted or reflected light, after the object is no longer present, how long will we have to look for such an effect if we are dealing with distances of only a few hundred meters?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't everyone parroting what they've been taught? Everyone thinks they are right based on the knowledge they've been given.

Anyone who aclomplishes anything does so by relying on work that has gone before.

If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Isaac Newton

And this was Lessans great failing, that he did not learn what had been learned before or consult others to further his own understanding of the world. Lessans ignored everything of value that had gone before, and therefore wrote nothing of value, his work was based on ignorance and misunderstanding.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Obviously not. Which part of this incredibly simple explanation are you still not following?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Spacemoneky, see this post on the previous page

she doesn't understand pixel density and size and resolution. I realized that at some point (when I posted the Pointillistic images to illustrate the concept) but either thought she finally got it or forgot or something. Anyway it hit me again yesterday.

The above is meaningless to her

Does anyone have a good graphic to demonstrate? Even different sized graph paper grids with the same total area would probably illustrate nicely

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Consequences? What adverse consequences are you talking about? The consequences of understanding this knowledge are only positive consequences.

Well I, for one, do not like some of the consequences of this knowledge, if Lessans discription of the 'Golden Age' is accurate. I do not want to meat and bang the first girl I encounter, because of her genitals and be stuck with her for the rest of my life, that is equivalent to a dog drawn to the scent of a bitch in heat, with just about as much commitment. I enjoy talking to and doing things with my wife. We share some common interests and background and she appreciates my sense of humor. If I had married the first girl, I encountered (presumably after puberty) I have no doubts I would have been just as misserable and dissatisfied with my life as Lessans. For Lessans to propose a world so different as the one we are living in, indicates extreme dissatisfaction and a complete misunderstanding about relationships. The relationships in the 'Golden Age' could only have been inspired by the most unsophisticated dregs of society, it was certainly not a high class pool hall.

[thedoc]

Two male dogs were running along through yards, down alleys, over vacent lots, the younger dog finally pants to the older dog, "Ain't this a Bitch?" the older one replies "I sure hope so."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light.

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The absorptive properties of the object.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
This is the confusing part. Yes, light is always traveling but it's the way that the lens (or something acting as a lens) works (and how it captures the image) that you're missing, which is the other half of the equation.

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?
It got there instantly due to light already being present, and the lens focusing that light.

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
No, but the arriving light is not what is being captured by the camera. There is a difference between arriving photons from the Sun (which is in a constant stream), and what the camera captures due to the absorptive properties of matter that allow us to see the material world.

7. Can light travel faster than light?
No, but this is not about traveling faster than the speed of light. I thought you knew this already.

8. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?
No.

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Light reflects objects. In other words, light allows us to see objects that exist in the external world due to the ability of matter to absorb certain wavelengths.

12. What does a reflection consist of?
A reflection is what we are able to see; not what comes to us.

13. What does light consist of?
Photons.

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?
It's not reflecting which means leaving the surface and traveling somewhere. The individual wavelength (the wavelength of blue) is not traveling anywhere. It is displaying as we look at the object.

Just as before, your own answers are again a mess of self-contradictory nonsense. I've highlighted the problematic parts.

Your answer to Q3 contradicts your answers to Q1 & Q2. The absorptive properties of the object are not properties of the light at the camera. They are properties of the object. If it is the light at the camera which determines the color of the resulting image, then your answer to Q3 needs to tell me what properties of that light are responsible. So you need to change either your answer to Q3 or your answers to Q1 & Q2.

Your answer to Q4 doesn't answer what was asked, and contradicts your answers to Q5 & Q7. You admit that any light present at the camera was previously travelling, but you don't tell me whether or not it previously travelled from the object to get there. And if you agree that it travelled (from somewhere) to get there, then it can't get there instantly (Q5) without travelling faster than the speed of light (Q7).

Your answer to Q5 doesn't answer where the light at the camera previously came from.

Your answer to Q6 is completely nonsensical, and is inconsistent with your answers to Q1, Q2, & Q4. In Q1 & Q2 you answer that it is light at the camera determining the color of the image, and in Q4 you agree that this light was travelling before it arrived at the camera. That means the camera has captured arriving light. I have no idea what you think the camera is capturing in your answer to Q6, but it is clearly not light anymore.

Your answer to Q11 is inconsistent with the standard meaning of 'reflection', which is fine but requires further explanation. That was the purpose of Q12, but your answer to Q12 doesn't actually answer the question asked.

Your answer to Q14 shows you disagree with the standard account of the color of objects - which again is fine, but your answer raises a further serious problem: If the non-absorbed light doesn't get reflected from the surface of the object to travel towards the camera, then where does it go? What happens to the non-absorbed light? Does it just float there in a cloud of stationary photons waiting for us or a camera to see it?

And your answer to Q14 is inconsistent with your answers to Q4 & Q9/10. If there is light which is not absorbed by the object, then by your answer to Q4 it must be leaving the surface and travelling somewhere. And if the wavelength is a property of the light such that neither the wavelength nor the light can travel independently of each other, then that wavelength (of the non-absorbed light) must be travelling somewhere too.

In fact your answers are such a mess of self-contradictory nonsense you might as well start over again. (Remember, if you cannot provide logically consistent answers to these questions, then your account of real-time photography remains impossible, making efferent vision impossible too):


1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?