A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Another way to look at it is to consider how many people could get in a group photograph using a particular camera.

Let's say we have a camera where, if the people are ten feet from the lens, then ten of them can squeeze into the photograph.

Now even if the people just stand in one line, so they don't make use of the extra 'height' available in the photo as they move further away, then you can see that if they move back one hundred feet from the camera, then we can get a hundred people in the photo.

And if we take the camera up a mountain, and the people line up twenty miles away, then, on a clear day, we can get over a hundred thousand people into the photo.

But wait! Our camera is only a fourteen megapixel model, so it only has 4,500 pixels horizontally. That means that there will be over twenty people standing in each pixel (that contains people) of the resulting image. We're hardly likely to be able to make out their faces!

In fact, of course we wouldn't be able to see them at all. Maybe, just maybe, if they all wore bright fluorescent clothing that strongly contrasted in colour with the ground they were standing on, then the photograph could show a horizontal row of pixels that differed from the surrounding ones - but the people would be covering less than one quarter of a vertical pixel, so the effect would only be slight.

That's very interesting, I must say, but I'm not sure what you're trying to convey in regard to the discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's what I'm going to do because the other discovery is the key to the new world, and I don't think we'll ever get there in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Just because I say certain things that remind you of these types doesn't mean that's what I am. I sort of said that tongue in cheek because I know people will come (at least I believe they will) even if it's to try to prove Lessans wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

It is a necessary truth that he had to have chosen what he chose because the alternatives gave him less satisfaction under the conditions. You cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. It's impossible. People keep saying to give them a brief summary; so here it is once again. YOU CANNOT MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF DISSATISFACTION WHEN A MORE PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE IN COMPARISON.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

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.
[/QUOTE]


I think you will find that Peacegirl will throw all sorts of extranious statements into the discussion to appear that she knows what is going on, but it's really just like the book with nonsencical word salad and then "There, that proves it." The tactic is to so confuse the reader that there is no specific claim that can be grasped, and stated that 'This is wrong', "If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle them with Bullshit."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

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.

I only meant this in terms of the standard definition of determinism which involves knowing the first cause and predicting every outcome thereafter.

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

Originally Posted by Kael

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.

It's not a reinvention; it is just reconciling the two opposing ideologies. You've got to give this man a chance before calling it wankery.

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

Originally Posted by Kael

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.

He absolutely proves that man's will is not free, and it's the key to world peace, so it behooves everyone to listen instead of argue with me every step of the way.

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

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.

Yes, we have many possibilities before making a choice but after we make a choice, WE COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. If man's will is not free, it is a necessary truth because we can only move in one direction. There are no parallel worlds.

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

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.

It is not a necessary truth that you draw those particular triangles until you draw them. In other words, you could have chosen other lengths when contemplating which length to use, but after choosing the length you did, it could not have been otherwise. This is not circular reasoning, which is where everyone is getting hung up. This knowledge does not remove your ability to make choices; it's just means your choices are not free. I want to qualify this: It does not mean we're robots programmed to do what we do. That's not the definition Lessans is proposing. His definition happens to be more accurate.

Originally Posted by Kael

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.

It does not fail and the only reason you think it does is because you don't understand the proof as to why we can only move in one direction from birth to death.

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

Actually, the statement "our will may or may not be free" cannot be false, since it covers all possibilities.

That logic is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Kael

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.

What are you talking about? His proof has everything to do with whether man's will is free or not. To say this you have to know a lot about his proof. Did you read the first and second chapters when the book was online?

Originally Posted by Kael

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?

He is not incorrectly arguing something that is true. His observations and reasoning were sound. Neuroscientists and naturalists also believe man's will is not free, but Lessans has his own proof which takes it even further because he shows that with this knowledge we can prevent the very things we don't want such as war, crime, and hatred.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a necessary truth that he had to have chosen what he chose because the alternatives gave him less satisfaction under the conditions. You cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. It's impossible. People keep saying to give them a brief summary; so here it is once again. YOU CANNOT MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF DISSATISFACTION WHEN A MORE PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE IN COMPARISON.

Prove it!

Oh, well, I guess you'll "prove" this like you "proved" efferent seeing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think you will find that Peacegirl will throw all sorts of extranious statements into the discussion to appear that she knows what is going on, but it's really just like the book with nonsencical word salad and then "There, that proves it." The tactic is to so confuse the reader that there is no specific claim that can be grasped, and stated that 'This is wrong', "If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle them with Bullshit."

Maybe your crazy retorts keep people entertained. I just hope it helps the cause, not hurts it, because you would then be doing people in this thread a disservice.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen, the definition that he wanted people to know so they DID NOT GET CONFUSED, WAS ESTABLISHED VERY CLEARLY.

Yes, yes, I understand your viewpoint on this matter, and it's quite preposterous. Had he really wanted avoid confusion, Lessans would have simply used the word "undeniable" when he meant "undeniable." That's how rational people communicate. But no! You're claiming that for the sake of clarity Lessans arbitrarily redefined a word in a manner exactly the opposite of what word actually means. Either he was an idiot, which you assure us he was not, or a huckster, and a rather poor one at that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're wasting too much time on nonsense.

We'll never see a better single-sentence summary of The Sacred Text and this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe your crazy retorts keep people entertained. I just hope it helps the cause, not hurts it, because you would then be doing people in this thread a disservice.

You might notice that the closer a post is to the truth, the more virulent are Peacegirls replies.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Prove it!

Oh, that's a simple one! All we need do is define "more preferable alternative" as "that which you ultimately chose." See there? Easy peasy Japanesey!

So then:

How do we know that X was the the most preferable alternative? Because X is what you chose. I did indeed choose X, but how does that fact, by itself, establish X was more preferable than the other options I had? Well, if X weren't the most preferable option, you wouldn't have selected it! Why not? Because it is impossible to follow any course other than the one you consider the most preferable. Isn't that point under debate? Precisely! Okay, so how does "I chose X" compel the conclusion "I had to choose X"? You had to choose X because the fact that chose X necessarily means that X was the most preferable option, and one cannot chose any option but the most preferable one. Your argument is eating its own tail. stfu meanie.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh, that's a simple one! All we need do is define "more preferable alternative" as "that which you ultimately chose." See there? Easy peasy Japanesey!

So then:

How do we know that X was the the most preferable alternative? Because X is what you chose. I did indeed choose X, but how does that fact, by itself, establish X was more preferable than the other options I had? Well, if X weren't the most preferable option, you wouldn't have selected it! Why not? Because it is impossible to follow any course other than the one you consider the most preferable. Isn't that point under debate? Precisely! Okay, so how does "I chose X" compel the conclusion "I had to choose X"? You had to choose X because the fact that chose X necessarily means that X was the most preferable option, and one cannot chose any option but the most preferable one. Your argument is eating its own tail. stfu meanie.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

And this post right here obviates the need for peacegirl to make good on her threat to start a separate thread on determinism that will turn into a separate 600-post train wreck. Everyone just post this in response and we're done.

[LadyShea]

You forgot the ultimate proof...you have not killed yourself, therefore you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's very interesting, I must say, but I'm not sure what you're trying to convey in regard to the discussion.

He's describing how pixels work

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You forgot the ultimate proof...you have not killed yourself, therefore you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction

But if you do kill yourself, killing yourself was the greater satisfaction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

But if you do kill yourself, killing yourself was the greater satisfaction.

Obviously, according to Lessans ? ? ? ? ?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That logic is inaccurate.

No, the logic is perfectly accurate, it's just that one of the possibilities may be true and one may be false, and Lessans hasn't proved anything, just made unsupported assertions.

[Spacemonkey]

I assume Peacegirl is 'starting a new thread' in the same sense that she's 'leaving' if no-one shows a genuine interest in Lessans' discoveries, and 'doing a good job' of explaining how efferent vision and real-time photography works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh, that's a simple one! All we need do is define "more preferable alternative" as "that which you ultimately chose." See there? Easy peasy Japanesey!

So then:

How do we know that X was the the most preferable alternative? Because X is what you chose. I did indeed choose X, but how does that fact, by itself, establish X was more preferable than the other options I had? Well, if X weren't the most preferable option, you wouldn't have selected it! Why not? Because it is impossible to follow any course other than the one you consider the most preferable. Isn't that point under debate? Precisely! Okay, so how does "I chose X" compel the conclusion "I had to choose X"? You had to choose X because the fact that chose X necessarily means that X was the most preferable option, and one cannot chose any option but the most preferable one. Your argument is eating its own tail. stfu meanie.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I've said over and over again that this was not his proof. If you don't understand where these observations originated, you will keep telling me it's just a tautology and that it proves nothing.

[LadyShea]

Then lay out his proof, in your own words, in a way that is not tautological

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's describing how pixels work

I get that but where does this negate efferent vision? The object has to be in view for the pixels to form an image. Once the object(s) is out of view, there can be no image because there's no object. Therefore the question remains: If afferent vision is true, why can't the pixels detect an image from light alone without the object having to be in the field of view of the camera? The only answer that was offered was that the light is traveling too fast, but the object is even closer to the camera when it's within the field of view, so that doesn't add up.

[LadyShea]

I offered another answer, that you have repeatedly ignored. There are two sides to optics: the light, and the detector (including lens and sensor). You keep focusing on the light only and failing to understand that the size, configuration, and sensitivity of the detector (whether eyes or camera or other optical instruments) are just as important.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a necessary truth that he had to have chosen what he chose because the alternatives gave him less satisfaction under the conditions. You cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. It's impossible. People keep saying to give them a brief summary; so here it is once again. YOU CANNOT MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF DISSATISFACTION WHEN A MORE PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE IN COMPARISON.

Originally Posted by davidm

Prove it!

That's what I'm trying to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I offered another answer, that you have repeatedly ignored. There are two sides to optics: the light, and the detector (including lens and sensor). You keep focusing on the light only and failing to understand that the size, configuration, and sensitivity of the detector (whether eyes or camera or other optical instruments) are just as important.

Do you not understand that you are supporting Lessans' claims in the very words you speak?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I offered another answer, that you have repeatedly ignored. There are two sides to optics: the light, and the detector (including lens and sensor). You keep focusing on the light only and failing to understand that the size, configuration, and sensitivity of the detector (whether eyes or camera or other optical instruments) are just as important.

Yes but Peacegirl wants to concentrate only on the brain and the object as the most important elements of vision. The nature of light, the structure of the eye are secondary to efferent vision, and the problem is that those considerations disprove efferent vision which is why Peacegirl wants to wave them aside as less important than the other parts of the visual system. By looking only at the brain and object it is difficult to disprove efferent vision, actually a clever ploy on her part, push aside those factors that are not consistant with efferent vision and keep the discussion on the factors that may not negate it if the dialogue is kept vague enough.