A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying anything about blind people.

Because you choose to remain ignorant of what those real observations demonstrate about sight.

Obviously, if you're blind you can't see. . . .

What makes the pupils contract?





Magic?

--J.D.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying anything about blind people. Obviously, if you're blind you can't see whether your pupils contract and dilate, or not. Light is a necessary condition for sight, if you are a seeing eyed person.

Yes, but why? We mentioned Occam's Razor before:

If Lessan's observations of how vision works is correct, light cannot be the way we see objects. If light is not the way we see, why should light be a necessary condition for sight? Occam's razor says that this hypothesis is inferior because it requires both light and something else which permits us to see.

This is not proof that the theory is wrong - but it's a good indicator that other hypotheses should be tested first. Not surprisingly, current scientific theory started with a better hypothesis and has found it works very well with observable reality.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that the way scientists believe we see is wrong.

I, for one, am looking forward to her detailed and properly-referenced explanations for why retinal doesn't absorb photons, despite many, many observations to the contrary. And why photoreceptors in the retina don't transduce photons into neural impulses, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why these impulses aren't conveyed via the optic nerves to the visual cortex, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why ... well, you get the picture.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I, for one, am looking forward to her detailed and properly-referenced explanations for why retinal doesn't absorb photons, despite many, many observations to the contrary. And why photoreceptors in the retina don't transduce photons into neural impulses, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why these impulses aren't conveyed via the optic nerves to the visual cortex, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why ... well, you get the picture.

Waiting ...

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I, for one, am looking forward to her detailed and properly-referenced explanations for why retinal doesn't absorb photons, despite many, many observations to the contrary. And why photoreceptors in the retina don't transduce photons into neural impulses, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why these impulses aren't conveyed via the optic nerves to the visual cortex, despite many, many careful observations to the contrary. And why ... well, you get the picture.

Well, if you do not read the book, there is no helping you, TLR. . . .







I will pray for you.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

And, once again, when confronted with facts and observations, peacegirl runs away.

Prediction: when she returns she will ignore and whitewash all of that as she has consistently for years.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This from the book:

Where is the math, Peacegirl? Where are the equations? He is claiming that his is a mathematical truth. Then show the math!

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I think she said earlier that mathematical just means undeniable. If only we spoke a common language!

Thank you wildernesse. Maybe somebody else can get through to this guy cause I'm sure not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, really? Do you have any reason why you don't think they are reliable? Any reason other than, "I don't like those results."?

I knew that the irony meter was going to go bonkers with that one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Don't try to test you? In other words, don't ask questions whose answers will reveal your ignorance and show why Lessans' "theories" are wrong? Why, that is very convenient for you, isn't it?

The bottom line here is you admit you don't know what the theory says and why it contradicts Lessans. Nor will you brook being "tested" because that will reveal your ignorance and show that Lessans is incorrect. Your motto is, "Don't trouble me with the facts."

Of course all religious zealots avoid facts like the plague, don't they?

I don't need to know Einstein's theory of relativity to know that 2+2=4. I also don't need to know Einstein's theory of relativity to know that Lessans "assertions" (I know it makes you feel better when I use that word) regarding the eyes make absolute sense, and can be tested for validity. I never ever said that his assertions () should not be empirically tested, where it is possible to do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Still cannot quote people, I see. We will add "lying" to your list of attributes.

Because you are the one crying about how bad your reception is and demanding others leave. We will add "hypocrite" you your list of attributes.

You FAIL again, Liar and Hypocrite

--J.D.

I feel like I'm back in middle school getting my hair pulled from the boy in the desk behind me. Leave my pigtails alone!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Pfff, yeah, right. You might as well wish for a world in which you could buy a cup of coffee for $46.00 or less.

Correction: Didn't you mean $.46?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that if the universe is not ready, no amount of convincing would matter, but the universe is ready. We need this knowledge more than ever. It might take another century for this discovery to be recognized, but it has to start somewhere, and there's no time like the present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the universe is ready, that's when this discovery will come to light, and not a second sooner.

This is what you said that started my whole response to you along these lines. In this earlier sentence, you imply that the universe is not ready yet, otherwise the discovery would be recognized.

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but it was his, and I won't touch his words. I could clarify his words, but not change them. The fact that his analogy could have been better still doesn't change the meaning which is that he was giving something to mankind that requires people to pass it on. How long it will take for this new world to become a reality depends on when this book is confirmed valid by leading scientists.

Whatever. So the universe isn't ready yet (again), because it is waiting on scientists to confirm the book. And people are required to pass it on, but not teach other people about this. Either way, it has no bearing on whether the discovery will come to fruition, because it will happen when the universe is ready.

There you go again telling me what he was like when I knew him. He had no messiah complex wildernesse. Why did you throw that in? Up until the last sentence I was listening to what you had to say. Then you blew it.

I said that because he does not let the idea stand for itself and instead sets himself up as a benefactor of mankind. A person who thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement.

But that's not what he meant. So now you are not only changing the wording, but the meaning. People will not teach others and in this way peace will come to fruition. Peace will come to fruition when the Great Transition occurs on a global scale.

I guess I am confused about how a request for people to spread information to others is not about teaching others. But I guess it doesn't matter, because I am still not sure whether the universe IS ready or WILL be ready or whether people need to share their understanding or not in order for this Great Transition to occur. I'm pretty sure you don't know either.

Ok, I'm tired of this pointless game. I hope you are a troll or some kind of machine.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need to know Einstein's theory of relativity to know that 2+2=4. I also don't need to know Einstein's theory of relativity to know that Lessans "assertions" (I know it makes you feel better when I use that word) regarding the eyes make absolute sense, and can be tested for validity. I never ever said that his assertions () should not be empirically tested, where it is possible to do so.

Right, they already have been tested for validity. And they're wrong.

Did you see The Lone Ranger's latest post? Did you read the page on photons I linked?

[davidm]

Hey peacegirl, instead of posting a bunch of mindless one-liners, how about addressing the specific questions put to you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The author doesn’t get around to presenting his no-free-will argument until around Page 32 of this ponderous tome. Until then the reader must wade through a lot of theatrical self-pity about how no one listens to the author, even though he has made the greatest discovery in the history of the world. People won’t listen to him because he has a seventh-grade education, and because scientists are a closed, elitist community that cannot recognize new knowledge, yada yada.

I actually added that part.

Originally Posted by davidm

He takes special relish in attacking Will Durant, evidently mistakenly thinking that Durant was a major 20th century philosopher. He even got Durant on the phone once to tell him what’s what! At one point in the narrative he recounts forcing a rabbi to concede that no one can prove that we have free will, and then relates how a compatriot observed that in his interaction with the rabbi, the author was as great as Socrates! And so on.

He did call Durant because he knew Durant was wrong. Without Durant's books, my father would have never made this discovery. So he has Durant to thank indirectly. That sentence with Socrates I added the last minute. It was in one of his earlier books, but it wasn't in his later books. You really have to lighten up david. My father was trying to joke as well as be serious. He loved Socrates; he wasn't a Socrates wannabe.

Originally Posted by davidm

Honestly, peacegirl, if you want the author to be taken seriously, you should edit out all this happy horseshit, and also the stuff at the end about his letters to Nixon and Carter, his lawsuit against Carter, and so on. It seems that what ideas he has could probably be distilled to about 20 pages or so. And that’s not a criticism; a great many very fine gems of philosophy have been presented in the form of relatively short essays in which the argument is very tightly and concisely presented. The author has not got such an argument, but if he had, he could do it concisely and it would be even more illuminating than burying his “discovery” in 589 pages of ponderous and self-pitying prose.

I added everything I could because I saw his difficulty. I wanted to give it a one two punch. I wasn't sure about adding his letters to Carter and Nixon, but I assumed that when this knowledge was brought to light, people would want to know the hell he went through. If I die, they might not find these letters so I thought it was safe to put them in the book, not realizing that people would use these letters against him, as if he is a crackpot for sure now.

Originally Posted by davidm

So what’s the argument? Well, first, we can’t ever prove free will because to do we’d have to go back in time and rerun, under identical circumstances, a choice that someone made and see if he would make it differently. Sure, we can’t go back in time and do that. That’s not telling us much.

But that's not the argument for determinism. It just tells us that we can't prove free will true, and that's absolutely correct. We can theorize all we want, but in order to prove free will true it requires doing something that is impossible.

Originally Posted by davidm

He also claims that free will and determinism are opposites. That’s not correct. Compatiblist free will holds that free will and determinism are both true. That actual opposite of determinism is indeterminism, and in fact the world is quantum indeterministic.

Oh, I forgot david that you are the most knowledgeable on this topic and because people think they can now create a world that contains free will and determinism to make them compatible, they must be right because they said so, and you read the literature. That's like saying we can have gravity and no gravity at the same time. Don't you find that rather contradictory? And yet you tell me that Lessans' definition doesn't add up?

Originally Posted by davidm

Why don’t we have free will? He presents the following as a “mathematical” certainty: All living things move away from dissatisfaction to satisfaction. Given two choices A and B, we are compelled by our very natures to choose the one that gives the greater satisfaction. This means (the author says) it is impossible to choose the less satisfactory choice, and so the more satisfactory choice is not freely chosen because it must, by our very natures, be chosen. Hence we have no free will.

That's true, but it's not circular like you are trying to make it. The truth is we can only move in one direction, but, of course, this observation is too simple to be true, according to david.

Originally Posted by davidm

He concludes.

This simple
demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because
satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one
possibility at each moment of time.

Originally Posted by davidm

I bolded the final clause. It’s demonstrably false, and so the argument collapses.

This argument collapses, yet compatibilism doesn't. It is not demonstrably false. You are like someone who is so determined to prove this author wrong, that when the truth hits you in the face, you can't see it, or you don't want to see it. It's like telling you that 1+1=2, but you are adamant that 1+1=11 and no one's going to tell you differently. Or like a child who can't accept that Santa Clause doesn't exist when his parents finally tell him the truth.

Originally Posted by davidm

Suppose tonight I have two entertainment choices: one choice is attending a baseball game, and another choice is attending a concert. I enjoy both activities very much. How shall I choose? The author says I am compelled to choose that activity which gives the greatest satisfaction, but I don’t know ahead of time which one will give the greatest satisfaction! Perhaps he addresses this later — perhaps he will say that in cases like these, we are compelled to choose the activity that we think will give us the greatest satisfaction — but so far, he has not said this. But even if he does say this, what if I genuinely have no belief about which activity will give me the greater satisfaction? What then?

He did say something about this:

The definition of free will states that good or evil can be
chosen without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact
that there is a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word
‘choice’ itself indicates there are preferable differences otherwise
there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A.

The
reason you are confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities,
but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always
moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of
differences what he considers better for himself and when two or
more alternatives are presented he is compelled, by his very nature,
to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives
every indication of being better for the particular set of
circumstances involved.

Plenty of times I am not sure which choice to make because both would give me satisfaction, so I flip a coin or close my eyes and choose. My desire to flip a coin is also a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction rather than picking a choice myself. Sometimes I go eeny meeny mynee mo. Do you actually think this negates his proof of determinism?

Originally Posted by davidm

The argument now rests on a false premise: that in each situation, only one possibility at a time presents itself as the greatest satisfaction. The above counterexample shows that the premise is false.

It shows nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by davidm

There is more that is wrong with his free will argument, but I’ll start with that. Then we need to look at what precisely he means by “greatest satisfaction,” and what precisely he means by “compelled.” Then we have to distinguish between nomological and logical necessity. And, of course, as already indicated, the idea that because we do always choose what we (think) is best for us (if in fact we do) cannot logically yield the conclusion that we must choose this way. This illicit inference constitutes the modal fallacy.

There is no modal fallacy. This discovery stands on its own without the need to interject all of the other definitions that are out there. As he said, definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. Why do you think he wrote this passage, if he didn't see how people get confused by their own faulty logic?

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be
adequately understood which requires that the reader does not
apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false,
but that he understand the difference between a mathematical
relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so
utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking
clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that
have accumulated through the years.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's like telling you that 1+1=2, but you are adamant that 1+1=11 and no one's going to tell you differently. Or like a child who can't accept that Santa Clause doesn't exist when his parents finally tell him the truth.

This from an idiot who when shown the fact that there is a delay in light reaching in our eyes, and hence in our seeing; and when specifically shown by The Lone Ranger how light impinges on the eye to create vision; and when given a link to a page on photons that explains all this, completely ignores all of it.

This from someone who thinks photons arriving from the sun float around in the air, waiting for us to wake up to smile on us! From someone who thinks if the sun was turned on for the first time, we would see it immediately, but not see the person standing next to us for eight minutes!

This from some idiot who "doesn't need to know about relativity theory," even though relativity theory means Lessans' views on light and seeing are impossible.

This from someone who, like her loon of a father, don't need to know nothin' about nothin'; scientists are just elitists tryin' to pull the wool over our eyes and won't let us join their hoity-toity club.



You really are contemptible. Go keep trying to bilk people out of $39.95 a pop with your lunatic father's bible of buncombe.

[Stephen Maturin]

The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years.

YouTube - Tom Tom Club Wordy Rappinghood...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

You really are contemptible.

It ain't worth the aggravation, David. Come on, let's go get us a heapin' helpin' of spaghetti and meatballs cooked by some portly, over-clothed, chained-to-the-stove hausfrau. After we're done eating we can pick us up a couple of scantily clad goils and marry them with our weiners. Whaddaya say?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel like I'm back in middle school getting my hair pulled from the boy in the desk behind me. Leave my pigtails alone!

To do that I would have to remove your helmet. . . .

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain's ability to FOCUS AND SEE with light as a necessary condition.

Then why do cortically blind people have pupils that contract to light? Why do people who lack consciousness have pupils that continue to contract to light?



--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It ain't worth the aggravation, David. Come on, let's go get us a heapin' helpin' of spaghetti and meatballs cooked by some portly, over-clothed, chained-to-the-stove hausfrau. After we're done eating we can pick us up a couple of scantily clad goils and marry them with our weiners. Whaddaya say?

Yes, I'm done engaging with this nonsense, except for parody posts from now on.

I am writing my own book, from which I will post excerpts from time to time in this thread. It is entitled "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" It is dedicated "to all big-eyed, gray-skinned aliens."

[Vivisectus]

How are sales so far? Are many people being convinced? What has the feedback been so far?

If this is to become a global revolution, you would expect a sort of snowball effect to take place where adoption accelerates as more and more people explain it to others. Is there any sign of that?

Also, is the revolution late because the resistance was stronger than anticipated, or is there a different reason?

Also, when did Lessans write that the revolution would happen in the next 25 years? What timeline are we really looking at here?

[erimir]

Unfortunately, Lessans's book has had less adoption than either Dianetics or Atlas Shrugged.

Not only is it crazy, but it's not even an appealing sort of crazy, apparently.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How are sales so far? Are many people being convinced? What has the feedback been so far?

If this is to become a global revolution, you would expect a sort of snowball effect to take place where adoption accelerates as more and more people explain it to others. Is there any sign of that?

Also, is the revolution late because the resistance was stronger than anticipated, or is there a different reason?

Also, when did Lessans write that the revolution would happen in the next 25 years? What timeline are we really looking at here?

Screw that! What about the Bimbos?!

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

[quote=erimir;935693]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what Lessans claim was. He claimed that the image (features) of the owner was not entering the dog's eyes and being identified.

Originally Posted by erimir

What is the difference between the image of his facial features and the image of his clothing?

A dog could identify a shape of something, but to recognize a combination of shapes (eyes, noses, mouths) that would distinguish his owner from someone else is a different story.

Yes, a dog can be trained to recognize (through sight) his owner's gait (which was mentioned in the book), or some other cue that could help him.

Originally Posted by erimir

Or his gait?

They are all sight. There is no difference.

Yes, they are sight, but gait is also movement. A movement that is distinct could identify someone. If I hobbled when I walked, my dog might recognize that movement, but that doesn't mean he would recognize my features without other cues.

But the variable that would need to be tested is whether the features alone, with everything else being equal, would allow a dog to recognize his master.

Originally Posted by erimir

You're clinging to the tiniest shred, refusing to even accept evidence that is placed in front of you. You are close-minded and refuse to give the evidence given by others due consideration, yet you have the gall to complain that we're not reading all 500 pages of your dad's book with an open mind.

I'm not clinging to anything; I just want the experiment to be reliable and not have other interferences that could bring in inaccurate results. Isn't that what empirical testing is all about?

Originally Posted by erimir

Now apparently you're trying to propose that the eyes are only a sense organ if they allow a dog to differentiate people by facial features alone, not if they can differentiate by sight alone... Apparently you're arguing that clothing and gait being differentiated by sight alone doesn't mean anything?

It's idiotic.

I am trying to verify whether the image of his master is traveling as part of the light. If the dog cannot recognize the image of his master, then we have to question whether he is interpreting the image in his brain. It should be a slam dunk for him to be able to do this is the eyes are a sense organ.

That is still an open question.

Originally Posted by erimir

That question has already been answered by the scientific study that The Lone Ranger posted.

It's either true or not. I am not trying to persuade anyone to believe something that isn't proven, especially something as absurd sounding as the eyes not being a sense organ. But please don't rule it out just because it sounds absurd.