A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that is not correct Spacemonkey, then tell me what compatibilism states?

What is wrong with you? READ THE POST where I just explained this to you. It is right there in the bumped post you just replied to before where you asked me to explain it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't start calling me names Spacemonkey, or we're done talking. I'm not going to play this game with you.

Don't be a hypocrite and I won't call you one. It is blatantly hypocritical to complain of others allegedly not conscientiously reading Lessans' book when you can't even be bothered to actually read the posts you are replying to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see the difference. I may have accidentally left it out, I'm not sure. I know that I didn't add anything extra that he himself did not include.

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’
is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an
individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly,
one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors,
specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight,
taste, hearing, etc. But this is a wholly fallacious observation
where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external
world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon
the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

versus

Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're such a halfwit. That's not even the comparison you're being asked about. There are TWO versions of BOTH of these passages. In each case there is a version WITH the words "other than light" and one without it.

Are you deaf? I just said don't call me names, and what you do, that very thing. If you don't care whether I converse with you, keep calling me names.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And I already explained to you the difference in meaning between the above two passages: He said in the second passage that only light can get a reaction from a baby's eyes, and that absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Your edited first passage instead says that only light impinges on the optic nerve from the external world. Those are two completely different and incompatible meanings. One says that light impinges on the optic nerve, while the other does not.

I answered this already. When he said absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve to cause it, it referred back to the word "object." He was distinguishing light from the object when he said a baby will react to the light but will show no indication that he sees objects in the room (which he should if the eyes are a sense organ), no matter how close the objects are or how bright and colorful they may be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't be a hypocrite and I won't call you one. It is blatantly hypocritical to complain of others allegedly not conscientiously reading Lessans' book when you can't even be bothered to actually read the posts you are replying to.

You call me names that are outright lies. I'm tired of it Spacemonkey. Leave the expletives out, okay, and we'll get along just fine. It's up to you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you deaf? I just said don't call me names, and what you do, that very thing. If you don't care whether I converse with you, keep calling me names.

We cross-posted. I removed the term 'half-wit' from my post after reading your request.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this already. When he said absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve to cause it, it referred back to the word "object." He was distinguishing light from the object when he said a baby will react to the light but will show no indication that he sees objects in the room (which he should if the eyes are a sense organ), no matter how close the objects are or how bright and colorful they may be.

Nope. That's just you trying to reinterpret his words. The passage where he had the words "other than light" does not explicitly state that light impinges on the optic nerve. It makes an exception for what can get a reaction from a baby, but it does not make an exception for what is striking the optic nerve. Maybe you think that is what he really meant, or what he had intended to write, but that is an interpretation on your part and it is not what he actually wrote.

"Absolutely nothing" means just that. It does not allow for light as an exception. And it doesn't make any sense to think these words referred back to the word 'object' such that he really meant only that absolutely no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. That would be a ridiculous strawman. Who has ever thought that the eyes being a sense organ would require a car to drive right into your eyes before you could see it?

In any case, it is not even what you were being asked about, which is why there are two versions of both passages.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You call me names that are outright lies. I'm tired of it Spacemonkey. Leave the expletives out, okay, and we'll get along just fine. It's up to you.

Calling you a hypocrite was not an expletive and it was not a lie. Like I said, it is blatantly hypocritical to complain of others allegedly not conscientiously reading Lessans' book when you can't even be bothered to actually read the posts you are replying to. What part of this do you disagree with? Why is it not perfectly accurate for me to call you a hypocrite on this point? Btw, it is also hypocritical of you to accuse me of lying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Are you ever going to provide any support for your claim that under his changed conditions justification will always be needed to cause harm to another?

Are you going to apologize for telling me I haven't read his book?

Bump.

Try READING the above post, Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this already. When he said absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve to cause it, it referred back to the word "object." He was distinguishing light from the object when he said a baby will react to the light but will show no indication that he sees objects in the room (which he should if the eyes are a sense organ), no matter how close the objects are or how bright and colorful they may be.

This is just not true, babies will notice an object without any associated sound. Brightly colored or moving objects will attract a babies attention and they will continue to look at it. This is very noticable to anyone who has been around small babies even new borns.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So when he said no object, he was wrong? He should have said no object, other than light - right?

That's what he said.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason it wasn't there is because I took the sentence from another book. Each book was slightly different in some passages, but they meant the same thing. In this version, it said no object, OTHER THAN LIGHT, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes...

And what about the other sentence? Did you find a book that said "nothing, other than light, impinges on the optic nerve"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Try READING the above post, Peacegirl.

Being morally responsible for one's actions is exactly what takes place when we learn the truth of our nature --- that man's will is not free. I've said this countless times. This knowledge brings moral responsibility up to the highest level, but not through blame. You do not understand the two-sided equation even a little bit Spacemonkey.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what he said.

He said both. One of them is wrong. Which of his statements is the correct one?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being morally responsible for one's actions is exactly what takes place when we learn the truth of our nature --- that man's will is not free. I've said this countless times. This knowledge brings moral responsibility up to the highest level, but not through blame. You do not understand the two-sided equation even a little bit Spacemonkey.

What does this have to do with my post? Have you actually read it yet? Do you intend to provide any kind of proper response?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you deaf? I just said don't call me names, and what you do, that very thing. If you don't care whether I converse with you, keep calling me names.

I answered this already. When he said absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve to cause it, it referred back to the word "object."

Why would he say something as insane as "no object impinges on the optic nerve"? Did he think someone believed that lamps and yo-yos entered the eyes to impinge on the optic nerve?

Are you serious with this shit?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't. His point was very clear and I've interpreted it correctly.

You are just trying to correct his misconception now, because it is so glaring.

So? His whole argument was that the eyes are not a sense organ because sense organs use specialized receptors to receive stimuli from the external world.

The eyes sense light using specialized receptors. That makes the eyes a sense organ by the very definition of sense organ Lessans used.

You are such a weasel, trying to twist what he said.

You are adding concepts he made no mention of at all. You are twisting what he said. If he meant all that convoluted crap you are reading into his plainly stated words, why didn't he say that?

The addition of "other than light" in that particular place, completely changed the meaning of the sentence and negated the point he was making.

I know exactly what I am talking about. You got caught trying to correct his misconception and you made it worse because now it looks internally contradictory.

He was wrong, but consistent before you added the words "other than light".

Why you bringing wavelengths into it? He said nothing about that.

And, you're wrong anyway, we have machines that can detect and measure the wavelengths of light as they are reflected or absorbed by objects.

You evaded it. You never answered it. Do you admit it was an incorrect statement...yes or no?

So you are convinced that there are no photoreceptors (which are afferent neurons) in the eyes?

Lessans said nothing (you added "other than light"), and he made no mention at all of reflection. What you are doing is reinterpreting what he said to make it fit the facts you have since become aware of.

You think it's okay to just make shit up that he didn't even say. Your explanation doesn't even make sense in the context of the passage being reviewed.

You are so dishonest....just like a fundie in every way.

You think there are no photoreceptors in the eyes? You think photoreceptors are not afferent? Exactly what part of that statement do you think is right and how is it right?

You missed those words in the book for at least 3 years. You quoted the passage in 2003 and again in 2006 WITHOUT the words "other than light" in that sentence.

You are so full of shit. You suddenly at some point found these three words you missed, but you can't find today in which book they were? Is that passage in his recordings? Did he use "other than light" then? Was it in his published books some of which are available for purchase?

Because you did it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't play these games with me. You know full well that scientists believe that if we were far enough away and in the right location, we would see a past event as far back as Columbus discovering America.

Which has nothing to do with images traveling.

Light travels. Light detectors form images from light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means light, according to their logic, is traveling with the frequency and wavelength that would turn up as a past image in the brain, a mirror, or on film.

Light is traveling with a wavelength because traveling and wavelength are both immutable properties of light. If it wasn't traveling, or didn't have a wavelength, it wouldn't be light.

Light detectors, like cameras and eyes, can detect light. And yes, images can be created from light as can be demonstrated with a photograph, perhaps you've seen one?

Still nothing about traveling images.

No response to this, huh? You never evade though.

[/QUOTE]

bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you deaf? I just said don't call me names, and what you do, that very thing. If you don't care whether I converse with you, keep calling me names.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We cross-posted. I removed the term 'half-wit' from my post after reading your request.

I'm glad that you admit it's not right to be calling me names at this late date. I could accept it early on, but I cannot accept it now. You should know by now that I'm not a liar or a fake. If you don't, we can end the conversation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this already. When he said absolutely nothing impinges on the optic nerve to cause it, it referred back to the word "object." He was distinguishing light from the object when he said a baby will react to the light but will show no indication that he sees objects in the room (which he should if the eyes are a sense organ), no matter how close the objects are or how bright and colorful they may be.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. That's just you trying to reinterpret his words. The passage where he had the words "other than light" does not explicitly state that light impinges on the optic nerve. It makes an exception for what can get a reaction from a baby, but it does not make an exception for what is striking the optic nerve. Maybe you think that is what he really meant, or what he had intended to write, but that is an interpretation on your part and it is not what he actually wrote.

It is implicit in the phrase if you understood anything at all he wrote. I have no problem putting this phrase in the book (which I did) along with the more direct quote --- other than light impinging on the optic nerve.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

"Absolutely nothing" means just that. It does not allow for light as an exception. And it doesn't make any sense to think these words referred back to the word 'object' such that he really meant only that absolutely no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. That would be a ridiculous strawman. Who has ever thought that the eyes being a sense organ would require a car to drive right into your eyes before you could see it?

Do you speak English? This absolutely refers back to the first part of the sentence. No, he did not imply that a car would have to drive right into your eyes. All that is required is for the car to be within your visual range, which is very different from your scenario which is based on afferent vision, the very thing that is being disputed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Anyway, it is not even what you were being asked about, which is why there are two versions of both passages.

Huh? There are two versions because he changed his wording from time to time, but that did not change the concept at all. You are grasping at anything you can to try to prove him wrong, just like others in here. But it can't be done if he isn't wrong. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? You cannot bring him down because HE IS NOT WRONG SPACEMONKEY! DEAL WITH IT!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Calling you a hypocrite was not an expletive and it was not a lie. Like I said, it is blatantly hypocritical to complain of others allegedly not conscientiously reading Lessans' book when you can't even be bothered to actually read the posts you are replying to. What part of this do you disagree with? Why is it not perfectly accurate for me to call you a hypocrite on this point? Btw, it is also hypocritical of you to accuse me of lying.

I read the posts I am replying to, and I will say again that you do not understand these principles one iota. I do not like being called a hypocrite and a liar, so please stop it or we don't have to continue the conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You missed those words in the book for at least 3 years. You quoted the passage in 2003 and again in 2006 WITHOUT the words "other than light" in that sentence.

You are so full of shit. You suddenly at some point found these three words you missed, but you can't find today in which book they were? Is that passage in his recordings? Did he use "other than light" then? Was it in his published books some of which are available for purchase?

Because you did it.

Which has nothing to do with images traveling.

Light travels. Light detectors form images from light.

Light is traveling with a wavelength because traveling and wavelength are both immutable properties of light. If it wasn't traveling, or didn't have a wavelength, it wouldn't be light.

Light detectors, like cameras and eyes, can detect light. And yes, images can be created from light as can be demonstrated with a photograph, perhaps you've seen one?

Still nothing about traveling images.

No response to this, huh? You never evade though.

I hope you have the humility to apologize when you find out that he did write "other than light" in his books. I might have missed this phrase because there were probably sentences that did not have these words. All I know is that I did not add "other than light", to correct something he did. He wrote these words. You are so arrogant I don't think you could ever say I'm sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would he say something as insane as "no object impinges on the optic nerve"? Did he think someone believed that lamps and yo-yos entered the eyes to impinge on the optic nerve?

Are you serious with this shit?

Where did he say that? He said: ...no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it. That is true.

There is no light being reflected whereby the infant would show a response since no image is impinging on the optic nerve and being interpreted by the brain, as in the other senses. Light is impinging on the optic nerve, that is true, which is why he said "other than light." Once again, he is making a distinction between light which causes the pupils to dilate and contract, and light which brings information (the the form of an image) to the infant's brain which would cause a reaction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I read the posts I am replying to, and I will say again that you do not understand these principles one iota. I do not like being called a hypocrite and a liar, so please stop it or we don't have to continue the conversation.

You just lied again. You replied to my post yesterday without having read it. I know this because you replied by demanding that I explain exactly what the post you were replying to clearly explained. You replied to the post without reading it. That was hypocritical. And now you are lying about it. If you don't like being called a hypocrite and a liar, then you need to stop lying and being hypocritical. And if you were capable of ending this conversation you would have done so long ago. Also, every time you reply by telling someone they don't understand Lessans at all - without actually correcting them on anything - then you are weaseling. By all means, correct us if we appear to have misunderstood him or you on some specific point, but replying only to say that we just don't understand is a pointless weaseling self-defense mechanism you use to avoid addressing objections and to rationalize to yourself why no-one agrees with his claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad that you admit it's not right to be calling me names at this late date. I could accept it early on, but I cannot accept it now. You should know by now that I'm not a liar or a fake. If you don't, we can end the conversation.

I don't think you are a fake, but you most certainly are a liar. You lie constantly. I don't think you can help it. If you think you are capable of ending this conversation then go right ahead.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is implicit in the phrase if you understood anything at all he wrote. I have no problem putting this phrase in the book (which I did) along with the more direct quote --- other than light impinging on the optic nerve.

It is not 'implicit in the phrase' at all. He wrote what he wrote, but you wish he wrote something else - something a little less obviously wrong. He never said or implied that light impinges on the optic nerve. Not once. You made him say that by editing his words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you speak English? This absolutely refers back to the first part of the sentence. No, he did not imply that a car would have to drive right into your eyes. All that is required is for the car to be within your visual range, which is very different from your scenario which is based on afferent vision, the very thing that is being disputed.

The interpretation you are insisting upon, in your attempt to justify your botched editing, has Lessans denying that the eyes are sense organs by arguing against the idea that the objects of vision themselves to travel into the eye to strike the receptors. Lessans said "absolutely nothing" impinges on the optic nerve. You say that this is referring back to the word 'object' such that he really meant that no objects of vision impinge on the optic nerve. But that is a stupid thing for him to say. No-one has ever believed that objects themselves travel into the eye to be seen, and it is no more required than having objects travel into your ears to be heard. Why would he be saying that objects themselves don't impinge on the optic nerve? Did he think anyone has ever thought they do? Or that this is what the eyes being a sense organ would require? Your interpretation makes him look even more ridiculous than he already does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? There are two versions because he changed his wording from time to time, but that did not change the concept at all. You are grasping at anything you can to try to prove him wrong, just like others in here. But it can't be done if he isn't wrong. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? You cannot bring him down because HE IS NOT WRONG SPACEMONKEY! DEAL WITH IT!!

I don't have to deal with your made up facts. Lessans was dead wrong - about a wide range of things - and you can't deal with it, even on the points you know he was wrong about (e.g. no afferent nerve endings in the eyes). On the present point, we want to know why the words "other than light" disappeared from the one passage and reappeared in the other passage. It looks like you realized he was wrong about there being nothing from the external world impinging upon the receptors in the eye, found him saying "other than light" in another passage (which you wrongly thought to be making an exception for light striking the receptors), and then tried to copy the phrase from the one passage into the other, not realizing that you were changing his meaning, and then accidentally managing to delete the phrase from its original location as you copied it over. Do you have any better explanation for why the phrase appears in the one passage while disappearing from the other?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Are you ever going to provide any support for your claim that under his changed conditions justification will always be needed to cause harm to another?

Are you going to apologize for telling me I haven't read his book?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you have the humility to apologize when you find out that he did write "other than light" in his books. .

You found "other than light" in a completely different sentence and different context than the one that was originally under discussion.

Did you find the book with "other than light" in the passage that starts with the definition of sense organs? Did you figure out how by adding it to that passage you negated the whole differentiation he was trying to make?

I will not apologize. I think you are lying

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did he say that? He said: ...no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it. That is true.

There is no light being reflected whereby the infant would show a response since no image is impinging on the optic nerve and being interpreted by the brain, as in the other senses. Light is impinging on the optic nerve, that is true, which is why he said "other than light." Once again, he is making a distinction between light which causes the pupils to dilate and contract, and light which brings information (the the form of an image) to the infant's brain which would cause a reaction.

Nobody thinks images impinge on anything. Light enters the eye and causes a reaction with the photoreceptors. Not images, just light. How many times do you have to be corrected before you can remember not to use this idiotic strawman?

Light is light, so what on Earth could he be differentiating between? Are you now saying that light has different properties than it is known and proven to have?

Are you prepared to directly confront the laws of physics now? Let's start with the properties of light as is known for a fact and as was believed by Lessans.

How does the "object" fit in here? What do you mean that "nothing" refers to the "object"? What object are you talking about?

[LadyShea]

There is no light being reflected

Why not? Reflected from what?

whereby the infant would show a response

They respond to light, according to you and Lessans

since no image is impinging on the optic nerve and being interpreted by the brain

Duh! Nobody said images impinge on the optic nerve in the first place...stupid ass strawman, remember?

as in the other senses.

What? Of course images do not impinge on the optic nerve in the other senses. What comparison were you trying to make here?

Stimuli are received by specialized receptors in all of the senses, which is the definition of sense even according to Lessans, and this is absolutely true of the eyes. What difference are you completely failing to convey here?

Light is impinging on the optic nerve, that is true, which is why he said "other than light."

That is all that is required for the eyes to be a sense organ according to the definition.

Once again, he is making a distinction between light which causes the pupils to dilate and contract, and light which brings information (the the form of an image) to the infant's brain which would cause a reaction.

Changing the laws of physics...go!