A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, so now you are going off onto Stephens bullshit: I am so disgusted with you, as a spokesperson for this forum, I am going to the toilet to throw up.

Histrionic shit fit! You do realize you are here voluntarily, right?

What we said is absolutely true. Frivolous and self serving lawsuits waste time and money.

And LOL at "spokesperson for the forum". Nobody here has asked for nor needs me to speak for them...where do you come up with this shit?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Writing to the President

He didn't just write to the President, he filed a lawsuit against him. I write to the President several times a year via the White House email system as do many citizens...that's not a crazy thing to do at all....that's just communication.

Writing to someone and suing them are two different things. You get that right? A filed lawsuit requires the court to actually address it.

[LadyShea]

Maturin is no more anonymous than the rest of us are, nor more anonymous than 95% of people on the Internet, why do you single him out for "not showing his face"?

In fact, I think your failure to hide your identity on past forums is the only reason you aren't anonymous here at yourself.

Would you have continued to hide the fact that Lessans was your father if that information wasn't easily found because Lessans used your name in the book, and you used your real name online, and careful readers put two and two together?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, don't make me feel that you are as closed-minded as koan. I don't have the time to bicker about stupid things. This would make me lose my interest in talking to you altogether. Lessans knew the difficulty, but he took the shot as a calculated risk. He obviously lost, but he did it because he needed an audience and he tried to do whatever it took. You can blame him until the cows come home, but his motives were pure. It's true that his efforts failed due to the fact that he was an unknown. People that are not celebrities or endorsed by the established universites get the raw deal. He was one of those that got the raw deal.

He was also a realist and he dealt with this by the fact that he didn't have people coming to him with open arms as the best way he could. He was extremely accepting of everyone's questions, but he has still been condemned. Why is he being condemned? Please spare me from telling me it's all faith based. I will not answer you. Writing to the President was a last ditch effort just like it was with Gregor Mendel. I don't need to hear the minutia that says he did not struggle to prove his case. He did, but he was not listened to, sort of like what's happening here. I believe his account of efferent vision and no free will can be verified EVENTUALLY, which may pose a problem becasue everyone wants an immediate answer.

And btw, anonymous is so wrong in his conclusions, I feel like I"m stepping on Lessans' grave, but he would have understood. Anonymous, for what this is worth (which is nothing because you will try to find flaws and feel justified in ruining my reputation, Lessans paid for his suit that would have evenutally gone public. He hid nothing and paid in full what was due. Everything that he did came out of his own pocket, not the government which anomymous is accusing him of with words that are so demeaning to this major discovery that I could slap him the face if he dared to show it to me in real life. How sad it that? Lessans never leached on the government to pay his way.

Anonymous, defend what I am saying without the cursing. YOU CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A SNEAK AND A FRAUD.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, don't make me feel that you are closed-minded with an air of open-mindedness that is not open-minded in ANY SENSE OF THE WORD. If you continue to do this, I will lose my interest in talking to you altogether as an objective scientist (which you yourself admit you are not). Lessans knew the difficult task ahead of him, but he took the shot. He needed an audience and he tried to do it through ordinary means. That failed due to the fact that he was an unknown, but he thought that by explaining his astute observations (that had taken him years to observe), he may have been respected enough to get (at the very least) some kind of welcome. This was not to happen. Following this disappointment, he had to figure out a way to adjust how to to the ignorance of people who had no clue of what he had even discovered. Don't you see the problem here?

And to answer anonymous (I will never talk to this man directly again unless he comes to his senses, which I do not believe will happen unless there's a miracle), Lessans paid for the suit to the President out of his own pocket. What are you going to say now to redeeem yourself anonymous? You will find something, but it will mean nothing. The fact that you can't show your face is very telling. You are a coward.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't just write to the President, he filed a lawsuit against him. I write to the President several times a year via the White House email system as do many citizens...that's not a crazy thing to do at all....that's just communication.

Writing to someone and suing them are two different things. You get that right? A filed lawsuit requires the court to actually address it.

LadyShea, it was a real lawsuit but he did this out of desperation knowing he would probably never get to address the President. He also paid for the filing. It never got to court because it was dismissed. Writing a letter would not have gotten him the attention that this knowledge is deserving of. That's why he did what he did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maturin is no more anonymous than the rest of us are, nor more anonymous than 95% of people on the Internet, why do you single him out for "not showing his face"?

Why? It's what he says that sets him apart. He is especially mean-spirited. If Lessans turns out to be right, he will be very sorry for the things he has said, but he knows he would be protected because he used a pseudonym. You would have no reason to have this kind of regret even if you used your real name.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In fact, I think your failure to hide your identity on past forums is the only reason you aren't anonymous here at yourself.

They could have found my identity on past forums, but they didn't care to look. I didn't say I was not his daughter, I just didn't announce it. You looked for my identity online thinking this was some kind of proof that this discovery wasn't genuine, which is exactly why I didn't want to say I was his daughter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would you have continued to hide the fact that Lessans was your father if that information wasn't easily found because Lessans used your name in the book, and you used your real name online, and careful readers put two and two together?

I chose to keep my name in the book because I knew eventually people would find out, and I didn't want to be anonymous forever. I just didn't want it to be known in the beginning because I knew people would use it against me, which they did.

and if you were in his shoes you would have done the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can guarantee I would not sue the POTUS for not giving me an audience to hear an idea I had.

You don't know that, that's just the point. What you are doing is criticizing someone's choices that you can't imagine from your vantage point because you were not in the same situation. Lessans had no choice in the matter, and neither would you have had any choice in the matter, given the same exact set of circumstances.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have the time to bicker about stupid things.

And yet you do. You've been doing precisely that for 9 years and counting.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I say that LadyShea? I said the exact opposite: that efferent vision does not change the speed of light or any known measurable properties.

That light hitting an object and not being absorbed bounces off and travels away from it is an empirically observed and measurable property of light that you are disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes were not efferent, it wouldn't matter whether the object was in view or not because photons would be bringing the image to the retina...

This is not what the afferent account says at all. It does not say that the photons bring an image to the retina.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just repeating the exact thing Lessans is disputing.

Yes. They are also the known measurable properties of light - which you and Lessans are disputing. What happens to these non-absorbed photons after they hit an object, if they don't bounce off and travel away from it? Don't just say that they "reveal the object". You need to explain where they are and where they are going immediately after hitting the object that allows them to do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your interpretation, and I believe it's wrong. It is true that part of the spectrum that got absorbed is no longer there. The question is what is happening with the non-absorbed light. Is it bouncing and being reflected, or is it revealing the external world to those who are looking in that direction?

The non-absorbed light can't affect the retina or a film without coming into contact with it. It can't come into contact with it without traveling there at the speed of light. If it gets there any faster then it is violating physics by either teleporting or traveling faster than light. If you think otherwise, then please go ahead and explain where these non-absorbed photons are immediately after hitting the object, and how they can interact with the film or retina to 'reveal the external world' without first getting to the film or retina, and taking time to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why we only get on the retina the non-absorbed photons which allow us to see the object. But the question remains...

The question that remains is this: How do the non-absorbed photons allow us to see the object on your account, given that they start at the object and can't affect the retina in any way without first getting from the object to the retina?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That window analogy is not useless at all because it gives someone an image of what the brain is doing at birth (this ability to focus the eyes in order to see what it is experiencing when it is stimulated by the other senses), and it makes more sense when spoken in these familiar terms.

It is worse than useless, because the analogy suggests the brain is doing something it cannot possibly do (looking without having eyes). And when interpreted in the only sense in which it is not completely wrong, it doesn't say anything that the afferent account doesn't already agree with. In one sense it is misleading and wrong. In the other sense it is trivially true and fails to distinguish efferent from afferent vision in any way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you can say it, but it doesn't mean it's true.

You haven't shown that it is not. You haven't shown any contradiction in compatibilism, or any reason to think it is not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That compatibilist kind of freedom is no different than the standard definition of free will, which means it's a contradiction.

But it is different. I have repeatedly explained to you the difference, and you keep ignoring it and telling me they are the same when they are not.

I carefully explained the difference the compatibilist kind of freedom and the libertarian/contra-causal kind of freedom in the very post you just replied to. I said:

The above definition of compatibilist free will differs from libertarian or contra-causal free will in that it allows for a person's choices and actions to be fully determined by previous causes. Being caused does not involve any compulsion or coercion, and the ability to act in accordance with one's choice allows for that choice to have been causally determined.

Why do you keep telling me they are the same, while ignoring my explanations of the difference?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course people change their choices according to slightly different antecedent conditions, but this just shows that one's choices are everchanging depending on new circumstances each and every moment of time. Where does this change the fact that one's choices are not free? This doesn't show that we have free will, and your believing that it does shows me how very confused you are about the knowledge in the book that you think you are now an expert on.

It shows that we have the compatibilist kind of free will I defined for you (and which differs from the contra-causal/libertarian definition):

Compatibilism is consistent because it doesn't say that we both have and do not have free will. It says only that having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is all that is needed for one to be morally responsible for one's actions. It says that contra-causal free will is not the only kind of free will, and that it is not the kind needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. If you see some kind of contradiction here, then the burden is upon you to identify it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The light composing the mirror image is very much the issue here, because this is supposed to be the means by which the eyes see the object in real time. And yes, the light at the retina is separate from the object itself, and they are two different entities. The object is composed of atoms and not photons, while the light is composed of photons and not atoms. They cannot be one and the same entity. If they were, then the light traveling to the retina would involve the object itself traveling into the eyes to be seen. Even you know that is just plain silly.

So I am not wrong to treat light and the object as distinct entities. But you are clearly wrong in your contradictory account of these 'mirror image' photons at the retina. You have asserted and maintained each of the following claims:

1) The mirror image at the retina (on Earth) consists of light, i.e. photons.
2) These photons traveled to get there.
3) The mirror image is at the retina on Earth before any light has yet arrived on Earth.

These claims are obviously contradictory. So which one of them is wrong? Which one are you going to retract? Because no-one will ever consider efferent vision to be plausible while it remains contradictory.

That's not true. I will go back and bump for you the posts you did not address.

Yes, you did. But I did not agree to write a review. I assumed you would not be interested in a review from me. The offer I made was to donate a copy of the book to my local university philosophy department. That was the agreement.

It is a trivial point to say that the brain and eyes together look outwards, because no-one has ever thought or claimed otherwise. On BOTH the efferent AND afferent accounts, we look outwards and see the world as it is. On the efferent account this is explained in terms of the perception of a mental image due to inwardly transmitted information from the impinging light. On the efferent account it is NOT EXPLAINED at all.

Strawman. The afferent account does not say that light travels with the pattern of an object. The only pattern involved is one you agree with - blue light bouncing off the blue parts of an object, and red light off the red parts, etc. Everyone agrees that light reveals objects to us, but you can't explain how it does so in real-time without contradicting yourself. Your present contradiction involves light traveling to and arriving at the retina on Earth before any light has traveled to or arrived at the Earth.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That light hitting an object and not being absorbed bounces off and travels away from it is an empirically observed and measurable property of light that you are disagreeing with.

It's true that non-absorbed light can be measured, but the empirical observation that light sends information through space/time long after the event is gone, is suspect. Conclusive proof has not been established; only circumstantial evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes were not efferent, it wouldn't matter whether the object was in view or not because photons would be bringing the image to the retina...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is not what the afferent account says at all. It does not say that the photons bring an image to the retina.

Light (or photons) strikes the retina where it is then relayed to the brain for interpretation. Why are you playing these semantic games with me at this late date?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that non-absorbed light can be measured, but the empirical observation that light sends information through space/time long after the event is gone, is suspect. Conclusive proof has not been established; only circumstantial evidence.

WEASEL! I didn't say anything here about light sending information through space/time. I said that it is a directly observable and measurable fact that - CONTRARY TO YOU AND LESSANS - the nonabsorbed light DOES bounce off and travel away from the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light (or photons) strikes the retina where it is then relayed to the brain for interpretation. Why are you playing these semantic games with me at this late date?

I am correcting you because you persist in strawmanning the afferent account, claiming it says things which it does not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't shown that it is not. You haven't shown any contradiction in compatibilism, or any reason to think it is not true.

But it is different. I have repeatedly explained to you the difference, and you keep ignoring it and telling me they are the same when they are not.

I carefully explained the difference the compatibilist kind of freedom and the libertarian/contra-causal kind of freedom in the very post you just replied to. I said:

The above definition of compatibilist free will differs from libertarian or contra-causal free will in that it allows for a person's choices and actions to be fully determined by previous causes. Being caused does not involve any compulsion or coercion, and the ability to act in accordance with one's choice allows for that choice to have been causally determined.

Why do you keep telling me they are the same, while ignoring my explanations of the difference?

It shows that we have the compatibilist kind of free will I defined for you (and which differs from the contra-causal/libertarian definition):

Compatibilism is consistent because it doesn't say that we both have and do not have free will. It says only that having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is all that is needed for one to be morally responsible for one's actions. It says that contra-causal free will is not the only kind of free will, and that it is not the kind needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. If you see some kind of contradiction here, then the burden is upon you to identify it.

You really are in denial Spacemonkey. Not being coerced (or being able to choose freely without compulsion or necessity) IS the standard definition of free will. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you believe people have free will, then you get to keep your blame and punishment, but if you believe that man has no free will (because his actions are caused by antecedent events), then you do not get to keep your blame and punishment because he had no choice. If you can't even accept this as a starting point, it's no wonder we have never been able to make a dent in this book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

WEASEL! I didn't say anything here about light sending information through space/time. I said that it is a directly observable and measurable fact that - CONTRARY TO YOU AND LESSANS - the nonabsorbed light DOES bounce off and travel away from the object.

I am correcting you because you persist in strawmanning the afferent account, claiming it says things which it does not.

What was I saying that was a strawman other than taking a shortcut in my wording? You know that when I say images are not being reflected that I don't believe light is carrying an image, like baskets carrying apples. It's just a quicker way to express the same concept that has already been explained numerous times.

[LadyShea]

the empirical observation that light sends information through space/time long after the event is gone, is suspect. Conclusive proof has not been established; only circumstantial evidence.

Light IS the information. It doesn't send or bring or carry information as a separate entity.

Light travels until and unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other type of energy (this is an immutable property of light)

So why is this suspect? Do you think electromagnetic energy somehow ceases to exist? Do you think it changes its properties while traveling?

Conclusive proof that light is information that can travel through space/time long after an event is gone

The Hubble Deep Field

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anonymous, for what this is worth (which is nothing because you will try to find flaws and feel justified in ruining my reputation,

Your reputation here is that of an insane lying idiot. What's to ruin?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans paid for his suit that would have evenutally gone public.

I have no doubt that someone1 paid a filing fee when Daddy Dumbfuck submitted his frivolous piece of shit complaint to the clerk of the court. Complaints don't get filed otherwise.

Of course, that wasn't what I asked. But you knew that, didn't you, leech?

Finally, what's with the "would have eventually gone public" nonsense? Lessans' frivolous complaint became a matter of public record the minute it was filed. You are an ignoramus.

1Most likely it was Lessans' spouse. Seymouron himself was far too busy with vry srs bsns to spend much time on piffle like earning a living, so I strongly suspect that your mother was the principal breadwinner. Good on her!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anonymous, defend what I am saying without the cursing.

No can do! Everything that falls from your dissembling maw is a lie and/or a spectacular idiocy. There's no defending your indefensible statements, cussing or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so disgusted with you, as a spokesperson for this forum, I am going to the toilet to throw up.

I see your hysteria comes in Original Recipe and Extra Crispy. That right there is Extra Crispy! Have you been hitting the liquor harder than usual today?

And who made you spokesperson of the forum? I need to have a long talk with drusus about (1) her hiring criteria and (2) getting you fired for drinking of the job.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I was not his daughter,

Yes, you did. It wasn't all that long ago, either. You got caught immediately and were forced to admit you lied. Then, of course, you immediately spewed a bunch of cowardly self-justificatory bullshit designed to absolve yourself of responsibility. Because, after all, that's how the Lessans clan rolls.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans had no choice in the matter, and neither would you have had any choice in the matter, given the same exact set of circumstances.

Of course he had a choice, and what he chose to do was waste government resources on a patently frivolous lawsuit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, it was a real lawsuit

We know that, leech. The question is why did you tell that preposterous lie about the lawsuit being a mere letter to the president, especially after you've been busted telling the same lie multiple times before?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is a laughably inaccurate explanation of the standard model of sight, and why you are so confused all the time peacegirl

1. There is nothing in optics about light reflecting anything. Light is reflected in the scientific model, light doesn't reflect

2. Electric images is the same idiotic strawman you've stuck to forever and it makes 0 sense and makes you sound stupid

3. Since there are no "reflected electric images" of things light has touched, there are no reflected electric images of things light has touched traveling through space

Lessans completely misunderstood the standard model peacegirl, so you are stuck trying to defend his mistaken ideas.

No shit! Nobody has ever said images are reflected. That's a strawman. Misunderstanding of optics on full display here!

Bump

[Vivisectus]

It's true that non-absorbed light can be measured, but the empirical observation that light sends information through space/time long after the event is gone, is suspect. Conclusive proof has not been established; only circumstantial evidence.

So you consider the following "circumstantial":

1: The retina is full of photoreceptors. Some are specialized in detecting contrast, others are specialized in detecting colours. These are connected to an afferent nerve that can only transmit impulses one way.

2: A camera, which only has simple light-detectors, detects the same image.

3: Objects that we can see in one place, are being hit by our probes somewhere else!

But, "My dad said so", no THAT is ironclad evidence!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

WEASEL! I didn't say anything here about light sending information through space/time. I said that it is a directly observable and measurable fact that - CONTRARY TO YOU AND LESSANS - the nonabsorbed light DOES bounce off and travel away from the object.

There's no proof of that Spacemonkey. It's assumed. There's no proof that non-absorbed photons get reflected. White light strikes objects and goes in the direction of the angle, but non-absorbed photons do not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light (or photons) strikes the retina where it is then relayed to the brain for interpretation. Why are you playing these semantic games with me at this late date?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am correcting you because you persist in strawmanning the afferent account, claiming it says things which it does not.

And I'm telling you for the sake of brevity, I will say use terms like "pattern", carrying, or whatever. You should know what I mean by now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really are in denial Spacemonkey. Not being coerced (or being able to choose freely without compulsion or necessity) IS the standard definition of free will. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I didn't say anything about an absence of necessity though, did I? Have you considered actually reading what I posted?

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Are you seeing the difference between the two yet? Being caused does not involve any compulsion or coercion, and the ability to act in accordance with one's choice allows for that choice to have been causally determined. So the compatibilist notion of freedom is consistent with being causally determined, while the contra-causal notion of freedom is not. They are DIFFERENT. They are NOT the same. Compatibilism says the former rather than the latter is all that is needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you have yet to show this to be wrong or contradictory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I am not going to repeat myself a thousand times. I know that an image is not actually being reflected, but the pattern of non-absorbed light IS believed to be reflected, which is not a strawman because that is what the afferent account states. If I say "images are not being reflected", you should know what I mean by now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no proof of that Spcemonkey. It's assumed. Non-absorbed photons DO NOT get reflected. White light travels, not non-absorbed photons. There's no proof that non-absorbed light bounces off of objects and travels.

No, it is not assumed. It is directly observed. You can see it for yourself. Simply shine a flashlight off a mirror in a darkened room. You will see the light that is not absorbed bounce off the mirror and hit the wall. Put some red colored paint or cellophane on the mirror, and you will see that the mirror now absorbs the non-red light from your torch while the non-absorbed red light from the flashlight bounces off and hits the wall. And worse, you have absolutely no explanation for where the non-absorbed light goes if it doesn't bounce off and travel away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm telling you for the sake of brevity, I will say use terms like "pattern", carrying, or whatever. You should know what I mean by now.

You should know by now what you mean, but unfortunately you don't. Because the only pattern or information involved on our account is something you agree with. The only things you keep denying (other than the light-speed delay, whose alleged absence you cannot explain) are things that the afferent account does not claim.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are clearly wrong in your contradictory account of these 'mirror image' photons at the retina. You have asserted and maintained each of the following claims:

1) The mirror image at the retina (on Earth) consists of light, i.e. photons.
2) These photons traveled to get there.
3) The mirror image is at the retina on Earth before any light has yet arrived on Earth.

These claims are obviously contradictory. So which one of them is wrong? Which one are you going to retract? Because no-one will ever consider efferent vision to be plausible while it remains contradictory.

BUMP.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say anything about an absence of necessity though, did I? Have you considered actually reading what I posted?

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Are you seeing the difference between the two yet? Being caused does not involve any compulsion or coercion, and the ability to act in accordance with one's choice allows for that choice to have been causally determined. So the compatibilist notion of freedom is consistent with being causally determined, while the contra-causal notion of freedom is not. They are DIFFERENT. They are NOT the same. Compatibilism says the former rather than the latter is all that is needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you have yet to show this to be wrong or contradictory.

The compatibilist position is still contradictory. They tried to solve the contradiction by making it seem that a person, even though he is caused to do what he does, is still morally responsible and therefore blameworthy. Being caused to do something is the very definition of being under a compulsion. That compulsion is desire pushing someone in a particular direction due to his circumstances and background. You can't say someone was caused to do something and in the next breath say he chose freely and is deserving of punishment. You can believe in free will though, and justify punishment, but you can't believe in both free will and determinism and reconcile these two opposing positions in this way.