A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dear imaginary readers peacegirl is addressing, I found the passage by reading the book, how else would I have found it? I have the .pdf version of the book still so can check any references peacegirl wants me to (it had been misplaced but I found it in my Google drive).

Once again, I am asking peacegirl to provide this alleged missing context, from the book and chapter. She can't do it, so is appealing to you to dismiss my valid criticism of the text itself because she is a weasel. I have quoted the passage accurately.

Unless you read the entire chapter (which you did not), I'm not interested in providing the missing context that you left out. If you had read the book the way it was meant to be read, you wouldn't have this kind of reaction. You are doing the very thing Lessans tried to prevent, but no, LadyShea had to jump ahead and ruin the whole meaning behind that excerpt.

Folks, this is someone who never read the book, let alone the chapter. She pulled a few words out of the .pdf when I first joined, and used this to make it seem like I was a troll, and now she's using this as fodder against Lessans again. Don't listen to her, she is so determined to make Lessans look ridiculous, that if you're not careful you will join the bandwagon of naysayers because it's so easy to do especially in a group setting where there is an underdog. It's like the wolves come out to attack the weaker of the group. This is not the sign of an open-minded individual.

Your criticism is absolutely ridiculous. Calling what he said dehumanizing shows me that you understood nothing in regard to that statement. Read the chapter and get back to me, because you obviously skimmed it and pulled sentences off the page. No one would have misinterpreted what he said had they read the chapter in the proper sequence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your own linked source gives two definitions for both 'compulsion' and 'compel':

Definition of COMPULSION
1 a : an act of compelling : the state of being compelled
b : a force that compels
2: an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act (as excessive hand washing); also : the act itself

Definition of COMPEL
1: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>
2: to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly <hunger compelled him to eat>

In each case it is only the first definition which involves causation, and it is instead the second definition which is in use in the explanations of compatibilism I have given you. So YOU are the one using the word 'compulsion' with the wrong reference. Because in arguing against compatibilism on the basis of the first definitions, you are arguing against a strawman. What compatibilism actually says concerns only the second definitions, against which you have no argument whatsoever.

Compatibilists offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias). Such compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarianism and hard determinism a false dilemma.

Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is not the only definition of free will Spacemonkey. The second definition is the same except for intensity (i.e., a strong compulsion to do something). The standard definition of free will does not only mean being free from a compulsive disorder, and it is not defined as being free from coercion (physical constraints), psychological constraints (compulsions or phobias), or social constraints (threats of punishment). It means having the ability to choose one thing over another from among various alternatives. That makes their version of free will and determinism incompatible no matter how it is sliced.

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bumping the heinous crap that is Lessans ideas about love and relationships. In the entire chapter, Lessans never once mentions companionship, shared interests, personality, humor, goals and dreams, or anything else denoting people relating to each other with their minds as well as their bodies.

There you go again, pulling sentences out of order to give people a complete misinterpretation of his words. He was talking about the unadulterated meaning of romantic love, which is sex. Sex is not a dirty word and to have a loving romantic relationship (which is driven by a natural desire to procreate), sex is involved if you haven't noticed. There's nothing wrong about that, so stop trying to make him look perverted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem entertaining the idea that "someone could come online and have an authentic discovery". What I do have a problem with is your insistence that Lessans made such a discovery when all of the available evidence demonstrates that he did no such thing and no evidence has been offered in support of the claim that he did make such a discovery.

Angakuk, can you explain the discovery which you claim to understand so well? If you can, maybe your words would be impactful, otherwise you had better read the book again before saying that there's no evidence, which you certainly cannot defend.

[Vivisectus]

But he did feel that love is a purely physical process, that had nothing to do with personality or anything else. To such a degree that he said everyone would simply marry the first person they would ever have sex with, somewhere in puberty.

No-matter who that person is. Human relationships are reduced to a sort of brief mating ritual, in a way that reminds me of monogamous birds. You yourself said "personality won't matter, because there won't be any bad personalities any more."

As if you need to be with a person with a bad personality to be in a bad relationship. You don't: you just need to be with an incompatible person.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have asked this question before, and got no response from you. So, here it is again.

On what basis do you claim that blame cannot be assigned, or punishment administered, if man's will is not free?

The basis that blame cannot be assigned or punishment administered is the very fact that if man's will is not free, he cannot be held responsible. But this poses a major obstacle, for how can we not blame and punish people for huting others? This has been a major stumbling block and as of yet no one has been able to come up with an adequate answer to this dilemma until now. Chapter Two addresses this.

CHAPTER TWO
THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that
man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we
cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like
Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we
must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that we are
going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide
rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and
transmute the baser mettles of human nature into the pure gold of the
Golden Age even though it presents what appears to be an
insurmountable problem for how is it possible not to blame people
who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t
want to.

The solution, however, only requires the perception and
extension of relations which cannot be denied, and this mathematical
corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the
infinite wisdom of God which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that
you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement.
This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have not only
without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an
amazing degree. However, the problems that confront us at this
moment are very complex which make it necessary to treat every
aspect of our lives in a separate, yet related, manner. God, not me, is
finally going to reveal the solution.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

BUMP.

BUMP!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

On what basis? The fact that if man's will is not free, he is not responsible for his choices. But this poses a major obstacle...

It poses a direct contradiction right at the heart of Lessans' non-discovery. If a man is not responsible for his choices, and he knows this, then he will have a clear conscience no matter what he does, for he will know that he is not responsible for anything he chooses to do.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1097807][quote=Spacemonkey;1097595]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

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.

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?

Efferent sight cannot be analyzed in terms of traveling photons, as if these photons contain the image alone. This is where you are having problems. I don't want to continue this conversation at this time (maybe at a later date) because I have more important things to talk about right now (i.e., how to achieve world peace).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent sight cannot be analyzed in terms of traveling photons, as if these photons contain the image alone. This is where you are having problems. I don't want to continue this conversation at this time (maybe at a later date) because I have more important things to talk about right now (i.e., how to achieve world peace).

Your weaseling avoidance is noted. I will bring it up again next time you steer the discussion away from conscience and free will back to vision. Until then efferent vision will continue to be rejected due to your contradictory claims about the behavior of light on your account.

In the meantime, are you able to show me any support at all for your claim that under his changed conditions, one will be unable to harm another without a justification? Can you support this or not? If yes, then please do so.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not denying the properties of absorption and non-absorption. But to say that non-absorbed photons travel forever and ever no matter how old the universe is --- and that if we were in just the right place for light to strike our eyes, we would see an ancient event such as Columbus discovering America, is a false observation and one that needs careful reevaluation. Please do not answer this post, or you will say that I am ignoring you.

Why should I not reply? Do you think you should be allowed to get away with the above evasion?

I didn't say anything about photons traveling forever and ever, or about seeing Columbus. You made a very specific claim - that "There's no proof that non-absorbed light bounces off of objects and travels". The point of my post was simply that this is an incorrect claim. That nonabsorbed light bounces off objects and travels away is an observable fact anyone can check for themselves. And you have no alternative explanation for where these photons go if (contrary to physics and direct observation) they do not bounce off and travel away.

All you can do is avoid the point by changing the topic, and then begging me not to point out your dishonest evasion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get to use a term in the way it is normally defined Spacemonkey.

You can use your words in any way that you like, but if you insist on defining a term differently to how it is being used by those you are arguing against, then you will be arguing against a strawman instead of the view they are actually expressing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't insist you do anything at all. Do what you want, and define terms any way that you want, but you won't get any closer to the truth. Non-causal compulsion is an oxymoron.

Here you make a valid point. "Non-causal compulsion" was a very poor choice of words on my part. Obviously all compulsion will be causal. The point of the distinction I was making is that some (of what you wish to call) compulsion is merely causal, while there is also a stronger form of compulsion which involves a strong and experienced psychological impulse towards a certain action that one feels unable to act against. Consider a drug addict choosing to inject himself (or you choosing to continue posting here). There is a strong and experienced psychological compulsion which involves more than merely being caused to choose as one does. It is a causal influence which overrides all other causal factors, rendering the final choice largely immune from influence by changes in any other antecedent circumstances.

A causally determined choice need not involve any such experienced psychological compulsion. I can be caused to choose toast over cereal for breakfast without feeling compelled to choose one over the other. The choice is still rigid in the sense that given those exact antecedent circumstances I would always have chosen the same. But it is not rigid in the stronger sense involved in the kind of compulsion compatibilists speak of. In this case the choice is rigid across not only the actual antecedent circumstances, but also a wide range of counterfactually differing circumstances. The drug addict will still inject himself even if offered a great deal not to do so, or if the consequences are known to be very bad. Differing antecedent circumstances will not be likely to result in a different choice given this kind of compulsion.

Compatibilism says that freedom from coercion and this stronger sense of compulsion is all that is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. It says that merely being caused to choose as one does (regardless of whether or not you wish to also call this 'compulsion') does not prevent us from being morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no such thing as compatibilist freedom, as if this is different from the standard usage of the word. You cannot give your sacred belief a free pass because you don't want it to be wrong. If compatibilist freedom requires only freedom from coercion, you still are left with the standard definition of free will. If compatibilist freedom requires freedom from compulsion, you also still left with the standard definition of free will because "compulsion" means "compelled". If one is compelled, he does not have a free choice.

There is a compatibilist notion of freedom which differs from the contra-causal variety. I have defined it for you, and will do so again. And contra-causal/libertarian free will is not the 'standard usage'. Plus you are still equivocating between different senses of compulsion.

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without the kind of experienced psychological compulsion which renders a choice highly resistant to variation in antecent causal conditions (i.e. no 'compulsion' beyond mere causal determination), and without 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, i.e. such that with exactly the same antecedent causal conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.

Compatibilism says that the former is sufficient, and the latter is unnecessary, for making us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you still have no argument or rational objection against it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compatibilists offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias). Such compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarianism and hard determinism a false dilemma.

Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Lol, remember making the following post, Peacegirl? Can you see how this makes you a blatant hypocrite?:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Copying the wiki definition will not cut it LadyShea. Explain in your own words where there is no contradiction. You can't do it because there is a major contradiction. All you are doing is looking up something on the internet in a desperate attempt to prove that Lessans is wrong. This is no proof at all LadyShea, and as an astute observer I would hope you would agree. I hope you can do better than this, or game over.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not the only definition of free will Spacemonkey. The second definition is the same except for intensity (i.e., a strong compulsion to do something). The standard definition of free will does not only mean being free from a compulsive disorder, and it is not defined as being free from coercion (physical constraints), psychological constraints (compulsions or phobias), or social constraints (threats of punishment). It means having the ability to choose one thing over another from among various alternatives. That makes their version of free will and determinism incompatible no matter how it is sliced.

I've explained in my previous post the difference between the two kinds of compulsion involved. Causal determination is not a compulsion in the stronger sense that compatibilists say must be absent for free and responsible choices. What you keep calling the 'standard definition' of free will (i.e. contra-causal free will) is not the kind that compatibilism is seeking to render compatible with causal determination. But compatibilist freedom does allow for the ability to choose one thing from another from among various alternatives, and it does render this compatible with determinism without any contradiction. It just doesn't claim that we could have chosen differently under the exact same antecedent causal conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But he did feel that love is a purely physical process, that had nothing to do with personality or anything else. To such a degree that he said everyone would simply marry the first person they would ever have sex with, somewhere in puberty.

Yes, that will happen. People will get married very young without the fear that they would ever desire to leave the other broken-hearted or exploited.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No-matter who that person is. Human relationships are reduced to a sort of brief mating ritual, in a way that reminds me of monogamous birds. You yourself said "personality won't matter, because there won't be any bad personalities any more."

It's not that personality won't matter, but it won't play a crucial part because no one will have a "bad" personality. If someone wants to search for a mate that has their interests, nothing is going to stop them, but the main point here is that when someone finds a mate that is attractive to them, and vice versa, and they decide to have sex, they are literally married because neither will want to leave the other. Being married takes on a whole new meaning in the new world. Love will grow stronger and stronger after marriage, not before.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As if you need to be with a person with a bad personality to be in a bad relationship. You don't: you just need to be with an incompatible person.

How can there be a bad relationship when no one will do those things that hurt each other and cause the unhappiness that make a relationship bad? That is a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it; just think about it because you have a tendency to give knee-jerk answers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lol, remember making the following post, Peacegirl? Can you see how this makes you a blatant hypocrite?:

I've explained in my previous post the difference between the two kinds of compulsion involved. Causal determination is not a compulsion in the stronger sense that compatibilists say must be absent for free and responsible choices. What you keep calling the 'standard definition' of free will (i.e. contra-causal free will) is not the kind that compatibilism is seeking to render compatible with causal determination. But compatibilist freedom does allow for the ability to choose one thing from another from among various alternatives, and it does render this compatible with determinism without any contradiction. It just doesn't claim that we could have chosen differently under the exact same antecedent causal conditions.

Causal determinism (or determination), whether those impulses are strong or weak, means that antecedent events caused a particular outcome. All you're doing is divying up the degree of compulsion as if "degree" changes the definition. No matter how you frame it, one's desire is still under a compulsion to choose that which offers the greatest satisfaction under one's particular set of circumstances, rendering any other choice impossible at that moment of time. Therefore, what looks like a choice is really an illusion. Of course, before a choice is made we normally go through the process of contemplation (and the more serious the choice, the longer the contemplation takes) to determine which choice would be the most preferable, but once that choice is made ( this is not a modal fallacy), it could not have been otherwise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Causal determinism (or determination), whether those impulses are strong or weak, means that antecedent events caused a particular outcome. All you're doing is divying up the degree of compulsion as if "degree" changes the definition. No matter how you frame it, one's desire is still under a compulsion to choose that which offers the greatest satisfaction under a particular set of circumstances, rendering any other choice impossible at that moment of time. Therefore, what looks like a choice is really an illusion.

No, the distinction I am drawing is not merely a matter of degree. I explained this in detail in the other post. Mere causal determination need not involve any such psychological compulsion at all. And as soon as you start speaking of 'greater satisfaction' as being a compulsion of this experienced psychological sort, you make the satisfaction principle an empirical claim for which you require evidence (and have none). You've repeatedly stated that our being 'compelled' to act in the direction of greater satisfaction is something that is there whether it is consciously experienced or not. So it is not a compulsion in the sense I have been talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

BUMP!

How many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested in this discussion until people understand his first discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, the distinction I am drawing is not merely a matter of degree. I explained this in detail in the other post. Mere causal determination need not involve any such psychological compulsion at all. And as soon as you start speaking of 'greater satisfaction' as being a compulsion of this experienced psychological sort, you make the satisfaction principle an empirical claim for which you require evidence (and have none).

Causal determination means just that: causal. I don't know what kind of causal determination you are trying to define, but it makes no sense at all. If something is caused, it is not free, and I don't care how you try to make a square fit into a hole, it doesn't fly.

It is true that his claim is empirical and it will eventually be proven true since the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know you don't like this answer but his observations and perceptions were spot on and they are falsifiable. You can argue with me until the cows come home, but it doesn't change a thing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've repeatedly stated that our being 'compelled' to act in the direction of greater satisfaction is something that is there whether it is consciously experienced or not. So it is not a compulsion in the sense I have been talking about.

Other than coercion or other psychological motives which compatibilism tries to separate, their use of the word "free will" is no different than the way free will is defined and used in conversational language. Furthermore, even if compulsion is not consciously experienced, we still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Dogs don't think about their next move, but they are also moving according to the laws of their nature, which is not free. You are trying desperately to make a distinction between certain definitions in the hope that this gives compatibilism some legitimacy, but it won't work because there is no legitimacy when there is an obvious contradiction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested in this discussion until people understand his first discovery.

Then try supporting his claims and presuppositions about conscience.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Causal determination means just that: causal. I don't know what kind of causal determination you are trying to define, but it makes no sense at all. If something is caused, it is not free, and I don't care how you try to make a square fit into a hole, it doesn't fly.

I haven't been trying to define causal determination. I have been clarifying the kind of compulsion compatibilism requires us to be free from. If you don't understand what I've been explaining, then try reading the posts where I have explained it and asking about any parts you don't follow. That would be more constructive than merely dogmatically asserting and repeating that our choices cannot be both caused and free. Compatibilism shows this to be false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an empirical claim and it will be proven to be true. I know you don't like this answer but his observations and perceptions were spot on. You can argue all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.

As an empirical claim it is obviously false. We do not always experience any psychological compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Often considerations of satisfaction don't enter into our decision-making at all, and many choices are made without any experience of compulsion. When you acknowledge this to be true, his satisfaction principle ceases to be an empirical claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Other than coercion or other psychological motives which compatibilism tries to separate, it is exactly what you have been talking about because it is the opposite of free will, which is having no compulsion. And even if the compulsion compatibilism is referring to is a conscious act, it doesn't change the direction desire is forced to go. You are trying desperately to make a distinction between definitions that give compatibilism some legitimacy, but you can't because there is no legitimacy when you're describing a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Stop weaseling and address post #21988 where I explained in detail the difference between compatibilist freedom and contra-causal freedom, along with the kind of compulsion compatibilism is talking about. You have no actual argument against compatibilism at all.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that will happen. People will get married very young without the fear that they would ever desire to leave the other broken-hearted or exploited.

Indeed. Penguins come to mind.

It's not that personality won't matter, but it won't play a crucial part because no one will have a "bad" personality. If someone wants to search for a mate that has their interests, nothing is going to stop them, but the main point here is that when someone finds a mate that is attractive to them, and vice versa, and they decide to have sex, they are literally married because neither will want to leave the other. Being married takes on a whole new meaning in the new world. Love will grow stronger and stronger after marriage, not before.

My interests when I was 15 and chock-full of hormones and ill-informed certainties? good GRIEF!

Do you remember yourself when you where a teenager?

How can there be a bad relationship when no one will do those things that hurt each other and cause the unhappiness that make a relationship bad? That is a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it; just think about it because you have a tendency to give knee-jerk answers.

How can there not? Bad relationships happen when one of the people in the relationship has to not do what they want to do and do what they do not want to do in order to be in that relationship, beyond what makes that relationship worthwhile to them.

This can happen in a million ways. Some of them are simple and plain (your dad liked those. Possibly because they resembled him) and many are insidious and complicated (your dad had no time for those).

You and I have been around the block, PG. Can you really blame all that on "the free will environment"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It poses a direct contradiction right at the heart of Lessans' non-discovery. If a man is not responsible for his choices, and he knows this, then he will have a clear conscience no matter what he does, for he will know that he is not responsible for anything he chooses to do.

Do you actually think you understand this knowledge? You have no clue. If you don't want to open your mind and actually hear what Lessans has to say, then go somewhere else because you are not listening. You have not understood the principles at all, not even a smigeon, but you are so against it. And I will say again, DO NOT CALL THIS A NON-DISCOVERY AGAIN OR I WILL SKIP OVER YOUR POSTS.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
Unless you read the entire chapter (which you did not), I'm not interested in providing the missing context that you left out. If you had read the book the way it was meant to be read, you wouldn't have this kind of reaction. You are doing the very thing Lessans tried to prevent, but no, LadyShea had to jump ahead and ruin the whole meaning behind that excerpt.
.

You are a lying bag of shit, most people on this thread have read the book, some sections several times, and since you do not have access to our homes, and can not look over our sholders to watch what we are reading, your statements are just more lies, much like your other posts on this thread. Many of the questions and comments on this thread could not have been posted without a thorough reading of the book. Your accusations are just proof of how disingenuous you are, and that you are not willing to give anyone else the benefit of the doubt, that you are constantly begging everyone to give Lessand absurd assertions.

[Vivisectus]

Whether you hear him or not is another story since you, just like Koan, Vivisectus, TLR, Angakuk, Spacemonkey, Dragar, thedoc, anonymous, and others, don't believe someone could come online and have an authentic discovery and are fighting me tooth and nail. That's the source of the problem.

I think the source of the problem is that claims are ten-a-penny. Proof, and a compelling reason to believe, now THAT sets apart the real discoverers from the crackpots. Anyone can claim to have discovered an amazing thing. But not many can support their claim.

The sample even says: it is necessary to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eye is not a sense organ.

Ok - so where is the proof?

Also:

WHY should we believe conscience works as described in the book?

WHY should we believe sight works as described in the book?

Unless you have a compelling reason to believe the book is right about these things, there is no reason to believe any of it. So what are they?