“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[steve_bank]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

Nothing happens without a delay between cause and effect.

You claim you do not conflict with science but then you do. You argue in terms of pre modern science philosophy, more like medieval era thought.

Aristotle was an animist.

Saying light contains information is a cconcept. Information is a human term used to convey an idea. It is contextual.

Light with refraction and reflection happens regardless of what we call it. Having walked with optics I say l would use words like interference patterns, contrast ratios, and image formation.

Are you aware that the image formed on your retina by your eye lens is upside down?

If you have any of the the curiosity of most who post here there are likely a number of eye response time and perception experiments .online you can read.

It can be eye opening...heee heee heee.

 

[pood]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

So, once again, total twaddle. You are saying the light is both at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time, a logical impossibility. Anyway, yet again, see above discussion of relativity theory. They theory directly arises from the fact that we do not see in real time, but with a delay. That is the entire foundation of the theory, the accuracy which has been verified innumerable times.

 

[pood]

And a thread derail.

 

[peacegirl]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

So, once again, total twaddle. You are saying the light is both at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time, a logical impossibility. Anyway, yet again, see above discussion of relativity theory. They theory directly arises from the fact that we do not see in real time, but with a delay. That is the entire foundation of the theory, the accuracy which has been verified innumerable times.

You’re not listening!

 

[pood]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

So, once again, total twaddle. You are saying the light is both at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time, a logical impossibility. Anyway, yet again, see above discussion of relativity theory. They theory directly arises from the fact that we do not see in real time, but with a delay. That is the entire foundation of the theory, the accuracy which has been verified innumerable times.

You’re not listening!

Of course I am. It’s total twaddle. Confine it to your own thread.

 

[pood]

The point of freedom of choice is that you can take any option at any given time a number of options are presented

And you *can* it's just that you *won't*.

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined!

And who or what determined that? You do, obviously. Otherwise you are talking about pre-determinism or fatalism, which has its roots largely, though not exclusively, in religion.

I don’t know if you answered the question and I missed it, but again: Do you agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz improv musician’s composition was “determined in advance,” and not by the composer?

 

[Jarhyn]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

And that's when the events impact them. As to whether there's a Cartesian reality underneath the wobbly wobbly one, or at least a Cartesian interpretation: that you can infer when and where the light came from by shifts in the wavelength of that light.

While what we see is relative and what actually impacts us is as we see it when we see it, but getting to it, or to where it's going to be when it's going to be there, requires understanding those distortions.

After all, we can and do see some celestial objects multiple times in the sky for the same object,

The point of freedom of choice is that you can take any option at any given time a number of options are presented

And you *can* it's just that you *won't*.

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined!

And who or what determined that? You do, obviously. Otherwise you are talking about pre-determinism or fatalism, which has its roots largely, though not exclusively, in religion.

I don’t know if you answered the question and I missed it, but again: Do you agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz improv musician’s composition was “determined in advance,” and not by the composer?

Not to mention that predeterminism is ironically libertarian: it is exactly "several pasts leading to a singular future".

 

[Jarhyn]

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined

Not quite correct, it's not that I won't because "won't is determined" it is "won't because won't will be determined".

Tense is important there, because of what this tense implies to how determination happens.

Won't will be determined, but can't is not determined because can has nothing to do with determinations at particular points and everything to do with what is never determined at any point.

 

[peacegirl]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

So, once again, total twaddle. You are saying the light is both at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time, a logical impossibility. Anyway, yet again, see above discussion of relativity theory. They theory directly arises from the fact that we do not see in real time, but with a delay. That is the entire foundation of the theory, the accuracy which has been verified innumerable times.

You’re not listening!

Of course I am. It’s total twaddle. Confine it to your own thread.

That’s your weak opinion just like your weak opinion that you believe supports compatibilist free will. I will answer people who ask me a question regarding the eyes. I did not bring it up so stop with the blame game.

 

[pood]

That’s your weak opinion just like your weak opinion that you believe supports compatibilist free will. I will answer people who ask me a question regarding the eyes. I did not bring it up so stop with the blame game.

You were asked repeatedly for a model of efferent vision and were unable to offer one because you have no idea what you are talking about. Same thing with your two-sided equation. In nearly 20 years on message boards not once have you been able to summarize the argument. And no, I don’t have an “opinion” about light and sight, I have well-established facts. You’ve got nothing.

 

[steve_bank]

And a thread derail.

The REP reality exclusion principle;e says

'Two realities can not occupy the same space at the same time'.

I will keep my reality out of your reality.

 

[peacegirl]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

Nothing happens without a delay between cause and effect.

Not if the eyes are the window of the brain, looking out. This is not just a matter of social conditioning. There is a physical aspect to this which was never understood.

It is demonstrated that because we never understood a projecting function of the brain, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end.

You claim you do not conflict with science but then you do. You argue in terms of pre modern science philosophy, more like medieval era thought.

His explanation has nothing to do with medieval era thought or pre-modern science. Just because their explanation was wrong doesn't mean his was. You still don't understand what his observations were and what led him to this conclusion.

Aristotle was an animist.

Saying light contains information is a cconcept. Information is a human term used to convey an idea. It is contextual.

And? Light in this context reveals the object. It is a necessary condition of sight. He didn't say we don't need light at the eye to see.

Light with refraction and reflection happens regardless of what we call it. Having walked with optics I say l would use words like interference patterns, contrast ratios, and image formation.

This does not negate his claim.

Are you aware that the image formed on your retina by your eye lens is upside down?

This does not negate his claim either because light is at the eye with an upside-down image. The only thing that changes is whether we see in delayed or real time. And the implications are eye-opening. No pun intended.

If you have any of the the curiosity of most who post here there are likely a number of eye response time and perception experiments .online you can read.

It can be eye opening...heee heee heee.

Perception is not related to this so why bring it up?

 

[pood]

Stop derailing this thread. Take this twaddle to your own thread.

 

[peacegirl]

Stop derailing this thread. Take this twaddle to your own thread.

Tell people not to bring it up and I won't respond. Deal? An btw, it's not twaddle.

 

[peacegirl]

That’s your weak opinion just like your weak opinion that you believe supports compatibilist free will. I will answer people who ask me a question regarding the eyes. I did not bring it up so stop with the blame game.

You were asked repeatedly for a model of efferent vision and were unable to offer one because you have no idea what you are talking about. Same thing with your two-sided equation. In nearly 20 years on message boards not once have you been able to summarize the argument. And no, I don’t have an “opinion” about light and sight, I have well-established facts. You’ve got nothing.

You just said for me not to derail this thread and then you go bring it up. He explained exactly what is happening and why we are conditioned to seeing what is not there due to words being projected. It's the projection by the brain through the eyes that allows this to occur. Well-established facts CAN BE WRONG POOD. The science in this case isn't settled.



CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look — there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally.

Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which makes the projection appear real.

By having the words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.

 

[Jarhyn]

Stop derailing this thread. Take this twaddle to your own thread.

I mean, to be fair I don't think most of us would even realize she was posting except for the mysterious bumps and the occasional mentions by others, perhaps the "show these posts anyway" button...

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

As pood says. it is derailing to you repetitious thread.

Sorry pood.

Maybe ignore is indicated. I don't always have the will power to not respond.

 

[DBT]

The point of freedom of choice is that you can take any option at any given time a number of options are presented

And you *can* it's just that you *won't*.

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined!

And who or what determined that? You do, obviously.

No, that's simply how determinism is defined. Just as compatibilists define the terms and conditions of the system

Which of course includes thought processes as generated by a brain....just as you have said in the past.

Otherwise you are talking about pre-determinism or fatalism, which has its roots largely, though not exclusively, in religion.

I don’t know if you answered the question and I missed it, but again: Do you agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz improv musician’s composition was “determined in advance,” and not by the composer?

We've been through this. The world, if deterministic (which it is assumed to be by compatibilists), has evolved to the point that a species exists - us - that is capable of writing music, exploring other planets, designing computers, AI, etc, etc, according to all the events and incremental steps that have inevitably brought us to this point in space and time.

 

[DBT]

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined

Not quite correct, it's not that I won't because "won't is determined" it is "won't because won't will be determined".

You appear to be agreeing.

Tense is important there, because of what this tense implies to how determination happens.

Won't will be determined, but can't is not determined because can has nothing to do with determinations at particular points and everything to do with what is never determined at any point.

'Can't'' just refers to all the things that won't happen because these events were not determined to happen. It's pointless to invoke what does not happen within a system which determines what in fact does happen. Where what does happen, being inevitable, could not have been otherwise.


Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

 

[peacegirl]

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined

Not quite correct, it's not that I won't because "won't is determined" it is "won't because won't will be determined".

You appear to be agreeing.

Tense is important there, because of what this tense implies to how determination happens.

Won't will be determined, but can't is not determined because can has nothing to do with determinations at particular points and everything to do with what is never determined at any point.

'Can't'' just refers to all the things that won't happen because these events were not determined to happen. It's pointless to invoke what does not happen within a system which determines what in fact does happen. Where what does happen, being inevitable, could not have been otherwise.


Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

I give you so much credit DBT for calling out on the discongruency that they claim gives compatibilist free will a chance. It doesn’t. The effort to try to disqualify determinism is exquisite yet holds no power to change what is determined. There is no confusion here, other than the minds that cannot accept that they could not have done otherwise. DBT, I commend you for not giving up. I don’t have the stamina. You are so appreciated.