“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[peacegirl]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

I'm not a man. I'm a mother and grandmother.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

Your reasoning is shallow. I never said that there aren't fights to win over a woman, but basing your ideas on what is happening in today's world is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the possibilities of a new world that you have no understanding of because you don't read. Fighting and killing opponents to win a woman is not a sociological inevitability, which you will never understand.

Right, and in your “new world,” the three types of “homo-sexuals” —“I-homos,” “E-homos,” and “G-homos” — are all destined to pass by the wayside in due course, remember? Your problem is not that people failed to read what your writer wrote. You problem is that they DID read it.

Wow.

So, to be fair, I didn't read a lick of her (daddy's) bullshit?

Also, why are all the cults so vile against the LGBT?

I find it weird, honestly, that every person to spawn a worldly religion seems to be in lockstep there: denigrate psychology/psychiatry, and attack the gays.

I actually look on these as the hallmarks of a cult at this point, the first thing I should ask whether it is happening before scouring a belief structure for whatever "loss leaders" they use, and then throwing away the rest.

Falun Gong? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Scientology? Attacks psychology and the gays.

Seventh Day Adventists? Attacks psychology and the gays.

JW?

Mormons?

You guessed it... They attack psychology and the gays.

It's almost like psychology gives people the means to solve their problems without needing a cult, and as if gay people increase the financial capabilities of a whole family so as to defeat generational poverty without getting a nod from the church.

Well, it’s even weirder, because in the “new world,” people won’t in love with other people. People will “fall in love” with other people’s sex organs. Also, in the new world, it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share a bed. Of course, all this crap should be in her own thread, so hereafter I will try to un-derail things.

I've corrected you many times. You are repeating this excerpt because it sounds funny without it being read in context. You have nothing left in your toolbox. You have failed in your comprehension because you did not read the book. You took what sounds silly when read out of context and ran with it because you hate his claim regarding light and sight.

Ad hom, to be reported.

Report me. It is true that you have nothing left in your toolbox. Does anyone see the unfairness here? Pood can hurt me by misrepresenting this author and then cry to the moderators that my justified response against his misrepresentation is an ad hom?

I did not misrepresent the author. You quoted the stupid sex organs passage yourself!

Ad hom is when you ignore counterarguments from your interlocutors and attribute opposition to a claim to something personal about them. You do this all the time. So, yes, it will be reported.

I have never ignored counterarguments. I listen and I give my response. You, on the other hand, play dirty by trying very hard to make this book look silly. You did it for many years and you're trying your old tricks again. I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

TYou're just repeating this as a last-ditch effort to hurt the author and get me out of the way, so you don't have to contend with my refutations. It's so obvious. Now I am forced to rectify your misinformation which I can only corrected in a limited way because this excerpt depends on previous chapters to be fully understood. If people turn away, so be it. I am not depending on this forum for anything.

It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, the sexual union?

Everyone can make their own judgment about that ludicrous passage. Notice how shallow he was — in this world we fall in love with physical appearance, but — ah! — in the “new world” we’ll fall in love with sex organs instead! Too bad it never occurred to Simple Seymour that most people fall in love with other people, not their looks or their sex organs.

You have to be blind not to see that sex is one of the most important aspects of romantic love. Give me a break Pood. He also said that love will grow stronger after marriage, not before, because nothing will be said or done that would hurt the other intentionally or unintentionally that would lessen sexual desire. The bond between two people will grow with each passing year.

Your author claimed that right now people fall in love with each other’s physical appearance, but in the “new world” appearance won’t matter

You are so mixed up. He did not say that. You failed to read the chapter that would help make sense of this passage. To be clear, people have certain things they look for, one being attractiveness. When words like beautiful and ugly are removed from our dictionaries (I know people will not understand why), and people are not conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness, there will be a much broader distribution of what people find attractive due to their personal likes and dislikes, not due to a standard that places some people as having this value and some that don't. Until these changes take place, if a person is attracted to someone who is not attracted to them --- and they cannot find their ideal, but they are ready to get married and settle down --- they will look for someone who is ready for the same thing regardless of their facial features. Looks becomes secondary when people stop criticizing their choice in a mate, and when they fall more and more in love after they consummate their union in a sexual relationship.

, so they will fall in love with sex organs instead! It’s right there in the quoted passage! These are the claims of someone with arrested development who has an adolescent’s understanding of intimacy, love and sex.

No, you are the one that has misunderstood his words from day one.

 

[peacegirl]

I don;'t follow PG's posts in detail, those comments on sex and love are just plain weird.

The author, her father, advances from routine eccentric to bizarre and crazy.

Says Stevo who didn't read a thing. And this is supposed to be an open-minded group of people?

 

[pood]

I have never ignored counterarguments. I listen and I give my response.

No, you ignored ever counterargument and when asked to summarize the author’s claims you responded by posting up vast walls of copy-pasta glurge from his book.

 

[pood]

I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

They are. That is why no one agrees with the book.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, if we are discussing hard problems in this thread and the weirdness of reality, perhaps we can discuss the idea of the internality of the human mind to be the same as the internality of the computational environment.

We have long asked why there is an "experience" happening there at all, and how spaces may be rendered... But it strikes me that we looked hard away from the "black swan" event of systemic internality with computers.

We can create a whole world of people and places and characters, a veritable tempest in a teapot hidden from view. Other people will see "it's a humming rock", perhaps, yet this "humming rock" may contain a whole world with even more nested simulations of space, each representing a phenomena experienced somehow by something of it.

The fact that we have engineered a machine to reliably do this indicates to me that the problem isn't really hard, or rather the 'hard' part of the problem is making an answer that somehow includes "and so humans are verifiably special".

 

[peacegirl]

I have never ignored counterarguments. I listen and I give my response.

No, you ignored ever counterargument and when asked to summarize the author’s claims you responded by posting up vast walls of copy-pasta glurge from his book.

There is no counterargument to make when the book has not been read or understood. The last post clearly shows that you misinterpreted what he was saying, and you keep using it against him. That's not fair in any discussion.

 

[peacegirl]

I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

They are. That is why no one agrees with the book.

So far, you're batting zero. Everything you have used against him has failed.

 

[pood]

I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

They are. That is why no one agrees with the book.

So far, you're batting zero. Everything you have used against him has failed.

Look like you’re the one batting zero, literally. In 25 years of pushing this stuff online you’ve never gotten a single person to endorse the book.

But, you have a thread for this crap. Please take your stuff there. I know you won’t, because this is the only way you can get attention. Everyone else has abandoned the thread you started.

 

[peacegirl]

I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

They are. That is why no one agrees with the book.

So far, you're batting zero. Everything you have used against him has failed.

Look like you’re the one batting zero, literally. In 25 years of pushing this stuff online you’ve never gotten a single person to endorse the book.

This book has not been marketed. You’re using another ploy to make people not think for themselves. Just listen to good ole Pood and you’ll be in safe hands! Right!!

But, you have a thread for this crap. Please take your stuff there. I know you won’t, because this is the only way you can get attention. Everyone else has abandoned the thread you started.

If I go back, your thread will be bankrupt or at the very least you’ll lose half of your posters! Tell anyone who is posting to me to post in my thread. That way it will be an easy transition.

 

[pood]

Whatevah, peacegirl.

Anyone who wants to talk about how we see in real time, how the eye is not a sense organ, how gays are destined to vanish in the “new world” and how in the future we will fall in love with sex organs, by all means have at it in peacegirl’s thread.

 

[peacegirl]

I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

They are. That is why no one agrees with the book.

So far, you're batting zero. Everything you have used against him has failed.

Look like you’re the one batting zero, literally. In 25 years of pushing this stuff online you’ve never gotten a single person to endorse the book.

This book has not been distributed at all. You’re using another ploy to make people not think for themselves. Just listen to good ole Pood. Bull!

But, you have a thread for this crap. Please take your stuff there. I know you won’t, because this is the only way you can get attention. Everyone else has abandoned the thread you started.

If I go back, your thread will be bankrupt or at the very least you’ll lose half of your posters! Tell anyone who is posting to me to post in my thread. That way it will be an easy transition

Whatevah, peacegirl.

Anyone who wants to talk about how we see in real time, how the eye is not a sense organ, how gays are destined to vanish in the “new world” and how in the future we will fall in love with sex organs, by all means have at it in peacegirl’s thread.

There’s the giveaway. No matter what I offer that gets Pood to realize he was wrong in his interpretation will be an exercise in futility. I can’t keep banging my head against the wall of vindictiveness that won’t let new knowledge in because it ruffles feathers. It’s really sad! Pood never once showed interest in anything this author wrote mainly because of his dislike for his claim about the senses. I was attacked for years by freethought forum and he’s just paying it forward. People, please use your own judgment. Beware of the man behind the curtain.

 

[peacegirl]

Very apropos!

 

[bilby]

This book has not been marketed.

Best add "marketed" to the long list of words you don't know the meaning of.

This book is being marketed right here, and right now, by you.

You are not very effective at it, but that's just common or garden incompetence.

 

[Jarhyn]

I hope people are smart enough to do their own thinking.

They are. That is why no one agrees with the book.

So far, you're batting zero. Everything you have used against him has failed.

Look like you’re the one batting zero, literally. In 25 years of pushing this stuff online you’ve never gotten a single person to endorse the book.

But, you have a thread for this crap. Please take your stuff there. I know you won’t, because this is the only way you can get attention. Everyone else has abandoned the thread you started.

I just find it sad that we're talking about advertisements rather than things like consciousness.

 

[steve_bank]

I don;'t follow PG's posts in detail, those comments on sex and love are just plain weird.

The author, her father, advances from routine eccentric to bizarre and crazy.

Says Stevo who didn't read a thing. And this is supposed to be an open-minded group of people?

We are open minded. But we are also inquisitive, skeptical, and critical of those who make claims that violate basic physics without any proof.

I am skeptical when someone says an experiment with a dog proves or disproves determinism or free will. Laughable.

Have you ever had one single person agree with your book?

Your responses are 'you did not read the book', and are unable to articulate anyting in your own words. Like a Chisrtian respondingwith quotes from the bible,.

If the story you tell is true I could speculate on what you experienced as you grew up and how it influenced you. We see it in Christians on the forum indoctrinated fro birth. Unable to think outside of the bible.

Yes, the comments on sex and love are just plain weird. Sounds like a twisted sexuality. Sex is simple, insert part A into part B and let nature take its course.

There may be one puzzling and troubling question you can answer for me, is love real?.

 

[DBT]

Again it is a battle of definitions. The nature of metaphysics.

I think deterministic is too simple and broad a term to apply it to the brain.

We do have AI based in neural networks.

I could male an analogy to pseudo random number generators. Good ones are deterministic but for all practical purposes are random over intervals . The essences appear to be random and meet tests for randomness.

If the physical world is deterministic, so is the brain as a physical organ.., being the central processor of the nervous system, and essentially responsible navigating within the external world.

Besides that, compatibilism assumes the world to be deterministic, which must necessarily include the brain as a deterministic information processor.

Determinism or free will are not physically or objectively provable.

Yet compatibilists believe that free will, as they define it, is compatible with determinism as they define that to be.

Back in the 70s I took a psych class alternate states of awareness. The teacher ran an experiment. Hn showed the class the standard symbols used in telepathy tests. Held sets of of envelopes with the symbols inside side and we had to choose which symbol. Individual students were a little below or above the protected random value, but the class was right on the number for random choices.

What dcoes that tell you about chice and free will? Ittells me that in any choice we make there is an element of rndomnees.

Randomness is no more an aid in establishing freedom of will than determinism. Random events are neither chosen or subject to regulative control through willpower.

 

[DBT]

As decision making is not a free will process - neural networks, memory function, the state of the system, etc - the action that is taken in any given instance does not support the compatibilists idea of free will.

It's the agency of the brain/mind/cognition, not free will, where each person, animal, whatever, thinks and acts according to their own life experience and genetic makeup, inherent abilities and so on.....

Abstract
''This review deals with the physiology of the initiation of a voluntary movement and the appreciation of whether it is voluntary or not. I argue that free will is not a driving force for movement, but a conscious awareness concerning the nature of the movement. Movement initiation and the perception of willing the movement can be separately manipulated. Movement is generated subconsciously, and the conscious sense of volition comes later, but the exact time of this event is difficult to assess because of the potentially illusory nature of introspection. Neurological disorders of volition are also reviewed. The evidence suggests that movement is initiated in the frontal lobe, particularly the mesial areas, and the sense of volition arises as the result of a corollary discharge likely involving multiple areas with reciprocal connections including those in the parietal lobe and insular cortex.''

I have already noted that "free will" is an unfortunate term. Frankly, it is a terrible term. As a linguistically legitimate place holder - an abbreviation of sorts - for a collection of considerations more properly conducted in terms of necessary conditions leading to sufficient conditions thresholds, "free will" in itself always tends toward an overly broad generalization with next to no informative usefulness. Nevertheless, deliberative thinking is done in terms which presume the (meta)physical actuality of possibilities; when such thinking is conducted, it is at least a temporary denial of determinism as fact.

The identification of "free will" activity with consciousness, with conscious awareness, is a reasonable preliminary assumption - - - but only for investigators bereft of significant self-awareness regarding their own developmental processes. And that means that such an assumption should already have been left by the wayside were there actual progress in attempts at science-izing investigations into human thinking. The same can be said of philosophical ruminations. Consider the development of muscle memory. Consider the development and refinement of what I will call intellection memory. And consider the factors, the conditions necessary for those sorts of development. The effectiveness of muscle memory and intellection memory in no way speak against the actuality of (meta)physical possibilities which themselves speak against determinism.

With regards to attempts at science-izing investigations into human brain activity, particularly when trying to extend investigation findings for philosophical as well as speculative purposes, it is critically important to remain cognizant of the fact that even the gee-whizzy imaging techniques remain uncorrelated with and unrevealing of thoughts content and thoughts development. Beyond that, it is to be kept in mind that these technologies do not reveal brain activity; instead, these technologies only reveal what we know how to detect. An EEG (which is an imaging technology) can be - and usually is - interpreted as indicating a lack of brain activity (i.e., brain death) when the EEG is flat. However, patients with flat EEGs have been known to fully recover. An EEG does not measure brain activity; it measures a type of activity which we know how to detect. The usefulness of these technologies is entirely as tools for finding disease processes in the hope that such identifications may lead to effective therapies.

Perhaps, in order to work out whether will is indeed free, we should get an understanding of what will is and what role it plays in decision making and action initiation?

To do that, given that the brain is the CNS's information processor and the sole source of thought, deliberation, decision making and action initiation, what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than scientific research into brain function?

 

[peacegirl]

I don;'t follow PG's posts in detail, those comments on sex and love are just plain weird.

The author, her father, advances from routine eccentric to bizarre and crazy.

Says Stevo who didn't read a thing. And this is supposed to be an open-minded group of people?

We are open minded. But we are also inquisitive, skeptical, and critical of those who make claims that violate basic physics without any proof.

He didn’t violate physics.

I am skeptical when someone says an experiment with a dog proves or disproves determinism or free will. Laughable.

Have you ever had one single person agree with your book?

Yes, but it’s a lazy way to judge the accuracy of a book.

Your responses are 'you did not read the book', and are unable to articulate anyting in your own words. Like a Chisrtian respondingwith quotes from the bible,.

If you didn’t read what it is you’re responding to, your words are empty. I explained why man’s will is not free many times. Not one person made a concerted effect to see why it’s true and why it is descriptive, not prescriptive, but proves we can only move in one direction.

If the story you tell is true I could speculate on what you experienced as you grew up and how it influenced you. We see it in Christians on the forum indoctrinated fro birth. Unable to think outside of the bible.

Of course I was influenced by my life experiences just as you were. But I was not indoctrinated.

Yes, the comments on sex and love are just plain weird. Sounds like a twisted sexuality. Sex is simple, insert part A into part B and let nature take its course.

Sex often evokes feelings of love especially a first love. These feelings are fragile and can be easily manipulated. Young lovers are often hurt or exploited when love is not returned or used in unsavory ways. This knowledge prevents unrequited love from developing and the devastating consequences that often follow.

There may be one puzzling and troubling question you can answer for me, is love real?.

Yes, love is real but it often doesn’t last. This knowledge helps identify and prevent the causes that lead to this failure and ultimately the divorce court.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Perhaps, in order to work out whether will is indeed free, we should get an understanding of what will is and what role it plays in decision making and action initiation?

To do that, given that the brain is the CNS's information processor and the sole source of thought, deliberation, decision making and action initiation, what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than scientific research into brain function?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that science can adequately address subjectivity and its development (rather than the easier issue of its impediment), then what you should have said is "what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than GOOD scientific research into brain function?" And then, besides the issue of whether the term scientific happens to most frequently get used as an often unjustified honorific, the subject matter becomes the nature - the purpose - of science as well as just how is good to be understood with regards to research. Is good in the results? If it is, then there is to this point minuscule good in neurological research. Is good in the set-up, the concepts which are the basis for the investigative approach(es) in research? If it is, then to this point there is minuscule good in neurological research, and the reason for this starts with the fact that subjectivity is inadequately taken into account, addressed, and considered. And why might that be? Here is an outline for a possibility: If it can't be measured, then it's not a matter of science, leading to science as more and more a generator of statistics and less and less a matter of improved understanding. You know, just painting with a broad brush but nevertheless giving an adequate glimpse for anyone already sufficiently well-versed and experienced. I am very much in favor of brain research. The only worthwhile such research is that which is at least potentially applicable to disease treatment. That research is currently maybe as far as its blastulation stage, at best. Hopefully, it will develop further. Maybe it will become actually viable.

 

[peacegirl]

Whatevah, peacegirl.

Anyone who wants to talk about how we see in real time, how the eye is not a sense organ, how gays are destined to vanish in the “new world” and how in the future we will fall in love with sex organs, by all means have at it in peacegirl’s thread.

He never said gays are destined to vanish in the new world. Why are you misinterpreting everything he wrote? He only distinguished between environmental conditions and genetic. Why does this bother you so much? He was the most unprejudiced person you would ever meet.

It is humorous to observe that in our present world, a husband and wife blame each other for any unhappiness in their marriage because they are unaware of who or what really struck the first blow. By revealing what it means that man’s will is not free, which releases the corollary or basic principle (magic elixir, if you will) that no person is to blame, every individual becomes conscious that he alone is responsible for any hurt done to himself by his marital partner, just as long as she knows there will be no blame and that advance blame strikes the first blow. You are beginning to see the infinite wisdom that governs this universe of human relations through invariable laws when you realize there is no law that can compel a man to live with and support a woman, if he makes up his mind that anything else is better; but of what value is having this law when he, of his own free will, can never desire to leave under the changed conditions?

The services of a rabbi and priest during a marriage ceremony don’t come to an end because these include the inculcation of a couple’s obligations to each other, which is a form of advance blame, but only because the boy and girl, at this stage of man’s development, are getting married in a superior manner, which renders this service obsolete. However, it is important for boys and girls to know what is and is not a hurt. Think further about this immense wisdom (these invariable laws of God). At the very moment it is revealed what love actually is… nothing other than a strong desire for sexual satisfaction (as if we really didn’t know), we are prevented from having more than one sexual partner all through life, while being allowed to fall in love with any number of people who could satisfy this passion, just by making us aware of what it means that our eyes are not a sense organ and that man’s will is not free. This entire knowledge compels a couple, when they realize that no more favors will ever be asked, to ask: ‘Honey, is there anything I can do for you?’ And the other, not wishing to take advantage of such a generous offer because to do so would not be an advantage since this would not reveal their love, replies, in 99% of the cases, ‘No thank you,’ which means that this question never needs to be asked. If either one has something that cannot be done alone (excluding sex), they would simply request the assistance of the other, who would never object because no advantage was being taken. This would be the one percent.”

“This whole thing is simply fantastic, incredible!”

“I agree, Charlie, but what about the marriages that are already here? And what about homosexuals?”

“In a relatively short period of time, only the new marriages will be in existence. As for homosexuals, they are free to find a partner without blame. This is their business. However, all homosexuals that came into existence as a result of environmental conditions, not inherited or glandular, will be compelled to fall by the wayside — in due time.” NOTE: He wrote this because the environment plays a huge role in how we view ourselves and our place in the world (including our sexuality), but this was not a condemnation of gays or the LGBT community. He was not making a moral judgment. Another false accusation.