“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

You changed the former horrific font to a standard text. Now the book should sell like hot cakes.

Pood, please stop it! This has nothing to do with font, which is form. It may make the text clearer for some, but this has nothing to do with content. I think you know this, so why are you conflating the two?

The new font is the book’s best feature.

Note, though, that before readers can view it, light will have to bounce off the page and reach their eyes. If a reader is holding the book one foot away, it will take the light reflected off the page one nanosecond (one-billionth of a second) to reach his or her eyes. Thus, the reader will see the font as it was one nanosecond ago, and not in real time.

 

[peacegirl]

You changed the former horrific font to a standard text. Now the book should sell like hot cakes.

Pood, please stop it! This has nothing to do with font, which is form. It may make the text clearer for some, but this has nothing to do with content. I think you know this, so why are you conflating the two?

The new font is the book’s best feature.

Note, though, that before readers can view it, light will have to bounce off the page and reach their eyes. If a reader is holding the book one foot away, it will take the light reflected off the page one nanosecond (one-billionth of a second) to reach his or her eyes. Thus, the reader will see the font as it was one nanosecond ago, and not in real time.

It’s sad that you hold his observation regarding the eyes against him. He never ever said light doesn’t travel at 186,000 miles a second

You changed the former horrific font to a standard text. Now the book should sell like hot cakes.

Pood, please stop it! This has nothing to do with font, which is form. It may make the text clearer for some, but this has nothing to do with content. I think you know this, so why are you conflating the two?

The new font is the book’s best feature.

Note, though, that before readers can view it, light will have to bounce off the page and reach their eyes. If a reader is holding the book one foot away, it will take the light reflected off the page one nanosecond (one-billionth of a second) to reach his or her eyes. Thus, the reader will see the font as it was one nanosecond ago, and not in real time.

It’s sad that you still hold his observations regarding the eyes against him. He never said light doesn’t travel at a high rate of speed and that many of our technologies are dependent on the measurement of light for them to work. You, unfortunately, still think bees can identify humans by sight alone, which tells me that you will go to any lengths to avoid being wrong because so much of your worldview — if he’s right about the eyes — would come into question. That’s why there’s no talking to you.

 

[pood]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun. This is due to how the eyes work, not light. You’ll never accept his observations so let’s not harp on it.

 

[pood]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun.

In addition to being wrong, that is physically and logically impossible.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun.

In addition to being wrong, that is physically and logically impossible.

No it is not Pood. You just have a block against the idea.

 

[pood]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun.

In addition to being wrong, that is physically and logically impossible.

No it is not Pood. You just have a block against the idea.

You have a block against reality. People have been explaining to you why the author is wrong literally for a quarter century.

 

[pood]

Just for shits and giggles, I asked ChatGPT about this!

Transcript:

 

[peacegirl]

Just for shits and giggles, I asked ChatGPT about this!

Transcript:

View attachment 51733

All that chapgpt does is collect data. It's obvious that this platform will just put together and spit out what it gathers, which, by the way, its very good at. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the capacity to create anything new -- at least not yet -- which is necessary for this type of challenge.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun.

In addition to being wrong, that is physically and logically impossible.

No it is not Pood. You just have a block against the idea.

You have a block against reality. People have been explaining to you why the author is wrong literally for a quarter century.

I have said over and over again that this is not a popularity contest. Ninety eight percent of mankind believes that man's will is free. That does not make it true.

 

[pood]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun.

In addition to being wrong, that is physically and logically impossible.

No it is not Pood. You just have a block against the idea.

You have a block against reality. People have been explaining to you why the author is wrong literally for a quarter century.

I have said over and over again that this is not a popularity contest. Ninety eight percent of mankind believes that man's will is free. That does not make it true.

No one said it was a popularity contest. It’s an evidence contest. We have it. You don”t.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, he said light travels at that speed, but also that we see in real time. That is not just wrong, it is impossible.

We have to wait for light to reach our eyes before we can see.

This is not a contradiction. You still don’t get it because you’re not understanding how the brain works in relation to the eyes. He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes, but… we could see the Sun.

In addition to being wrong, that is physically and logically impossible.

No it is not Pood. You just have a block against the idea.

You have a block against reality. People have been explaining to you why the author is wrong literally for a quarter century.

I have said over and over again that this is not a popularity contest. Ninety eight percent of mankind believes that man's will is free. That does not make it true.

No one said it was a popularity contest. It’s an evidence contest. We have it. You don”t.

There's no point in going over this again. You believe what you believe and you won't budge. That's okay. I'm not depending on you.

 

[pood]

Not a matter of belief.

 

[peacegirl]

Not a matter of belief.

But it is. Your mind is shut tight. You don't have proof that the brain sees in delayed time. You are basing your beliefs on what science has turned into dogma and you, as well as everyone in the scientific community (probably because of special relativity and Einstein who could do no wrong) has accepted it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[bilby]

So what is his first discovery bilby?

He hasn't made any discoveries, and you don't know what the word "discovery" even means.

 

[peacegirl]

So what is his first discovery bilby?

He hasn't made any discoveries, and you don't know what the word "discovery" even means.

Yes, I know what discovery means, and he made a discovery, but you don't know what it is because you read nothing. Somehow, you have made up your mind that he has nothing of value to offer, and that he was just pontificating over things he knew nothing about . Well, you're wrong. You are only interested in discrediting him for what reason, I'll never know.

 

[bilby]

Srsly bilby, why can't you pause for just a second to rethink your dislike for this book because you don't believe it's possible to eliminate war and crime.

I am finding this difficult to parse; Are you claiming to know my reasons for disliking the promulgation of nonsense, and further claiming (bizarrely) that my motive is that I think a panacea is a fundamentally nonsensical claim for anyone to make?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Is it even a question at all? - it starts with "why can't you...", suggesting that it is; But there is no question mark to tell me where the question ends, if it ever does.

If the question is "Srsly bilby, why can't you pause for just a second to rethink your dislike for this book?", then the answer is "what makes you imgine that I haven't?" - It is possible to disagree with your arguments, not because they have been hastily dismissed, but because they have been considered, found badly wanting, and dismissed.

If, instead the question is "[Are you unable to pause just a second] because you don't believe it's possible to eliminate war and crime?", then the answer is "No", because a) I do not believe anything so simplistic, and b) even if I did, it would be an utterly illogical non-sequitur to jump from that belief to an inability to pause and think.

I get it, but it behooves you to give the author the benefit of the doubt just for a moment (you don't have to agree but you do have to give him a chance)

That boat sailed long ago. I don't have to give him an infinite supply of chances; Life is too short, and nonsense won't suddenly stop being counterfactual on the 423rd attempt.

in order to make an objective decision as to the soundness or unsoundness of his findings. Isn't that fair, or am I missing something?

You are missing the fact that his "findings", which are actually "assertions", are not only not grounded in observed reality, but are contradicting that observed reality.

If I ask you to be "fair", and give the benefit of the doubt to my "discovery" that small rocks fall upwards, then you are perfectly justified in deciding that I am a crank, and not worth any more of your valuable time.

Your appeal to fairness is not reasonable, it's emotionally manipulative - a bare-faced attempt to make any third party feel that you are being somehow mistreated by those who refuse to waste further time on your nonsense.

It's the kind of thing a sideshow scam-artist does to try to remove doubt from the minds of his marks, when challenged by someone who is wise to the scam.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

You are promoting pseudoscience with a religious theme on a forum that is mostly atheist with people who understand science.

A modern saying,'insanity is trying the same failed approach over and over expecting a different result'.

Do you have friends or family you can unburden yourself with?

Are you just lonely?



You have a lot of competition from credentialed people in philosophy and science who are known and who publish on science and science speculations.

Determinism in different forms has been debated for thousands of years with no end in sight.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm shocked to see you back here Peacegirl. If you want to be a part of this community, why don't you join in on some other discussions and give us your options on those things, instead of pimping a book that obviously nobody here is interested in reading? It seems like you are obsessed with this book. Don't you have other things in your life to do or enjoy? It doesn't seem healthy for you to spend so much time trying to convince others to read a book that you believe will save the world or something like that.

I've already read two very interesting books on free will, and from what I recall the author was a bit of a hard determinist. I'm not exactly a hard determinist. I just don't think we have total free will as we are all products of our genetic and environmental influences, but we can change due to new influences, unless of course one believes that those changes were already determined. Having said that, it's not that important to me one way or the other, and I've wondered why discussions on free will go on and on and on, while accomplishing next to nothing.

Of course we do that on other topics as well, but this one usually wins the prize for mindless debates that never change anyone's mind. That of course is just my opinion.

 

[bilby]

I absolutely reject hard determinism, but that's only because I could not have done otherwise...