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

[peacegirl]

He was an astute observer. What else can I say? How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

Quite. Observing reality is the only path to knowledge.

Reading a book can only help if that book sets out observations anyone can make for themselves; Believing that an author is right is a consequence of being able to independently repeat those observations.

When someone goes into outer space, they have developed a mathematical equation that gets them where they want to go. This can't be observed until they actually prove that the equation was correct after seeing that it worked. The same goes here. When this knowledge is confirmed by the scientific community, then the transition to this new world will prove that the equation was correct.

I can tell that after all these years, you never read the book.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

It doesn't make a difference in regard to what is true, but as the author said in the Preface:

Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends, if you care to come along, let us embark… the hour is getting late.

You defiled it.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

Only in religion is defiling a book in any way problematic.

Not true. Defiling a book can be problematic if a book was purposely mishandled or misrepresented, which could then ruin the author's reputation.

You tried to make fun of it by taking so many parts out of context that it was unrecognizable.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

You are not the kind of person that I want reading this book,

This is not about you. You don't get to be any kind of gatekeeper of knowledge, and nor does anyone else. Such gatekeepers do not exist outside of religion.

Isn't that what you're doing? People can't see themselves but can see that everyone else is the problem.

Richard Milton says in his book, Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment: Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two-thousand-year record of success not because it has been guarded by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating.

<snip>

One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy skepticism. But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process. It seems that there are some individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more importantly, it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and ostracism.

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank. In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom.

and if people here are anything like you and your cronies from ff, I'm not going further.

Good. You are achieving nothing; If there was any chsnce of you "going further" and actually providing details of observations anyone can make to show why your model of sight is better than the current consensus, you would have done it by now - your "threat" here is to do what everyone is begging you to do: Put up, or shut up.

I have tried to put up, but you haven't liked what I put up, so maybe it's time to say goodbye to this topic.

It's not worth it to me. I need people who really, truly want to understand what he wrote, and so far, there are no takers.

Here I am!!

I reslly do want to understand. And you keep brushing me off when I plead for the information that you yourself must realise is the sole path to understanding. I need to know what observations I can make, that will demonstrate why your model of sight is better than the current consensus; And as a wise person once said:

I'm not brushing you off. The only reason it is better than the current concensus is what it reveals and how we are conditioned due to words that have no reference to reality. Yet, it appears as if they do because of the belief that values such ugly and beautiful, intelligent and unintelligent, can be transmitted in the light. How else could we see this beauty and ugliness if not for the eyes being a sense organ? This has caused so much harm in terms of how we view ourselves that it can't even be measured.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to upset anyone.

You have not upset anyone. You amuse and astound us. We are slack-jawed in disbelief that you could propagate such errant nonsense.

I have done everything I can to create interest, but all I get is, it's all nonsense.

Because it is.

Says Pood.

He explained …

He explained precisely nothing, He simply asserted a claim that is empirically and demonstrably false.

… how it's possible to see instantly because of what the brain can do, using the eyes, not as an organ that brings an image to the brain…

For the eighty-millionth time, images are not brought to the brain. They are formed in the brain.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, POOD. I will continue to use the word "images" as synonymous with lightwaves, whether you approve or not.

… but what is looked at and photographed by the brain…

Meaningless drivel. The brain does not take photographs. Cameras do.

… using the eyes as a window to the world. ,,,

More meaningless drivel. The eyes are not windows.

You hate his observations because this would call into question special relativity, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT.

It's really not that far-fetched, but when people have been ingrained by what they've been taught is an absolute fact from an early age, it's hard to undo it, or even dare to challenge present-day thinking.

Yeah, yeah, more of you and your father’s bullshit, that people are propagandized to belief scientific facts whereas in fact they learn about the world through empiricism and experimentation, and not from fucking holy books, which your father’s book is. Seymour the grand poobah of some bullshit or other,

You will lose, you know that as well as I, so stop the charade! I said many times that empirical proof will be the ultimate judge when we have no more war or crime or poverty as a result of this knowledge. I believe you will still be squawking that it can't be true because that would mean the Big Bang wrote your novel.

 

[bilby]

He was an astute observer. What else can I say? How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

Quite. Observing reality is the only path to knowledge.

Reading a book can only help if that book sets out observations anyone can make for themselves; Believing that an author is right is a consequence of being able to independently repeat those observations.

When someone goes into outer space, they have developed a mathematical equation that gets them where they want to go.

That's a very strange way to describe it, but basically, yes.

This can't be observed until they actually prove that the equation was correct after seeing that it worked.

Yes. Exactly. It's an empirical observation - if it works at all, it works for everyone, whether or not they believe, or trust, or like, or hate it.

The same goes here.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I am saying.

When If this knowledge is confirmed by the scientific community anyone, and the confirmation can be repeated by anyone else, then the transition to this new world that will prove that the equation was correct.

Fixed that for you. There are no "new worlds". The world doesn't change; Our understanding of it does.

I can tell that after all these years, you never read the book.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

It doesn't make a difference in regard to what is true, but as the author said in the Preface:

Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

Well he was right about that at least.

And now my friends, if you care to come along, let us embark… the hour is getting late.

It is never too late to learn. There's no deadline, bar death itself.

You defiled it.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

Only in religion is defiling a book in any way problematic.

Not true. Defiling a book can be problematic if a book was purposely mishandled or misrepresented, which could then ruin the author's reputation.

That's irrelevant to truth.

The author's reputation is relevant to him, and him alone. Nobody else needs to care about it, and nor should they. What matters is only whether he was correct.

You tried to make fun of it by taking so many parts out of context that it was unrecognizable.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

You are not the kind of person that I want reading this book,

This is not about you. You don't get to be any kind of gatekeeper of knowledge, and nor does anyone else. Such gatekeepers do not exist outside of religion.

Isn't that what you're doing?

No. I am just asking for the methodology so that I can test the claims for myself. I am in no way preventing others from doing the same. I am not stopping anyone from reading the book, nor am I even suggesting that anyone is "the kind of person" who should do or not do anything at all.

You shouldn't do that either, particularly as you lack the authority to back up your petulant demand.

People can't see themselves but can see that everyone else is the problem.

That's good advice. You should take it to heart.

Richard Milton says in his book, Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment: Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two-thousand-year record of success not because it has been guarded by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating.

Yeah, that's also pretty much what I am saying.

<snip>

One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy skepticism.

Indeed.

But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in view.

Nah. That's just not true. No matter how whacky an idea is, if there's empirical evidence for it, it will be accepted as the consensus pretty quickly. Those who continue to rail against it once empirical evidence is shown are quickly sidelined.

And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process.

Yeah, it can seem that way to those who make the error I detailed in my post 1,317, and repeated in post 4,020 (above).

It's a common error; But error it nevertheless is. Science (the methodology) is not beholden to science (the body of results).

It seems that there are some individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that mark.

Always. And if they are right, they always win out. Often they also get Nobel prizes or similar accolades.

This book is about those scientists.

Good.

But, more importantly, it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and ostracism.

No such taboos exist in scientific research; Insofar as any taboos do exist, the research ceases to be scientific.

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’

Yup. But it's OK - literally anyone can break down those defences, simply by providing empirical observations that any skeptic can make for himself.

Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to resist.

Then we should ignore them. Certainly many, many scientists will. This has happened over and over again - it's always been empirical truth that has won out against dogmatic claims, and the existence of empirical observations is the defining difference between truth and dogma.

Which is why I keep asking for some. And why, when you have repeatedly failed to provide any, I assume that your claims are false.

If every time I ask for a detailed set of observations I can repeat for myself to test your claims, you instead respond with placeholders, empty promises, appeals to emotion, and accusations of closed-mindedness, instead of providing the one thing that I have repeatedly told you is the only thing I will find convincing; Well, you can't be shocked that I start thinking you don't have a leg to stand on.

These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth.

That's a shame. But it's OK, we can (and do) just ignore them.

And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank.

Indeed. All that is needed is that body of evidence. So, where is your evidence, @peacegirl?

In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom.

No. The claims were tested, and found to be false. If there really was a way to make fusion happen in a controlled way at low temperature and pressure, anyone could make a fortune selling power supplies that use that principle. They would sweep the world, no matter how hard any group of scientists might try to ostracise them.

Cold fusion is said to be impossible because anyone trying to do it, fails.

And everyone is welcome to try. Nobody is stopping them. Nobody could, even if they wanted to.

and if people here are anything like you and your cronies from ff, I'm not going further.

Good. You are achieving nothing; If there was any chsnce of you "going further" and actually providing details of observations anyone can make to show why your model of sight is better than the current consensus, you would have done it by now - your "threat" here is to do what everyone is begging you to do: Put up, or shut up.

I have tried to put up,

You have not. All I want is details of observations anyone can make to show why your model of sight is better than the current consensus. You have provided a tsunami of text, none of which details any such observation.

but you don't like what I put up,

I don't. It's waffle. I am asking for detailed steps, and you are giving me appeals to trust and believe you.

I shall not; If you are right, I will agree with you, if you are not right, I will disagree, but either way, I will NOT trust you. Trust and belief have no place in science.

maybe it's time to say goodbye to this topic.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

It's not worth it to me. I need people who really, truly want to understand what he wrote, and so far, there are no takers.

Here I am!!

I reslly do want to understand. And you keep brushing me off when I plead for the information that you yourself must realise is the sole path to understanding. I need to know what observations I can make, that will demonstrate why your model of sight is better than the current consensus; And as a wise person once said:

I'm not brushing you off.

Yeah, you are.

The only reason it is better than the current concensus is what it reveals

What does it reveal? What test can I do to demonstrate it??

and how we are conditioned

Conditioning has nothing to do with it. It's true, or it is false.

due to words that have no reference to reality.

Words are cheap. Empirical tests are the only thing that counts for anything.

Yet, it appears as if they do because of the belief that values such ugly and beautiful, intelligent and unintelligent, can be transmitted in the light.

None of those opinions have anything to do with the simple claim that sight is instantaneous. Belief has no place in any question of truth.

How else could we see this beauty and ugliness if not for the eyes being a sense organ?

The question is irrelevant. Beauty and ugliness are opinions. Opinion has no place in any question of truth.

This has caused so much harm in terms of how we view ourselves that it can't even be measured.

Anything that cannot be measured can be assumed not to exist, without changing anything at all about reality.

 

[bilby]

I will continue to use the word "images" as synonymous with lightwaves

Why? If confusing your audience is not your intention, why would you continue to use words in ways that your audience do not use them?

When you do stuff like that, you come across as dishonest - it makes people think that you are deliberately hiding from clarity and understandability.

Why would you do that, if you want people to understand you?

 

[bilby]

You hate his observations

I am jealous. You haven't yet told me about any observations, and I have asked for you to do so repeatedly. How come @pood gets observations? Did you PM them to him? They haven't appeared in the thread.

 

[bilby]

I said many times that empirical proof will be the ultimate judge

Then you were right about that. When do you plan to start presenting some?

Why have you wasted four thousand posts, when you know that empirical proof is all you need to present? It's almost as though you don't actually have any, but want people to believe and trust that you do, based solely on your claim that it exists.

Sorry, but that's not how knowledge works. Trust and belief are toxic to knowledge.

 

[DBT]

This is a problem because I don't want anyone to start with the assumption that the author was wrong from the very get-go. I believe bilby is looking for me to make a mistake, and he's waiting patiently for the moment when he can pounce, like a lion on the hunt. I don't want to post swaths of text that will be just another failed attempt, not because the author was wrong, but due to an underlying agenda to prove him wrong at all costs, without disproving anything.

That real time/ instant vision is wrong is not an assumption.

Yea it is an assumption that it’s wrong, DBT. You sound like a child who refuses to believe that Santa doesn’t exist because you’ve believed it for so long that you refuse to even entertain the idea. The example about dogs does not show in any way they can recognize their masters from a photo. It just shows how far people will go to make their beliefs fit the narrative.

There is no valid idea to entertain. The role of the eyes and how they function is well enough understood to categorically dismiss the claim of real time/instant vision as having absolutely no merit.

Dogs recognize people and the objects of the world through the ability of a brain to recognize patterns, which involves perception and memory function and has nothing to do with 'real time vision.'


Quote

Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.

A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

Not only in humans, but to various degrees, all animals with a complex CNS.

 

[DBT]

More:
''Firstly, dogs looked longer at pictures of upright novel (vs. familiar) human faces, indicating that they can differentiate individual humans on the basis of visual facial cues alone (Racca, Amadei, Ligout, Guo, Meints, & Mills, 2010). Secondly, dogs showed a left gaze bias toward both negative and neutral expressions, but not toward positive expressions of human faces (Racca, Guo, Meints, & Mills, 2012). Thirdly, dogs looked longer at the face of their owner when presented just after the voice of another person (a stranger) rather than the voice of the owner (calling them) (Adachi, Kuwahata, & Fujita, 2007). This suggests that dogs actively generate their internal representation of the owner's face when they hear him/her calling them. Finally, domestic dogs demonstrated a human-like left gaze bias, accounting for a right hemisphere dominance, toward human faces but not toward monkey or dog faces (Guo, Meints, Hall, Hall, & Mills, 2009). Altogether, these studies suggest that the features of the human head or face represent a primary element during the visual search for familiar humans in dogs.''

 

[steve_bank]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

Like salty peanuts and potato chips?

 

[peacegirl]

I am thinking maybe we should let her be.

There is no point to beatng her up.

You’re right, but it’s like rubbernecking at a 30-car pileup. You just can’t believe what you’re seeing.

No pileup at all once you clear the debris!

And you are the debris.

The debris is all the stuff that you are throwing into the pileup that has caused a major delay of lifesaving help at the scene! How much destruction will follow due to your willful ignorance is truly inconceivable!

Oh, peacegirl, you say this crap to everyone, and have been doing so for 25 years. Exactly my point just above. It’s always everyone else’s fault, never the fault of your author, the fault being that his unevidenced claims are utterly ridiculous.

You keep bringing up 25 years, as if this proves something. It proves nothing at all. It may take 100 more years because people are convinced that he must be a crackpot. There is only one truth, and it will reveal itself when the universe is ready to receive it.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't want to waste my time if people aren't interested. So far, no takers.

You have been wasting your time for 17 months and 4,000 posts, in this thread alone. You're never going to get any takers amongst people who understand how to apply logic and reason, and particularly not when those people are experienced in recognizing bullshit scams of all kinds. Go hawk your pseudoreligion somewhere else.

You are putting yourself in a position that speaks of arrogance. I hope you're not arrogant because I appreciate your comments, and I take them seriously.

I don't care about arrogance or humility, when the question is one of truth or falsehood; And neither should you. All that matters is evidence. After all, how else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

We certaiy won't find out the truth by only listening to people we like, or who are nice to us. Whether we believe should be based only on whether we can independently repeat the observations another person claims to have made. And we can do that, even if that person is a total asshole - just as long as they give a detailed and precise description of how to make those observations.

That is what I am asking of you.

You must think I'm a total idiot, the way you are babying me. He gave a detailed and precise description of how the brain and eyes work. Making those observations appear elusive due to the years that have positioned delayed sight as facts that no one can touch. Do you not see any problem with this?

 

[peacegirl]

There is nothing so crazy about his claim that people would immediately laugh at it.

Yeah, there really is. Haven't you been paying attention? Regardless of what you think of Pood, you surely must have noticed that even people who have never heard of Pood also laugh at your nutty claim with its glaringly obvious contradictions.

I don't see people laughing. I am asking anyone to please come forward so I will know who they are; otherwise, they are ghosts. Even if they do come forward, does this really prove anything? I'm surprised that you would think this is the kind of proof that you yourself demand.

 

[pood]

He gave a detailed and precise description of how the brain and eyes work.

Really?

Produce it, please

 

[peacegirl]

Afferent and efferent are complete opposites. If the eyes are efferent, and the brain is using them as a window to the external world, it would make sense

Well, no. That might, possibly, be the very beginning of an explanation that could, perhaps, make sense; But you have stopped after just throwing out some ten dollar words, as though you hope your audience will be cowed by them. Where is the explanation of why and how your claim would make sense if eyes worked in the reverse way to the consensus? Where is the detailed description of the observations I myself can make to confirm this claim?

Efferent vision founders on the observations that different people all agree on what they see when looking at the same scene,

That is not what it says. It only says that what they see is in real time. It does not say they will necessarily agree on what they associate with what they see.

and that people cannot see in the dark, and also all agree on when it is dark.

We would see the Sun come up because the light from the Sun would have been here as night turned into day due to the rotation of the Earth.

That's too imprecise to be meaningful. It just gives the impression that you are the one who doesn't understand what they are talking about, and that you haven't thought this through carefully.

What do you mean? Light from the Sun never stops. He just used the Sun exploding (before the Earth was created) to try to visualize what he's talking about. Obviously, it failed.

The example he gave about the Sun being turned on and our being able to see it instantly was hypothetical.

That's OK. But the question is, was it right or wrong? And how do we know? Remember:

Yes, I remember. He was describing his observations. Scientists think their observations are correct because they could not think of any other way that we could see the real world; it had to be delayed time because light travels at 186,000 miles a second. After that, everything followed from that mistake and was never rectified.

How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

There IS no other way. How can we know anything without observing what it is we are studying?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I don't think anyone is babying you or really lagging at you.

After years of pomoting your book and taking a lot of criticism and abuse you may have a thick skin, but realize you set yourself up to be a punching bag.

 

[peacegirl]

At this point, I would like to reiterate my post number 1,317 in this very thread, and I would implore @peacegirl to read it carefully and try to understand it. It is fairly long, as BB posts go; But it isn't anywhere close to as long as the book she wants us to read, or even to many of the excerpts from that book she has posted for us:

The problem, as I see it, is the way that science is taught in schools, particularly at the primary school level, which for many (likely most) people in any given community is the only science education they ever get.

See, people have this impression, based on that educational experience, that science is much the same as all the other subjects we study. But it is not. Science is fundamentally different, and most people are never exposed to that fact.

Worse, we use the word "science" in two distinct ways, and this only adds to the confusion. "Science" can mean "The methodology by which we find out about reality"; But it can also mean "The body of information generated by the scientific method"

Education (in the west, at least) started off as a religious activity, and in primary education, this history has an enduring footprint. When teaching children about Christianity, there is a primary reference, the Bible, which is supposedly unquestionable, and which contains the right answers. Even in non-Christian religions, there are fundamentals that are to be accepted without question; And behind it all is the pre-literacy understanding that writing is magic.

If something is written, then it is true. The answer is in the book.

If a teacher and his student are in dispute, they resolve the dispute by refering to the textbook. The book has the right answer. If the book agrees with you, you win the argument.

Science (the methodology) fundamentally rejects this. In science (the methodology), books are just the words of people who are not even present; No dispute can be resolved by direct reference to mere writings. The writings themselves must be tested against reality.

Science (the body of information) is just an attempt to save time and effort. When the methodology has been applied repeatedly to a given question, and has so far always given the same answer, we write the answer in a book and get kids to memorise it, not because it is The Truth^TM, but because it would be impossible to get things done if every time we wanted to examine anything, we had to start by demonstrating (yet again) that matter comprises particles of such-and-such a mass, with such-and-such an electric charge, etc., etc.

When I want to know the speed of light in a vacuum, I look it up in a book. Not because the books are never wrong, but because I have decided to provisionally trust the existing science (the body of information), as a time saving shortcut. If I had any inkling of a doubt, I could, should, and would reject what is written, and go test for myself using science (the methodology) to find the speed of light in a vacuum.

Disputes in science (the methodology), regarding what is a part of science (the body of information) are resolved by reference to reality - we devise and conduct experiments to test hypotheses, and these experiments belong, not to a priestly class, nor to a teacher who has control of the textbook, nor to a Board of Education who decide which books are textbooks and which are not, but to anyone who wants to conduct them.

Science (the methodology), unlike any other educational discipline, is ruthlessly egalitarian. Anyone can overturn science (the body of work) by coming up with a test that anyone else can repeat, and which reliably demonstrates (a part of) that body of work to be false.

But (at primary school) we teach science (the body of work) the way we teach religion; And we don't teach the methodology part at all, or if we do, we treat it as though it were just another rule to be memorised and regurgitated without question.

Kids are left with the impression that science (the body of information) is just another set of beliefs. And as we see from the massive diversity of sects just within one major branch of one religion, this implies that anyone can just make up any old rubbish they like, and then set about collecting disciples, adherents, and evangelists to believe it and spread the word. The criteria for success are having as many adherents as possible; Having evangelical zeal, to accrue still more adherents to your position; And most importantly of all, having a book.

Science (the body of information) is taught this way in schools. So it's hardly surprising that so much pseudoscience arises amongst those with limited exposure to science as a methodology, rather than as a body of information.

This fundamental failure to grasp what science (the methodology) is, or how science (the body of information) came to be, and how it can be (and constantly is) changed as new observations are made and new experiments carried out, is at the root of the problem here.

We can talk about free will, eyes as sense organs, how light works, etc., etc., until the cows freeze over, and it won't change a thing - because peacegirl is not on the same page as the rest of us. Peacegirl doesn't understand that science differs in any important way from theology, and so is determined to win her argument on the basis of theological rhetoric. She has a new book, and wants it to replace, or supplement, the old book. Because she thinks that's how knowledge works.

She does not, and perhaps cannot, grasp that the science books we use are not books of power, but are mere aide-mémoires that tally the current state of the game.

Replacing Newton's Optiks, or Einstein's General Relativity, or Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations, with a new book of wondrous claims is not only difficult; It is futile. No part of science (the methodology) is beholden to books of science (the body of information); Unlike in literally every other educational discipline*, in science the relationship is reversed.

The body of work derives from, and is entirely subservient to, the methodology. You can subvert a church by replacing its Bible with a new work (a Koran, or a Book of Mormon, or the scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard, or of Lessans, or of anyone). But you can only subvert science (the body of information) by following the scientific method - and if a change is shown by that method to be required, the science books are all rendered obsolete at a stroke. There are no sects or splinter groups - only people who have abandoned the scientific methodology, and thereby rendered themselves irrelevant.

The methodology is simple. Hypotheses, rigorously tested against repeatable and universally testable observations, and those shown to be false, discarded.

If you want to change science (the body of information) it is simple (but not easy): Just detail an observation that anyone else can make for themselves, which demonstrates that a part of that body of information is false.

Be aware that trust is not a part of science (the methodology). No scientist trusts anyone, particularly not himself.

The question is not "should we trust Newton, or should we trust Lessans?". The question is "Which of these two has given us the details needed to repeat his work, and surprise ourselves into agreeing with his answers, starting from a provisional assumption that his answers are bullshit?"

Newton has done that. You don't need to take his word for anything, and he doesn't ask you to; He has provided a detailed set of procedures for proving him wrong, and invites you to give it your best shot, either using his procedure, or coming up with your own. That, right there, is science.

I have repeatedly said that this type of proof cannot begin with a hypothesis. For example, how could astronauts get to the moon without mathematicians first creating an equation to allow them the trajectory to get there? This type of solution was done without testing a theory in any concrete way because the proof that their equation worked could only be seen after the fact (i.e., that they reached the moon). The mathematicians had to know what they were doing by means of their equation, or they could have gotten the astronauts killed. It had to be spot on, with no possibility for error. It's the same thing with this discovery. It's not just a bunch of information written in a book. The book would be meaningless if it didn't have any truth to it. I am not saying just read the book, and you all should agree because the magic is in the writing. Writing can be wrong. I am only saying to take the time to understand his claim without giving a knee-jerk reaction that he couldn't be right because he didn't use the scientific method. He couldn't in this case, just like the mathematicians of NASA couldn't. He explains that humans recognize other humans through words, whereas dogs use other cues for recognition, such as hearing and smell. It's important to see if there is truth to his claims before discounting them. This is not theological rhetoric. He tried to explain that light does not carry values (like beauty and ugliness) to our eyes, so let's start there. How were these standards created? THEY WERE CREATED THROUGH WORDS, NOT LIGHT. We are conditioned, and he shows how this takes place. This also shows that the brain is able to take a photograph of the word and object, as in a camera, and store this slide in our brain to be retrieved when needed.

As far as free will goes, this is also a difficult subject, but his observations were astute. We cannot move against what [we believe] is the most advantageous choice given our individual circumstances. No one has even refuted his claim that we have no free will in any way meaningful way. I have no idea what you read. First off, free will can never be proven true because it requires doing the impossible. We can't go back in time and prove that B could have been chosen instead of A. But we can still prove determinism to be true, which would prove free will to be false. They are opposites. We cannot have both, as you yourself said. It has to be one or the other. We cannot say in the same breath that we could not have done otherwise, and that we could have done otherwise. And please understand that Indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Free will is. This has nothing to do with feelings or beliefs. The fact that we have no free will is a law of our nature. It's impossible to move in a direction that gives us less satisfaction when an alternative of greater satisfaction is available. Moreover, what you believe is better for yourself may not be what others believe is better for you, which is not what we're talking about at this point. He expands on this to show the storehouse of knowledge that lies behind this hermetically sealed door. But no one is listening. No one has asked a pertinent question. No one is even a little bit curious. It boggles my mind how unwilling everyone is to even hear him out. It's maddening.

Thank you for your explanation. I know it took effort on your part to explain the difference between the scientific method that is later put into book form for the sake of time, and any other kind of literature.

 

[pood]

I have repeatedly said that this type of proof cannot begin with a hypothesis. For example, how could astronauts get to the moon without mathematicians first creating an equation to allow them the trajectory to get there?

This is rich. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you for years, the mathematics enabling us to send spacecraft to the moon and other celestial bodies depends on delayed seeing,

 

[bilby]

He was describing his observations. Scientists think their observations are correct because they could not think of any other way that we could see the real world;

OK, you don't seem to know what the word "observation" means.

Scientists know their observations are correct, because (and only because) anyone - literally anyone - can repeat them for themselves.

That's it. That's all of it. That's what makes observation superior to conjecture.

it had to be delayed time because light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

That's conjecture. We only know it's a true conjecture because we can all observe that it is true. No scientist is putting conjecture ahead of observed fact; Not doing that is what defines a scientist.

After that, everything followed from that mistake and was never rectified.

Facts cannot be mistaken.

 

[peacegirl]

He was an astute observer. What else can I say? How else do people learn from the external world other than by observing it?

Quite. Observing reality is the only path to knowledge.

Reading a book can only help if that book sets out observations anyone can make for themselves; Believing that an author is right is a consequence of being able to independently repeat those observations.

When someone goes into outer space, they have developed a mathematical equation that gets them where they want to go.

That's a very strange way to describe it, but basically, yes.

This can't be observed until they actually prove that the equation was correct after seeing that it worked.

Yes. Exactly. It's an empirical observation - if it works at all, it works for everyone, whether or not they believe, or trust, or like, or hate it.

That is what I've been saying all along. If his equation is correct, because his claims turn out to be true, then that is the ultimate proof. But it can't be proven until it is actually put into practice, just like the equation that sends astronauts to the moon.

The same goes here.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I am saying.

When If this knowledge is confirmed by the scientific community anyone, and the confirmation can be repeated by anyone else, then the transition to this new world that will prove that the equation was correct.

Fixed that for you. There are no "new worlds". The world doesn't change; Our understanding of it does.

It doesn't fix it if you are implying that it has to be proven by an experiment that can be confirmed by someone. As I said, it can't be done that way, but it will be empirically proven when it is shown that when these principles are put into effect, human conduct will take an about-face. And it's not IF it's WHEN.

I can tell that after all these years, you never read the book.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

It doesn't make a difference in regard to what is true, but as the author said in the Preface:

Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

Well he was right about that at least.

And now my friends, if you care to come along, let us embark… the hour is getting late.

It is never too late to learn. There's no deadline, bar death itself.

Of course, it isn't too late to learn. What he meant was that we could blow ourselves up if nuclear weapons got into the wrong hands before we had a chance to save ourselves.

You defiled it.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

Only in religion is defiling a book in any way problematic.

Not true. Defiling a book can be problematic if a book was purposely mishandled or misrepresented, which could then ruin the author's reputation.

That's irrelevant to truth.

Not really. If the author's reputation is ruined, and he happens to be correct, it would slow down the progression of truth, which would be terrible considering people's lives are on the line every day through war, crime, poverty, and carelessness.

The author's reputation is relevant to him, and him alone. Nobody else needs to care about it, and nor should they. What matters is only whether he was correct.

What do you think I've been saying all this time? It's not about him. He said the knowledge belongs to the world.

You tried to make fun of it by taking so many parts out of context that it was unrecognizable.

Which, given the bolded text above, shouldn't make any difference.

You are not the kind of person that I want reading this book,

This is not about you. You don't get to be any kind of gatekeeper of knowledge, and nor does anyone else. Such gatekeepers do not exist outside of religion.

Isn't that what you're doing?

No. I am just asking for the methodology so that I can test the claims for myself. I am in no way preventing others from doing the same. I am not stopping anyone from reading the book, nor am I even suggesting that anyone is "the kind of person" who should do or not do anything at all.

That's all well and good, but how can you test what you never laid your eyes on? Please tell me, so far, what do you understand from what I've posted?

You shouldn't do that either, particularly as you lack the authority to back up your petulant demand.

What demand? I am only hoping people will take the time to read the book at least twice (as the author advised) before coming to premature conclusions. This thread has gotten nowhere in all of these pages.

People can't see themselves but can see that everyone else is the problem.

The problem is that many people have already made up their minds. I can't control that.
That's good advice. You should take it to heart.

I guess it works both ways.

Richard Milton says in his book, Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment: Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two-thousand-year record of success not because it has been guarded by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating.

Yeah, that's also pretty much what I am saying.

If that's pretty much what you're saying, then you have to see how this knowledge meets the scientific criteria, even though it can't be proven through the scientific method of starting with a hypothesis. You really need to let go of this demand of yours or you will be turned off without ever hearing the rest of his proof. One of his premises that you will need to accept is that the past doesn't exist except in our minds. We remember the past and use those memories to form new ideas or thoughts, but in actuality, there is no such thing as the past because the present is all we have. As he wrote: The Sun does not shine in the past. You can say he's wrong and that the past exists, which will either stop you from listening to him further, or you will temporarily accept that this is true to hear the rest.

<snip>

One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy skepticism.

Indeed.

But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in view.

Nah. That's just not true. No matter how whacky an idea is, if there's empirical evidence for it, it will be accepted as the consensus pretty quickly. Those who continue to rail against it once empirical evidence is shown are quickly sidelined.

Well, let's see if you can hang on long enough to hear the rest. You cannot determine if he is right or wrong with the limited knowledge you have been given thus far.

And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process.

Yeah, it can seem that way to those who make the error I detailed in my post 1,317, and repeated in post 4,020 (above).

It's a common error; But error it nevertheless is. Science (the methodology) is not beholden to science (the body of results).

It seems that there are some individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that mark.

Always. And if they are right, they always win out. Often they also get Nobel prizes or similar accolades.

This is what I hope for my father, not so much for the accolades, but for the recognition by science that this knowledge is sound and will benefit all mankind. That's all he wanted.

This book is about those scientists.

Good.

But, more importantly, it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and ostracism.

No such taboos exist in scientific research; Insofar as any taboos do exist, the research ceases to be scientific.

I believe what he was saying is that some subjects are considered taboo because the knowledge came from someone outside of the field, or it is already considered sacred and untouchable (sort of like the eyes being a sense organ), and will be subjected to ridicule for even attempting to initiate the subject. Ahem.

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’

Yup. But it's OK - literally anyone can break down those defences, simply by providing empirical observations that any skeptic can make for himself.

Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to resist.

Then we should ignore them. Certainly many, many scientists will. This has happened over and over again - it's always been empirical truth that has won out against dogmatic claims, and the existence of empirical observations is the defining difference between truth and dogma.

This knowledge is the antithesis of dogma. I will keep repeating that the ultimate test is if this knowledge works in real life. The empirical proof will finally quiet all the naysayers.

Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery originated from philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Which is why I keep asking for some. And why, when you have repeatedly failed to provide any, I assume that your claims are false.

Try not to assume, okay? Assumptions can be wrong.

If every time I ask for a detailed set of observations I can repeat for myself to test your claims, you instead respond with placeholders, empty promises, appeals to emotion, and accusations of closed-mindedness, instead of providing the one thing that I have repeatedly told you is the only thing I will find convincing; Well, you can't be shocked that I start thinking you don't have a leg to stand on.

I do understand, and I'm not shocked. Skepticism is to be expected, especially for someone bringing extraordinary claims. It would be crazy not to be skeptical. I just hope you don't give up.

These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth.

That's a shame. But it's OK, we can (and do) just ignore them.

As long as "them" is not "you all." I'm hoping against all hope.

And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank.

Indeed. All that is needed is that body of evidence. So, where is your evidence, @peacegirl?

I'm doing the best I can, but you have to work with me by letting me know what it is that you understand regarding his proof of no free will. I do not like skipping around because the rest won't make sense. Do you need me to post it again? I'm doing whatever I can to make it easy for you.

In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom.

No. The claims were tested, and found to be false. If there really was a way to make fusion happen in a controlled way at low temperature and pressure, anyone could make a fortune selling power supplies that use that principle. They would sweep the world, no matter how hard any group of scientists might try to ostracise them.

Cold fusion is said to be impossible because anyone trying to do it, fails.

And everyone is welcome to try. Nobody is stopping them. Nobody could, even if they wanted to.

Well, it's good to know that nobody can stop someone if they can prove that it works.

and if people here are anything like you and your cronies from ff, I'm not going further.

Good. You are achieving nothing; If there was any chsnce of you "going further" and actually providing details of observations anyone can make to show why your model of sight is better than the current consensus, you would have done it by now - your "threat" here is to do what everyone is begging you to do: Put up, or shut up.

I have tried to put up,

You have not. All I want is details of observations anyone can make to show why your model of sight is better than the current consensus. You have provided a tsunami of text, none of which details any such observation.

I thought he did, but I think you were looking for an answer coming from the field of cosmology, not from eyes, light, words, and dogs. lol

but you don't like what I put up,

I don't. It's waffle. I am asking for detailed steps, and you are giving me appeals to trust and believe you.

I shall not; If you are right, I will agree with you, if you are not right, I will disagree, but either way, I will NOT trust you. Trust and belief have no place in science.

Fair enough. This should not involve trust, although I don't think it can be eliminated completely. If Einstein said something was absolutely true (before you even knew what it was), you would trust him before someone of lesser stature.

maybe it's time to say goodbye to this topic.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

You make me laugh!

It's not worth it to me. I need people who really, truly want to understand what he wrote, and so far, there are no takers.

Here I am!!

I reslly do want to understand. And you keep brushing me off when I plead for the information that you yourself must realise is the sole path to understanding. I need to know what observations I can make, that will demonstrate why your model of sight is better than the current consensus; And as a wise person once said:

I'm not brushing you off.

Yeah, you are.

No I'm not. I just don't know how to express what he wrote any better than he did. You can't skim that chapter and think you got it.

The only reason it is better than the current concensus is what it reveals

What does it reveal? What test can I do to demonstrate it??

He said other tests can be done. First, he did say that we use words to identify objects. Dogs don't. The reason this matters is that if the eyes were a sense organ, dogs (it could be other animals) could easily identify their masters without any props or cues or experiments that try to make fit what doesn't.

and how we are conditioned

Conditioning has nothing to do with it. It's true, or it is false.

You're not understanding. We are conditioned by words that make it appear that what we see is because no one can deny that this beauty and ugliness are not a part of the real world, since we see it with our very own eyes due to our sense of sight.

due to words that have no reference to reality.

Words are cheap. Empirical tests are the only thing that counts for anything.

Empirical proof is the ultimate judge. I agree. If it doesn't work in real life, it's over!

Yet, it appears as if they do because of the belief that values such ugly and beautiful, intelligent and unintelligent, can be transmitted in the light.

None of those opinions have anything to do with the simple claim that sight is instantaneous. Belief has no place in any question of truth.

How else could we see this beauty and ugliness if not for the eyes being a sense organ?

The question is irrelevant. Beauty and ugliness are opinions. Opinion has no place in any question of truth.

But it does, bilby. You need to understand how these standards were developed and why opinions come from a standard that was created many years ago, which, due to the belief that the eyes are a sense organ, created certain facial features as physiognomically inferior, which is not true. This is so important because half the human race feels ugly or unattractive due to these false standards.

This has caused so much harm in terms of how we view ourselves that it can't even be measured.

Anything that cannot be measured can be assumed not to exist, without changing anything at all about reality.

Not true, bilby. You can't measure the love I have for my children. That doesn't mean my love for them should be assumed to not exist. I know that's not what you meant, but that's how it sounded.

 

[bilby]

There is only one truth, and it will reveal itself when the universe is ready to receive it.

This is a statement of pure religion.

Thank you for admitting that there is nothing whatsoever in your position that in any way relies upon, or owes anything to, science.

You must think I'm a total idiot, the way you are babying me.

Well, if the cap fits...

He gave a detailed and precise description of how the brain and eyes work.

Then why have you still not provided it?

Making those observations appear elusive due to the years that have positioned delayed sight as facts that no one can touch.

That's gibberish; I can't even tell what you might mean it to mean. I suspect it relies on your using "observations" to mean something it doesn't mean.

I don't see people laughing.

You should pay more attention.