• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

That's not good enough. Not doubting is like saying it sounds possible. What happened to the evidence? Did it just fly out the window?
Not doubting is EXACTLY saying that it sounds possible.

Again, you fundamentally misunderstand how the scientific method works.

Science does not prove anything to be true; It either proves claims to be false, or leaves them in the "possible" basket.

If an idea has no evidence against it being true, then it is possible.

If an idea has any evidence against it being true, then either it is wrong, or the evidence is misleading.

If an idea has been ruthlessly and frequently tested for a long time by determined people, and still has no evidence that it is false, then we can, as a shorthand, consider it to be true; But in fact it is merely possible, and can never be more certain than that - because tomorrow we may find evidence that it was, after all, false.

One does not use evidence to test for truth; One uses evidence to test for falsehood. It is impossible to prove things true, outside of mathematics.

Science is the process of pruning the false ideas from the tree of possibility, so that what remains is more and more possible.
 
...and yet, here you are 1,700 posts into the thread, still trying to explain the unexplainable.

"I feel that if a person has problems communicating, the very least that he could do is shut up" - Tom Lehrer
When someone has something of extreme value to offer, they will scream it from the mountaintops! :cheer:
Sure. But that will also happen if they have nonsense to offer, but have convinced themselves that it is valuable.

So, we need other means to determine what is true than the mere persistence of evangelists.
Just because he knew he had made a discovery and he also knew it could change our world for the better did not make him an evangelist, although it is good news, just not the good news of Christianity. 🫢

Christians like to claim monopolies on things, but the fact is that "evangelism" doesn't imply Christianity nor even religion. "Evangelist" has come to mean any person who enthusiastically and energetically supports a particular claim or product.

See for example: https://www.svpg.com/product-evangelism/

Lessans (and you yourself) absolutely is an evangelist under this definition of the word.
 
This man worked on his discovery for 30 years. You don't get to tell me it's not in a fit state for publication.
I think you'll find that I just did.

But if it makes you feel any better, I am only going on your presentation of it as unfit for publication.
It’s already published! For you to say it’s not fit for publication is not very nice! 🧐
I wasn't trying for nice, I was trying for honest.
My publication is already published and I'm not changing it.
Peacegirl, here is the problem. It is just a fact that the eye is a sense organ, and that we do not see in real time.
Wrong.
Yet you keep promoting this work at boards filled with educated, intelligent people who are never going to swallow what the author is selling. They never have, and never will. Uneducated people, on the other hand …
Um, sometimes a person thinking he is so highly educated that he cannot be challenged can get in the way of hearing anything that differs from his point of view. I have seen this time and time again.
OMFG HAVE I GOT AN IDEA FOR YOU!! EUREKA!! IT HIT ME LIKE A FLASH IN THAT LAST SENTENCE I BROKE OFF TYPING!!!

Peacegirl. This is serious.

You’re a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. Go to MAGA boards. Those people won’t anything about light or sight. They don’t know their ass from their elbows. But you must be sure, before presenting the author’s work, to introduce yourself as a Trump fan and an anti-vaxxer. After that, they will buy anything you say.

Now listen. Follow the logic. Remember when your author sued President Jimmy Carter for declining his request to present his “discoveries” in an Oval Office meeting in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists)?
He was very frustrated. He did that as a last resort knowing the lawsuit would be thrown out. He had to face the fact that he was ahead of his time, and it was hard for him because he knew that war was not inevitable.

Can’t you see now why the leaders of the establishment must react against this work when they realize that they are not a superior production of the human race? Don’t you think Miss America will find it difficult to believe that she is not more beautiful than the Wicked Witch? Can a professor believe that he is not more educated than someone who never completed the 7th grade? Can a professor believe that he is not more intelligent than someone who can’t understand why 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8? These people in our present world are judged superior human beings only because of words, nothing else. They are not and never have been superior human beings because all of us are perfectly equal in intrinsic value, although most of us have different physical and intellectual capacities. Because of these words, half the human race was treated with disrespect, but now, for the very first time, all of us deserve and will be treated with respect which heretofore has been denied. I would like to end this book sharing with the reader the desperation I felt when I could not get the universities to listen. I decided to write a letter to President Nixon. When I did not get a response, I knew it would be much more difficult to bring this knowledge to light than I ever imagined. I am hoping that when I am no longer here, those who understand these principles will continue to carry the ball.
TRUMP IS NOW GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!!!

You can do this, peacegirl! Work your way in with the MAGA crowd! Request — even if indirectly through your new MAGA contacts who will vouch for the author’s “discoveries” — an Oval Office meeting with Trump in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists). You must be very sure, however, that the “scientists” are hand-picked by RFK Jr. and Marjorie Taylor Greene. When in the presence of Trump, you must flatter the shit out of him constantly, and maybe even give him money.

After that, he will put the stamp of truth on your author’s book! He will promote it along with his Trump Bible!!!

Peacegirl, I am quite serious about this. The public at large will believe just about anything, especially if their Orange Messiah tells them to believe. This is the sure ticket to fame for you and your author — and fortune for you! (Unless Trump steals your cut of the book sales.)
Your sense of humor isn't working Pood. You just can't stand his claim regarding the eyes, and you can't stand that compatibilist free will is nonexistent. As a result, you're doing whatever you can to turn this knowledge into a spoof.
 
Last edited:
Exactly the point.

On relativity he needed help from mathematicians and had peer reviews to find flaws in his theory.

He published and did claim it was true beyond fault. Another AE quote, 'I stood on the shoulders of giants'. Initially his relativity theories did not gain a lot of support, it was considered too far out. Today it is mainstream science. In the long run bad theoiess fall away and good theories go forward.

I recall something about a student back in the 80s or 9s who fond something.
 
Any solution that requires everyone else to understand d something is no solution at all
That should bring the thread to a close, but it wont.
Buddha was reported to have at first refused to teach because he said no one would get it. Then was convinced because maybe a few people would.

There is a zen tenet that goes something like "when you encounter incongruities between what you wish was true and what actually is, there is nothing to do but laugh."
 
The basics:


1732166745233.png



"First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus.

Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in.

Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina.

When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.

These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see."

 
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state of discomfort that occurs when someone holds conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. It can also refer to the internal process of trying to reduce the resulting tension.

People often try to resolve cognitive dissonance by changing, justifying, or ignoring the conflicting information. However, cognitive dissonance can be problematic if it leads to harmful behaviors or causes you to stress yourself out.
 
The basics:


View attachment 48569



"First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus.

Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in.

Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina.

When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.

These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see."

Pointing out how the eye works in this thread is as futile as calling a plumber because your basement is full of water, when your entire region just got hit by a tsunami.

The problem is not any particular crazy thing that peacegirl believes, but the very basis of her understanding of what knowledge is.

She is, sadly, one of the vast majority, for whom observation, science, logic, and reason play little or no part in decisions about what reality is like.

This medieval mindset, in which words are magic, writing is sacred, and individuals can alter reality by their words and/or thoughts (or can do so by proxy - appealing to supernatural individuals, with that power of changing reality, to intercede on their behalf) is the norm, even today.

Humans cannot change reality by words or thoughts alone.

Humans cannot change reality by asking "powers", "elementals", "imps", "demons", or "spirits" to intervene as proxies.

Humans cannot even lobby for changes to reality by petitioning gods through prayer or ass kissing worship, in the hope that the gods will intervene.

Reality is real, and nothing else is. Interaction to change reality is limited to what we can physically do, or can build physical machines to do.

Human societies are hugely complex. Their problems have no simple solutions, and trying to solve all the problems of humanity (or of a part of humanity) by persuading people to all believe the same nonsense, is futile.

Even trying to get them all, or a majority, or even a large minority, to believe things that are demonstrably true, is futile.

But simpletons gonna oversimplify.

It would be wonderful if everyone would just agree on some simple facts, and some easy rules for getting along, and if we would, as a consequence, all just live in peace, harmony, and cooperation.

It would also be wonderful if the faeries granted us wishes.

But it's not ever going to happen, so we need to grow the fuck up, put on our big boy pants, and just try to make our own little bit of reality a tiny bit less irrational, less unfair, and less miserable. And we need to understand that lots of people will have very odd ideas about how to do that, and lots of people will refuse, or will never even think of trying to do that at all. And we need to understand that our gains will be small, and our setbacks many; And that we will likely only ever make a tiny difference.

It will be a victory (albeit a small victory), if we only manage to avoid any further backsliding into pre-Enlightenment claptrap.

In the face of this huge and intractably complex problem set, there will always be simpletons who demand that we conform to their simplistic "answer". One of the many things we can do to advance humanity an iota (or maybe two) is to tell such simpletons to stick their secret and arcane knowledge right back up their arses, and get on with doing something actually good for their fellow humans.

This can be difficult to stomach, because many of these simpletons are actually quite nice people, when they are not busy trying to drive us back into misery and horror of the Dark Ages.
 
Your sense of humor isn't working Pood. You just can't stand his claim regarding the eyes, and you can't stand that compatibilist free will is nonexistent. As a result, you're doing whatever you can to turn this knowledge into a spoof.

Ad hom. If you resort to ad hom one more time, I am going to report this and all the others.

The thing is, though, I don’t think you even know what ad hom is. Just like you don’t know that the eye is a sense organ and that we don’t see in real time. All very sad and pathetic.

And yes, my sense of humor is working quite nicely. :D
 
Last edited:
The basics:


View attachment 48569



"First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus.

Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in.

Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina.

When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.

These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see."

A biologist at FF wrote her a 33-page paper with illustrations about how the eye works down to the atomic level. She said she did not read because “something must be wrong there.”
 
We do tend to see the world through the lense of our beliefs, where some see signs wonders in what others consider to be mundane events, where one man's pastor, prophet or saviour may be seen by others as either mistaken/conditioned or fraudulent.
That is true. We see the world based on our experiences that form our beliefs. This is also why we develop associations with certain sounds, smells or sights that trigger an emotional response, but none of this negates his claim of real time vision. If anything, it supports it.
 
Your sense of humor isn't working Pood. You just can't stand his claim regarding the eyes, and you can't stand that compatibilist free will is nonexistent. As a result, you're doing whatever you can to turn this knowledge into a spoof.

Ad hom. If you resort to ad hom one more time, I am going to report this and all the others.

The thing is, though, I don’t think you even know what ad hom is. Just like you don’t know that the eye is a sense organ and that we don’t see in real time. All very sad and pathetic.

And yes, my sense of humor is working quite nicely. :D
Take a chill pill.
 
Your sense of humor isn't working Pood. You just can't stand his claim regarding the eyes, and you can't stand that compatibilist free will is nonexistent. As a result, you're doing whatever you can to turn this knowledge into a spoof.

Ad hom. If you resort to ad hom one more time, I am going to report this and all the others.

The thing is, though, I don’t think you even know what ad hom is. Just like you don’t know that the eye is a sense organ and that we don’t see in real time. All very sad and pathetic.

And yes, my sense of humor is working quite nicely. :D
Take a chill pill.
No, you. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom