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

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

You're not going to get away with this.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error. You have failed so far. I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. Tell me how we see this beauty and ugliness in one’s features if not for conditioning. This is not rocket science but it does give us important clues!

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error. You have failed so far. I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. Tell me how we see this beauty and ugliness in one’s features if not for conditioning. This is not rocket science but it does give us important clues!

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

I asked Pood a question, and he avoided it. He never even addressed it. You can take a shot at the question. Your repetition means very little unless you can show me where we see beauty in light or whether we are conditioned to seeing this beauty. Pick one DBT.

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error. You have failed so far. I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. Tell me how we see this beauty and ugliness in one’s features if not for conditioning. This is not rocket science but it does give us important clues!

Click to expand...

Well, let’s start with the fact, already pointed out to you about a hundred times, that light and sight have NOTHING TO DO with conditioning. And, that is not rocket science!

Click to expand...

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error.

Click to expand...

The error? Singular?

You have got to be kidding. This notion of how vision works is fractally wrong; At every level, it is wrong in multitudinous ways, any single one of which would be sufficient, on its own, to invalidate his claims.

It's wrong about the physics, the chemistry, and the biology.

The challenge would be finding anything in it that is not erroneous.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error. You have failed so far. I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. Tell me how we see this beauty and ugliness in one’s features if not for conditioning. This is not rocket science but it does give us important clues!

Click to expand...

Well, let’s start with the fact, already pointed out to you about a hundred times, that light and sight have NOTHING TO DO with conditioning. And, that is not rocket science!

Click to expand...

That’s fine Pood. He never said it did. So what is left? I’m waiting to hear how personal likes and dislikes sre turned into facts. Go for it!

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error.

Click to expand...

The error? Singular?

You have got to be kidding. This notion of how vision works is fractally wrong; At every level, it is wrong in multitudinous ways, any single one of which would be sufficient, on its own, to invalidate his claims.

It's wrong about the physics, the chemistry, and the biology.

The challenge would be finding anything in it that is not erroneous.

Click to expand...

So tell me bilby what is wrong? Pinpoint it. You’re just making assertions!

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error. You have failed so far. I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. Tell me how we see this beauty and ugliness in one’s features if not for conditioning. This is not rocket science but it does give us important clues!

Click to expand...

Well, let’s start with the fact, already pointed out to you about a hundred times, that light and sight have NOTHING TO DO with conditioning. And, that is not rocket science!

Click to expand...

That’s fine Pood. He never said it did. So what is left? I’m waiting to hear how personal likes and dislikes sre turned into facts. Go for it.

peacegirl said:

SCIENCE never said it did, either! NO ONE thinks light carries values! EXACT

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

pood said:

And, personal like and dislikes are NOT turned into facts — except for the fact that someone may prefer A, and another B. So, what the hell is your actual question here??

Click to expand...

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

You're not going to get away with this.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, @DBT, I am pretty sure that's an empty threat.

But don't answer the door to anyone wearing a ski-mask for a few weeks, just to be safe

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error.

Click to expand...

The error? Singular?

You have got to be kidding. This notion of how vision works is fractally wrong; At every level, it is wrong in multitudinous ways, any single one of which would be sufficient, on its own, to invalidate his claims.

It's wrong about the physics, the chemistry, and the biology.

The challenge would be finding anything in it that is not erroneous.

Click to expand...

So tell me bilby what is wrong? Pinpoint it. You’re just making assertions!

Click to expand...

Bullshit he is! We have already “pinpointed” how and why he is wrong in countless different ways! You don’t really read what people write, do you?

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error. You have failed so far. I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. Tell me how we see this beauty and ugliness in one’s features if not for conditioning. This is not rocket science but it does give us important clues!

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right?

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? It has to be either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if they existed externally. Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said this to be true) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. Which is it?

Click to expand...

He was wrong, not because anyone says so, but because his contention is just not the way brain and the senses work, where the eyes do in fact detect and absorb light and transmit information to the brain.

Click to expand...

I asked Pood a question, and he avoided it. He never even addressed it. You can take a shot at the question. Your repetition means very little unless you can show me where we see beauty in light or whether we are conditioned to seeing this beauty. Pick one DBT.

Click to expand...

Which question did I “avoid” peacegirl?

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error.

Click to expand...

The error? Singular?

You have got to be kidding. This notion of how vision works is fractally wrong; At every level, it is wrong in multitudinous ways, any single one of which would be sufficient, on its own, to invalidate his claims.

It's wrong about the physics, the chemistry, and the biology.

The challenge would be finding anything in it that is not erroneous.

Click to expand...

So tell me bilby what is wrong? Pinpoint it. You’re just making assertions!

Click to expand...

Bullshit he is! We have already “pinpointed” how and why he is wrong in countless different ways! You don’t really read what people write, do you?

Click to expand...

No, you did not. You used your model to try to disprove his model. That’s not how it works. Prove his model wrong, not your model right.

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

That we see the image from delayed light and therefore we see the past is the present-day take on what is happening, but I still say that there are reasons that made Lessans say they got it wrong.

Click to expand...

Which are?

How hard is this for you to understand? When I look at a photo in a book of Abraham Lincoln, I am looking, in the present, at an image from the past.

When I look at a Hubble deep space image of the universe as it was shortly after the big bang, I am looking, in the present, at an image from the past.

When I look at the sun, I am seeing, in the present, an image whose light was generated 8.5 minutes in the past. Therefore I am seeing the sun as it was eight and a half minutes ago.

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

Show me he was wrong. Point to the error.

Click to expand...

The error? Singular?

You have got to be kidding. This notion of how vision works is fractally wrong; At every level, it is wrong in multitudinous ways, any single one of which would be sufficient, on its own, to invalidate his claims.

It's wrong about the physics, the chemistry, and the biology.

The challenge would be finding anything in it that is not erroneous.

Click to expand...

So tell me bilby what is wrong? Pinpoint it. You’re just making assertions!

Click to expand...

Bullshit he is! We have already “pinpointed” how and why he is wrong in countless different ways! You don’t really read what people write, do you?

Click to expand...

No, you did not. You used your model to try to disprove his model. That’s not how it works. Prove his model wrong, not your model right.

Click to expand...

LOL, first of all he, he does not HAVE a model, he has an unsupported CLAIM, and yes, we have “pinpointed” where his CLAIM is wrong in almost COUNTLESS different ways. Deal with it.

Click to expand...