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

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

 
 
 
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
I\
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't see where the difference between where the planet was and where it is now has to do with seeing the past.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Tell us you’re joking. Maybe this is the world’s longest-running piece of satirical performance art. You can’t be serious!

It is not the difference between where the planet “was” and “where it is now.” It is the difference between where the planet appears to be right now, and where it actually is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is another explanation. Scroll up.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
If we saw in real time, then where Mars appears to be, and where it actually is, would be IDENTICAL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not true.

pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
But they are NOT identical. And NASA must factor this difference into their trajectory calculations.

When we look at Mars from the earth, we are seeing it as it was some 12.5 minutes ago. It has moved on since then!

Because where Mars APPEARS TO BE, and WHERE IT ACTUALLY is, are not the same, your writer is simply WRONG. Sorry!
Click to expand...
Why doesn't it show up as being of such importance when I google it? There are aberrations but not because of this difference in delayed light.

www.abc.net.au

A beginner's guide to finding stars and planets

Finding Jupiter or the Southern Cross is easy if you know where to look — and that's easy too once you know how the movement of the Earth affects our view of the sky.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

Relativity. Timespace.
Click to expand...
The attachment that I added in the previous post is more relevant.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t support your contention. There are no physical means by which so called light at the eye/sight can be instantaneous. It's impossible.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that DBT, but you don't understand why this works. I am not debating something that is impossible, but it feels that way when you think in terms of travel time. Don't your thoughts go something like this? How can an image be seen without light traveling to our eyes? But if there is no travel time or distance involved (sort of like a mirror image on the retina), seeing in real time becomes possible. I hope you consider the author's claim before rejecting it too quickly because he knew what he was talking about.
Click to expand...


What I and others have pointed out is supported by physics and biology, how the eye works, its structure and function.
Click to expand...
Biology doesn't have an airtight explanation when it comes to the function of the eyes—i.e., images being formed from signals within the brain.
Click to expand...

It is airtight.
Click to expand...
It is airtight except where it isn't. :rofl:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
That light is radiated or reflected from objects, and that it has a given speed. Which means that light has a travel time between the moment it was emitted or reflected and the moment it is detected and absorbed by the eye.
Click to expand...
There is no denying that light hits the retina, and the optic nerve is the connection between the retina and the brain, but it does not give us a complete or accurate picture of how we see.
Click to expand...

Why in hell doesn’t it? What’s wrong with it? Oh, I know — your writer doesn’t like it, so it must be wrong. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That's not it, and you know it. I'd like to see you explain what he demonstrated in your own words. You can't do it. You still believe bees in a group can identify their beekeeper's faces without any other cues. Then you gave an example about telling someone they are fat, and this is the conditioning that you believe is unrelated to light and sight. The thing is, a person cannot be conditioned without the brain projecting this value onto substance, which is what causes the conditioning—or conditioning could not occur. You either don't understand his reasoning or you are avoiding the fact that he is right but you cannot admit it. Which one is it, Pood? :unsure:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
The instant vision contention has no such means, and cannot be explained.
Click to expand...
Not true. He demonstrated what was going on with the eyes.
Click to expand...

He demonstrated nothing.
Click to expand...
He was so clear, it makes me think you have a block. No offense; just stating what I think it could be.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Just because he didn't show the exact mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't mean he was wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure it does.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, just as the present "perfect" model of sight can be wrong about this ONE function.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Look at the present model. They explained how the eyes work down to every impulse, but if Lessans was right, that would make them wrong in how the eyes function, so what good is a model that is incorrect?
Click to expand...

:rofl:

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Click to expand...
Please stop! 😡
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Which means that it is an assertion, not a viable model of vision.
Click to expand...
I explained it.
Click to expand...

You and the writer explained nothing.
Click to expand...
I think your goal is to repeat the same broken record over and over to try and wear me down. Won't happen. :noid:
 
Last edited:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
I\
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't see where the difference between where the planet was and where it is now has to do with seeing the past.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Tell us you’re joking. Maybe this is the world’s longest-running piece of satirical performance art. You can’t be serious!

It is not the difference between where the planet “was” and “where it is now.” It is the difference between where the planet appears to be right now, and where it actually is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is another explanation. Scroll up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Don’t tell me to “scroll up.” There is NO other explanation.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
If we saw in real time, then where Mars appears to be, and where it actually is, would be IDENTICAL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

LOL, it IS true! How could it possibly be otherwise?
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
But they are NOT identical. And NASA must factor this difference into their trajectory calculations.

When we look at Mars from the earth, we are seeing it as it was some 12.5 minutes ago. It has moved on since then!

Because where Mars APPEARS TO BE, and WHERE IT ACTUALLY is, are not the same, your writer is simply WRONG. Sorry!
Click to expand...
Why doesn't it show up as being of such importance when I google it? There are aberrations but not because of this difference in delayed light.

www.abc.net.au

A beginner's guide to finding stars and planets

Finding Jupiter or the Southern Cross is easy if you know where to look — and that's easy too once you know how the movement of the Earth affects our view of the sky.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

Relativity. Timespace.
Click to expand...
The attachment that I added in the previous post is more relevant.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t support your contention. There are no physical means by which so called light at the eye/sight can be instantaneous. It's impossible.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that DBT, but you don't understand why this works. I am not debating something that is impossible, but it feels that way when you think in terms of travel time. Don't your thoughts go something like this? How can an image be seen without light traveling to our eyes? But if there is no travel time or distance involved (sort of like a mirror image on the retina), seeing in real time becomes possible. I hope you consider the author's claim before rejecting it too quickly because he knew what he was talking about.
Click to expand...


What I and others have pointed out is supported by physics and biology, how the eye works, its structure and function.
Click to expand...
Biology doesn't have an airtight explanation when it comes to the function of the eyes—i.e., images being formed from signals within the brain.
Click to expand...

It is airtight.
Click to expand...
It is airtight except where it isn't. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Which part is not airtight? You have no idea what you are saying. You believe this rubbish because daddy wrote it and you have no actual argument or evidence. Tell us which part is not airtight, and why, in detail.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
That light is radiated or reflected from objects, and that it has a given speed. Which means that light has a travel time between the moment it was emitted or reflected and the moment it is detected and absorbed by the eye.
Click to expand...
There is no denying that light hits the retina, and the optic nerve is the connection between the retina and the brain, but it does not give us a complete or accurate picture of how we see.
Click to expand...

Why in hell doesn’t it? What’s wrong with it? Oh, I know — your writer doesn’t like it, so it must be wrong. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That's not it, and you know it. I'd like to see you explain what he demonstrated in your own words. You can't do it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Explain what in my own words? I’ve already done that, many times. It’s YOU who can’t explain any of your writer’s rubbish in your own words, because it’s all wrong and deep down you know that. You just can’t bear to admit it.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
You still believe bees in a group can identify their beekeeper's faces without any other cues.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don’t “believe” anything. That is what the evidence shows.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Then you gave an example about telling someone they are fat, and this is the conditioning that you believe is unrelated to light and sight. The thing is, a person cannot be conditioned without the brain projecting this value onto substance, which is what causes the conditioning—or conditioning could not occur. You either don't understand his reasoning or you are avoiding the fact that he is right but you cannot admit it. Which one is it, Pood? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LOL, I did not say it was unrelated to light or sight, I said it was unrelated to real-time seeing, which is impossible, and I rejected your crackpot writer’s assertion that “values” are somehow “in” light. It takes a special sort of dumbassery to write such utter nonsense.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
The instant vision contention has no such means, and cannot be explained.
Click to expand...
Not true. He demonstrated what was going on with the eyes.
Click to expand...

He demonstrated nothing.
Click to expand...
He was so clear, it makes me think you have a block. No offense; just stating what I think it could be.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:rofl:He was so clear? Could you quote the “clear” part, as opposed to the “I am a crank spewing bullshit” parts that abound in his nonsensical scribblings?
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Just because he didn't show the exact mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't mean he was wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure it does.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, just as the present "perfect" model of sight can be wrong about this ONE function.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You’re wrong, and tragically for yourself, you’ve been pushing this BS for 25 years to no avail. And it never will be to any avail, because you and your writer are wrong. Too bad.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Look at the present model. They explained how the eyes work down to every impulse, but if Lessans was right, that would make them wrong in how the eyes function, so what good is a model that is incorrect?
Click to expand...

:rofl:

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Click to expand...
Please stop! 😡
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, I will stop. I’m done talking to you.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Which means that it is an assertion, not a viable model of vision.
Click to expand...
I explained it.
Click to expand...

You and the writer explained nothing.
Click to expand...
I think your goal is to repeat the same broken record over and over to try and wear me down. Won't happen. :noid:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I have no goal and I don’t give a shit what happens to you. Facts and truth are not a broken record. Your writer was an idiot. Goodbye.
 
pood said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
I\
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't see where the difference between where the planet was and where it is now has to do with seeing the past.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Tell us you’re joking. Maybe this is the world’s longest-running piece of satirical performance art. You can’t be serious!

It is not the difference between where the planet “was” and “where it is now.” It is the difference between where the planet appears to be right now, and where it actually is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is another explanation. Scroll up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Don’t tell me to “scroll up.” There is NO other explanation.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
If we saw in real time, then where Mars appears to be, and where it actually is, would be IDENTICAL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

LOL, it IS true! How could it possibly be otherwise?
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
But they are NOT identical. And NASA must factor this difference into their trajectory calculations.

When we look at Mars from the earth, we are seeing it as it was some 12.5 minutes ago. It has moved on since then!

Because where Mars APPEARS TO BE, and WHERE IT ACTUALLY is, are not the same, your writer is simply WRONG. Sorry!
Click to expand...
Why doesn't it show up as being of such importance when I google it? There are aberrations but not because of this difference in delayed light.

www.abc.net.au

A beginner's guide to finding stars and planets

Finding Jupiter or the Southern Cross is easy if you know where to look — and that's easy too once you know how the movement of the Earth affects our view of the sky.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

Relativity. Timespace.
Click to expand...
The attachment that I added in the previous post is more relevant.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t support your contention. There are no physical means by which so called light at the eye/sight can be instantaneous. It's impossible.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that DBT, but you don't understand why this works. I am not debating something that is impossible, but it feels that way when you think in terms of travel time. Don't your thoughts go something like this? How can an image be seen without light traveling to our eyes? But if there is no travel time or distance involved (sort of like a mirror image on the retina), seeing in real time becomes possible. I hope you consider the author's claim before rejecting it too quickly because he knew what he was talking about.
Click to expand...


What I and others have pointed out is supported by physics and biology, how the eye works, its structure and function.
Click to expand...
Biology doesn't have an airtight explanation when it comes to the function of the eyes—i.e., images being formed from signals within the brain.
Click to expand...

It is airtight.
Click to expand...
It is airtight except where it isn't. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Which part is not airtight? You have no idea what you are saying. You believe this rubbish because daddy wrote it and you have no actual argument or evidence. Tell us which part is not airtight, and why, in detail.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
That light is radiated or reflected from objects, and that it has a given speed. Which means that light has a travel time between the moment it was emitted or reflected and the moment it is detected and absorbed by the eye.
Click to expand...
There is no denying that light hits the retina, and the optic nerve is the connection between the retina and the brain, but it does not give us a complete or accurate picture of how we see.
Click to expand...

Why in hell doesn’t it? What’s wrong with it? Oh, I know — your writer doesn’t like it, so it must be wrong. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That's not it, and you know it. I'd like to see you explain what he demonstrated in your own words. You can't do it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Explain what in my own words? I’ve already done that, many times. It’s YOU who can’t explain any of your writer’s rubbish in your own words, because it’s all wrong and deep down you know that. You just can’t bear to admit it.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
You still believe bees in a group can identify their beekeeper's faces without any other cues.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don’t “believe” anything. That is what the evidence shows.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Then you gave an example about telling someone they are fat, and this is the conditioning that you believe is unrelated to light and sight. The thing is, a person cannot be conditioned without the brain projecting this value onto substance, which is what causes the conditioning—or conditioning could not occur. You either don't understand his reasoning or you are avoiding the fact that he is right but you cannot admit it. Which one is it, Pood? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LOL, I did not say it was unrelated to light or sight, I said it was unrelated to real-time seeing, which is impossible, and I rejected your crackpot writer’s assertion that “values” are somehow “in” light. It takes a special sort of dumbassery to write such utter nonsense.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
The instant vision contention has no such means, and cannot be explained.
Click to expand...
Not true. He demonstrated what was going on with the eyes.
Click to expand...

He demonstrated nothing.
Click to expand...
He was so clear, it makes me think you have a block. No offense; just stating what I think it could be.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:rofl:He was so clear? Could you quote the “clear” part, as opposed to the “I am a crank spewing bullshit” parts that abound in his nonsensical scribblings?
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Just because he didn't show the exact mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't mean he was wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure it does.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, just as the present "perfect" model of sight can be wrong about this ONE function.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You’re wrong, and tragically for yourself, you’ve been pushing this BS for 25 years to no avail. And it never will be to any avail, because you and your writer are wrong. Too bad.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
Look at the present model. They explained how the eyes work down to every impulse, but if Lessans was right, that would make them wrong in how the eyes function, so what good is a model that is incorrect?
Click to expand...

:rofl:

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Click to expand...
Please stop! 😡
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, I will stop. I’m done talking to you.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Which means that it is an assertion, not a viable model of vision.
Click to expand...
I explained it.
Click to expand...

You and the writer explained nothing.
Click to expand...
I think your goal is to repeat the same broken record over and over to try and wear me down. Won't happen. :noid:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I have no goal and I don’t give a shit what happens to you. Facts and truth are not a broken record. Your writer was an idiot. Goodbye.
Click to expand...
You’re name calling makes me realize this claim bothers you to the point that steam is coming out of your ears. There’s no hope for you to ever understand how children learn words—and why some words (those that contain personal values that are turned into standards for everyone) are not true symbols of reality—which is exactly how conditioning occurs. But you are so attached to your view of the world, that you take personal offense. Listen to yourself! You’ve gotten vicious!!

You probably thought I’d cave which is why you said I should come back and give IIDB another try. I will not cave because I believe he was right. You can think whatever you want about me but leave this poor man out of it. You didn’t know him and what he was capable of. You have reached such a pitch that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going. You are spewing out anything you can to tarnish his name. Calling him a crackpot is nasty, and more importantly, wrong. He was no crackpot but he knew what he was up against. By the way, even if I talked to people on forums for another 50 years (people who never read the book in its entirety) proves nothing in regard to the accuracy of his claims. They are not think tanks for the sole purpose of careful investigation. Hell, some people refuse to read anything in written form. This puts him at an extreme disadvantage. No one would refute Nietzsche without reading his books with extreme care. The sad truth is that most genuine discoveries are confirmed many years later, so this isn’t unexpected, especially when it challenges scientific thinking.

He knew he was going to be condemned for making this claim and he also was well aware he would be judged harshly. He was willing to take that risk. Why would he even do this if he didn’t think this claim had important implications? This is just another weak attempt on your part to make him look like someone he was not. How underhanded can you get? You play dirty Pood and I think you know it deep down. Goodbye!
 
Last edited:
The claim of instant vision is not just wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. And even if for the sake of argument it is considered, the idea has no relationship to social conditioning or bringing about a transformation in human behaviour. It serves no purpose but to discredit the book.
 
DBT said:
The claim of instant vision is not just wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. And even if for the sake of argument it is considered, the idea has no relationship to social conditioning or bringing about a transformation in human behaviour. It serves no purpose but to discredit the book.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's only because you didn't understand his demonstration regarding the brain and why we cannot be conditioned without this projection. I cannot post this chapter again. I do suggest you read post 1,086. I offered some of the chapter but not all. Of course, it would be better to read the entire book to see the reason it serves a very important purpose. I really don't want to discuss the eyes anymore. There's no point. I've been reading the thread regarding Robert Sapolsky's book. I am only on page 3, but so far your responses are much more credible than Pood's or Jaryns. However, I can see the problem in terms of responsibility, which is the elephant in the room, and why compatiblists have tried to save free will in some contorted way to make these two propositions appear compatible even though they are polar opposites, by definition. If you want to hear more of the author's claim that man's will is not free and when the corollary is extended, moral responsibility is increased to such a degree that war and crime are completely eliminated without the illusion of free will entering into it.
 
Last edited:
DBT said:
It has nothing to do with how I feel. I'm just pointing out that the notion of instant vision is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
Seeing in real time is not ruled out, but I don't want this to ruin the most important of his discoveries because people think he can't be right if he's wrong about the eyes.
DBT said:
That it, for the given reasons, isn't related to social conditioning or its transformation.
Click to expand...
This is not social conditioning, which occurs in all cultures. This projection (which I tried to explain the meaning of) causes this type of "physical" conditioning that only occurs with the eyes. If his demonstration was wrong, so be it, but no one has proved him wrong, at least not in my estimation. People say the science is settled because of all the testing that has been done, which wraps everything together in a nice, neat bow. Therefore, they conclude it is impossible for him to have been right. Again, he was at a huge disadvantage because he was swimming upstream against a system that pegs him to be a crackpot. There really is no point in continuing the conversation regarding the eyes, not because I don't want to, but because it won't help and is actually causing harm.

As far as determinism goes, it has one definition only. We are either free to have done otherwise or not. How can there be any basis for communication if every Tom, Dick, and Harry define these terms the way they want? His discovery regarding determinism and its implications can be empirically tested, which will prove, once and for all, that man does not have free will (compatibilist or libertarian) and never did, but we couldn't know it until now. One of the problems that I see is with the word choice.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?
 
Last edited:
DBT, I am not asking you to agree with something you don’t, but even if you cannot figure out how we see in real time, I am asking you not to throw out what you believe to be the bathwater with the baby. His knowledge of determinism and the discovery that lies behind this truth is real and can change our world for the better but there are problems with how determinism is defined, not with determinism itself.

Determinism does not force anything on anyone like Pood annd others seem to think. It is not prescriptive. It does not force a choice against one’s will. I know you know this but you may be unaware of the amazing changes in human conduct that result as a consequence once the extension of no blame is put into practice. I am asking you to kindly not use his claim about the eyes to disregard everything he wrote. That would be truly tragic, not for me but for the world. All I can ask you at this point is to give the author the benefit the doubt.

You are so close to understanding why determinism is the answer to many of the ills plaguing us but the standard definition is preventing the reconciliation of this chasm between these two opposing ideologies. I hope you’ll stick with me because you’re the only one here that is closest to the truth and from what I’ve observed, you seem to be the odd man out.🫤
 
Last edited:
DBT said:
Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."
 
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."
Click to expand...

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.
 
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."
Click to expand...

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.
Click to expand...
That's fine. I really don't want to talk about this anymore, at least not in this thread. It's unfortunate that people would reject his first discovery because they don't believe he was right about the eyes. I'm curious if you understood his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. That would be a start. The problem is that no one is on the same page, literally.
 
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."
Click to expand...

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.
Click to expand...
That's fine. I really don't want to talk about this anymore, at least not in this thread. It's unfortunate that people would reject his first discovery because they don't believe he was right about the eyes. I'm curious if you understood his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. That would be a start. The problem is that no one is on the same page, literally.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone disputes social conditioning, cultural values, genetics and the role of life experience in the shaping of character, personality and thought.
 
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
peacegirl said:
DBT said:
Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."
Click to expand...

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.
Click to expand...
That's fine. I really don't want to talk about this anymore, at least not in this thread. It's unfortunate that people would reject his first discovery because they don't believe he was right about the eyes. I'm curious if you understood his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. That would be a start. The problem is that no one is on the same page, literally.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone disputes social conditioning, cultural values, genetics and the role of life experience in the shaping of character, personality and thought.
Click to expand...
I don’t either, so let’s leave it at that and move forward if you’re interested. It seems like this topic has been discussed at great length but no one has approached it exactly like this author, as far as I know..
 
I would like to make very clear, the fact that man's will is not free IS NOT the discovery. It is the knowledge that lies behind this door that is of significance. I have no idea what people have read or what they have understood, which is a problem. I also don't have a clue if there is any interest in this longstanding debate. Some people think it's a total waste of time because there has never been a resolution for thousands of years, and they believe there never will be, so in their minds, what's the point? I don't want to rehash anything that was already discussed in the Sapolsky thread or any other thread dealing with this topic. This is a novel thread regarding determinism, not compatibilism, so if there are people who are defending compatibilism, then by all means, this is the time to exit. ⚠️

I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position. Then people can take it or leave it, but in order for them to do either, they must understand what has been written or all bets are off. Interestingly, his reasoning actually reconciles these two opposing thought systems, namely, that "we have no free will" with "our ability to do of our accord without logical contradiction, unlike compatibilism, which does cause a logical contradiction using the standard definition of what these words mean." If this can be accomplished, this reconciliation will bring about the very thing that each side of this debate hopes for: a way to bring about a better world for everyone, not just a few. It is understandable that people are skeptical; after all, who wouldn't be after hearing a claim like this? Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? That's what I'm trying to provide. Skepticism, therefore, is understandable but should be contained long enough to learn what this is all about before telling me that a world of peace and brotherhood is fantastical and tantamount to religious fervor.

Of course, coming from the vantage point of the world we live in, this claim does seem rather far-fetched, but this alone should not stop people from really taking this knowledge to heart by studying it, not in bits and pieces, but by examining the entire blueprint with a fine-toothed comb, which demonstrates how these principles extend into every area of human relations: our economic system, dating, marriage, education, the medical profession, and beyond. This will allow the reader to get a complete picture of how this new world can become a reality once it is recognized by science to be valid and sound. My hope is that the first three chapters will give everyone a necessary foundation; otherwise, the book could appear like a fairytale. In the preface, the author urged everyone to refrain from opening the book in the middle for that very reason. Moreover, if we are not on the same page (literally) in this thread, it is very likely this knowledge will be dismissed as another crackpot idea, and I'm not willing to take that risk. I'm still hesitant to start this all over again because it's exhausting, but I will give it one last ditch effort unless I change my mind, which I could still do up to the very last second. . . (which determinism does not forbid). 😊
 
Last edited:
A change in human behaviour rarely comes without a necessity to change, which generally comes from a change in circumstances, be that personal or events at large, an economic or climate crisis, etc. Which is something we may be facing in the near future. Including, be it adequate or not, how we deal with the challenge.
 
I really don’t know how I’m going to do this unless people meet me halfway. I don’t want to expend lots of energy cutting and pasting when I gave everyone the link to the first three chapters. If they don’t want to read it, they don’t have to. What I can offer is a homework assignment. I am asking people to read the preface and introduction. I will try to break up certain sections so it's not too much to digest in one sitting. If anyone has questions after reading what I assign, I will try to answer them (not that the front matter provides proof of anything, but I want the book to be read in sequence) before moving to Chapter One. I just need to know when people are finished reading each part that I assign. If no one tells me when they're done, how am I going to know when to move on? Just give me a thumbs up. This probably won't work because I have no idea who will be reading, but it's the best I can do. DBT, I'm more interested in you letting me know when you're done (unless you don't want to participate, which would be your "unfree" choice or decision ;)) because we are not at odds regarding determinism.
DBT said:
A change in human behaviour rarely comes without a necessity to change, which generally comes from a change in circumstances, be that personal or events at large, an economic or climate crisis, etc. Which is something we may be facing in the near future. Including, be it adequate or not, how we deal with the challenge.
Click to expand...
DBT said:
A change in human behaviour rarely comes without a necessity to change, which generally comes from a change in circumstances, be that personal or events at large, an economic or climate crisis, etc. Which is something we may be facing in the near future. Including, be it adequate or not, how we deal with the challenge.
Click to expand...

This knowledge causes a change in human conduct without force of any kind. I cannot discuss a work of this import without people taking the time to read. To repeat, I am not going to debate compatibilism. I’m here to prove determinism true and what benefits await us when we apply the corollary worldwide.

I am glad I’ve been checking the book for errors because I found a word in the preface that should have been “When you have finally grasped," not “When you have fully grasped.” Not having a proofreader has made it difficult.

 
I wasn't talking about force. The perception of a need to do things differently is not just a matter of being forced. A change in circumstance may generate an internal feeling or desire to do things differently, which is a rational response to changing conditions. Your will is modified and you act accordingly.
 
peacegirl said:
I am not here to debate, and I know people don't like that since these forums are meant for just that. The problem is that people cannot debate what they know nothing or very little about. My hope is to share the author's position.
Click to expand...
Just so you know, preaching is explicitly forbidden here by the ToU of the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom