“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[peacegirl]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with what you believe is the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

 

[DBT]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with [what you believe is] the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

Passing judgement has nothing to do with it. Light at the eye/instant vision is false. Not because I pass judgement or I say so, but it's just not the way the world physically works. It's impossible. Being physically impossible, it doesn't do you any good to argue for it.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with [what you believe is] the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

Passing judgement has nothing to do with it. Light at the eye/instant vision is false. Not because I pass judgement or I say so, but it's just not the way the world physically works. It's impossible. Being physically impossible, it doesn't do you any good to argue for it.

You are judging his claim prematurely whether you think so or not. There is nothing in his claim that violates physical laws, not when you understand how the brain works. You cannot see it because you keep thinking in terms of light having to bring the image to our eyes through space/time distance. This alternate view needs to be examined with rigor, not thrown out because you can't imagine how this could occur. That's exactly what you're doing and sadly dissing his entire work as a result. He knew this would happen, but he didn't know the extent of the resentment that would follow.

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 and 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 was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature. Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a PROJECTING FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end. The other law asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with millions and millions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death.

 

[Jarhyn]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with [what you believe is] the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

Passing judgement has nothing to do with it. Light at the eye/instant vision is false. Not because I pass judgement or I say so, but it's just not the way the world physically works. It's impossible. Being physically impossible, it doesn't do you any good to argue for it.

But you are judging prematurely. It is not impossible

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Of course I'm defending it here. Just leave it so as not to address it? What a copout! You said some nasty things without any justification except for your faulty refutation which amounted to nothing.

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Of course I'm defending it here. You called my thread a screed because you didn't want to read it. I gave people the link to the first three chapters and then I copied and pasted it for everyone's benefit. You are too big for your britches Jayden. Your computer language doesn't compute to the real world. Face it and admit your reasoning is flawed and not what you claim it to be.

 

[Jarhyn]

It remains that determinism does not permit alternate actions, which negates choosing otherwise in any given instance of decision making (the no choice principle).

Which is why compatibilists define free will as acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, with no reference to being able to have done otherwise in any given situation.

As this ignores inner necessity, the underlying mechanism and process that generates thought and action, Compatibilism fails to make a case for the reality of free will.

Clearly determinism does not only permit but observably puts infinite numbers of alternative actions on display.

Something different happens "there" than "here".

If "many worlds" is just an attempt to find "something similar but different" happening in a weird direction, it's just as valid to find "something similar but different" in an observable direction.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

I think I am better understanding your manner of expression. Let us see.

Is the immediate subject-I always a local set? If so, is your objection/criticism based on the notion that the subject-I referenced in different conditions is not (maybe even possibly) the immediate subject-I? If that is the case (or close enough to what you mean), would what you regard as a problem be avoided if the at issue determinism matter were addressed/expressed entirely from the local set immediate subject-I context? For instance, do you think there is a problem with the question: Given a local set immediate subject-I, is it already determined how that set/subject is going to be?

 

[peacegirl]

It remains that determinism does not permit alternate actions, which negates choosing otherwise in any given instance of decision making (the no choice principle).

Which is why compatibilists define free will as acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, with no reference to being able to have done otherwise in any given situation.

As this ignores inner necessity, the underlying mechanism and process that generates thought and action, Compatibilism fails to make a case for the reality of free will.

Clearly determinism does not only permit but observably puts infinite numbers of alternative actions on display.

Something different happens "there" than "here".

If "many worlds" is just an attempt to find "something similar but different" happening in a weird direction, it's just as valid to find "something similar but different" in an observable direction.

We are not talking about many worlds or there rather than here, which is just another lame excuse for observed reality. All you are doing is trying desperately to give determinism a bad rap due to your dislike for the implications.

 

[Jarhyn]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

I think I am better understanding your manner of expression. Let us see.

Is the immediate subject-I always a local set? If so, is your objection/criticism based on the notion that the subject-I referenced in different conditions is not (maybe even possibly) the immediate subject-I?

Well, due to the nature we use to select the nonlocal set subject, the mmediate/local "set" is almost always (and perhaps *necessarily*) a member of the nonlocal version.

{} != {{},{{}}} is a basic intuition in math. The correct operator is to say {{},{{}}} *contains* {}, not that it *equals*...

If that is the case (or close enough to what you mean), would what you regard as a problem be avoided if the at issue determinism matter were addressed/expressed entirely from the local set immediate subject-I context?

Kind of? There are complications to it which...

For instance, do you think there is a problem with the question: Given a local set immediate subject-I, is it already determined how that set/subject is going to be?

Now we're getting into a slightly more useful conversation:

Given a local set immediate subject I, at time 0, it is not at that location determined how the subject is going to be at time 1, because the very action of the determination is motion from 0 to 1, and the site where it is so determined is 1.

0 is not locationally at 1.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

I think I am better understanding your manner of expression. Let us see.

Is the immediate subject-I always a local set? If so, is your objection/criticism based on the notion that the subject-I referenced in different conditions is not (maybe even possibly) the immediate subject-I?

Well, due to the nature we use to select the nonlocal set subject, the mmediate/local "set" is almost always (and perhaps *necessarily*) a member of the nonlocal version.

{} != {{},{{}}} is a basic intuition in math. The correct operator is to say {{},{{}}} *contains* {}, not that it *equals*...

If that is the case (or close enough to what you mean), would what you regard as a problem be avoided if the at issue determinism matter were addressed/expressed entirely from the local set immediate subject-I context?

Kind of? There are complications to it which...

For instance, do you think there is a problem with the question: Given a local set immediate subject-I, is it already determined how that set/subject is going to be?

Now we're getting into a slightly more useful conversation:

Given a local set immediate subject I, at time 0, it is not at that location determined how the subject is going to be at time 1, because the very action of the determination is motion from 0 to 1, and the site where it is so determined is 1.

0 is not locationally at 1.

Are you saying that, given local set immediate-I at 0, local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1? If local set immediate-I at 0 is NOT contained in local set immediate-I at 1, is that because local set immediate-I at 0 is somehow no longer contained/containable within any set? If that rendering of mine is at all close to accurate, and if local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1, then is there only one local set at 1? Or, are there multiple local sets at 1? If there are multiple sets at 1, do all of those sets contain local set immediate-I at 0, or do only some of the multiple sets at 1 contain local set immediate-I at 0?

 

[Jarhyn]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

I think I am better understanding your manner of expression. Let us see.

Is the immediate subject-I always a local set? If so, is your objection/criticism based on the notion that the subject-I referenced in different conditions is not (maybe even possibly) the immediate subject-I?

Well, due to the nature we use to select the nonlocal set subject, the mmediate/local "set" is almost always (and perhaps *necessarily*) a member of the nonlocal version.

{} != {{},{{}}} is a basic intuition in math. The correct operator is to say {{},{{}}} *contains* {}, not that it *equals*...

If that is the case (or close enough to what you mean), would what you regard as a problem be avoided if the at issue determinism matter were addressed/expressed entirely from the local set immediate subject-I context?

Kind of? There are complications to it which...

For instance, do you think there is a problem with the question: Given a local set immediate subject-I, is it already determined how that set/subject is going to be?

Now we're getting into a slightly more useful conversation:

Given a local set immediate subject I, at time 0, it is not at that location determined how the subject is going to be at time 1, because the very action of the determination is motion from 0 to 1, and the site where it is so determined is 1.

0 is not locationally at 1.

Are you saying that, given local set immediate-I at 0, local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1? If local set immediate-I at 0 is NOT contained in local set immediate-I at 1, is that because local set immediate-I at 0 is somehow no longer contained/containable within any set? If that rendering of mine is at all close to accurate, and if local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1, then is there only one local set at 1? Or, are there multiple local sets at 1? If there are multiple sets at 1, do all of those sets contain local set immediate-I at 0, or do only some of the multiple sets at 1 contain local set immediate-I at 0?

No, and now I feel almost like you're just trying to find things (which I'm not saying) by going between only tangentially related parts of my post as if one was intended to represent some containerization in the next.

Your whole post is a confusion upon a confusion, so it's not even making sense at all trying to parse it in terms of what I actually said.

The first half of the post was a discussion about the first half of your post which was about a slightly different thing than the later half.

I'm saying, specifically *in the second half of my post*, that if you look at any point in block spacetime and ask "what is determined here" this is *equivalent* to "what is happening here, now".

What you see is is what you get, as far as my second nontrivial block: You don't see the future determined there because the future isn't determined there.

Instead, it's determined in the future by the things in preceding moment in the future which determine it and the transformation that happens when the thing that is here in 3d falls to there in 3d across a fourth time dimension.

Without doing the falling, without scribing the ark or transiting the viewer or whatever, you don't get to see the result, in the sort of deterministic system I envision the universe as.

"There is no preferred reference frame" is a very important insight here, I think. No one location "best" says what happens. Different "possibilities" exist, and when we look forward across the time dimension explicitly, we call these "outcomes".

But again I reiterate, the outcome of some earlier point isn't already at some earlier point; it's only and *exactly* at the outcome.

 

[peacegirl]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

I think I am better understanding your manner of expression. Let us see.

Is the immediate subject-I always a local set? If so, is your objection/criticism based on the notion that the subject-I referenced in different conditions is not (maybe even possibly) the immediate subject-I?

Well, due to the nature we use to select the nonlocal set subject, the mmediate/local "set" is almost always (and perhaps *necessarily*) a member of the nonlocal version.

{} != {{},{{}}} is a basic intuition in math. The correct operator is to say {{},{{}}} *contains* {}, not that it *equals*...

If that is the case (or close enough to what you mean), would what you regard as a problem be avoided if the at issue determinism matter were addressed/expressed entirely from the local set immediate subject-I context?

Kind of? There are complications to it which...

For instance, do you think there is a problem with the question: Given a local set immediate subject-I, is it already determined how that set/subject is going to be?

Now we're getting into a slightly more useful conversation:

Given a local set immediate subject I, at time 0, it is not at that location determined how the subject is going to be at time 1, because the very action of the determination is motion from 0 to 1, and the site where it is so determined is 1.

0 is not locationally at 1.

Are you saying that, given local set immediate-I at 0, local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1? If local set immediate-I at 0 is NOT contained in local set immediate-I at 1, is that because local set immediate-I at 0 is somehow no longer contained/containable within any set? If that rendering of mine is at all close to accurate, and if local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1, then is there only one local set at 1? Or, are there multiple local sets at 1? If there are multiple sets at 1, do all of those sets contain local set immediate-I at 0, or do only some of the multiple sets at 1 contain local set immediate-I at 0?

No, and now I feel almost like you're just trying to find things (which I'm not saying) by going between only tangentially related parts of my post as if one was intended to represent some containerization in the next.

Your whole post is a confusion upon a confusion, so it's not even making sense at all trying to parse it in terms of what I actually said.

The first half of the post was a discussion about the first half of your post which was about a slightly different thing than the later half.

I'm saying, specifically *in the second half of my post*, that if you look at any point in block spacetime and ask "what is determined here" this is *equivalent* to "what is happening here, now".

What you see is is what you get, as far as my second nontrivial block: You don't see the future determined there because the future isn't determined there.

Instead, it's determined in the future by the things in preceding moment in the future which determine it and the transformation that happens when the thing that is here in 3d falls to there in 3d across a fourth time dimension.

Without doing the falling, without scribing the ark or transiting the viewer or whatever, you don't get to see the result, in the sort of deterministic system I envision the universe as.

"There is no preferred reference frame" is a very important insight here, I think. No one location "best" says what happens. Different "possibilities" exist, and when we look forward across the time dimension explicitly, we call these "outcomes".

But again I reiterate, the outcome of some earlier point isn't already at some earlier point; it's only and *exactly* at the outcome.

Do you realize, Jaryn, that your envisioned universe presupposes that there is such as a thing as a fourth dimension (i.e. time) that hold different frames of references, along with your imaginary spacetime, other worlds, and all the rest of your theoretical nonsense. Your interpretation is just made-up fiction (it would make a great science fiction movie: I think you missed your calling) without one iota of proof that other worlds and block universes actually exist. You are in la la land.

No one is denying that when someone shoots and kills someone, they are not responsible for pulling the trigger. But as far as determinism goes, they are not morally responsible because they had no choice at that moment. Does this mean murder will always be here? No it doesn't, not when the conditions of the environment change. It's amazing what lengths people will go to in order to try to make sense of the world regardless of how incorrect their interpretations are.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

So,

Sorry, but I find your manner of expression unintelligible

Well, that tends to happen for some particular subset of folks. Given the fact that *peacegirl* is cheerleading you, I have little faith in your ability. Maybe you're going to surprise me but so far you haven't.

I could have done otherwise meaning I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different

No, it means "that with me-property does otherwise when and where conditions are X"

It is not a statement that the immediate you exists in different conditions but that the *conditions* that define your actions, when presented different context, make different actions; or where some property is excluded from consideration.

This comes from the confused and ill-informed intent to try and treat set modalities as if they are uniquely positional.

This is literally the most tiresome and droll mistake that people approaching the topic of responsibility and causality make. Waves of people on Reddit make this error, as if born of the tides.

The waves come in. The waves go out. People commit the modal fallacy. The waves come in...

Your reference to peacegirl is - how can I put this as gently as possible? - a most unrespectable form of ad hominem remark. That does not speak well for you. It does not bode well for your possibilities. Be that as it may. You say that my statement, "I could have done otherwise [means] I WOULD have done otherwise, had conditions been different", does not mean what I say it means. pood said, "'I could have chosen otherwise,' means ... 'I WOULD have chosen otherwise, had conditions been different.'" Are you also saying that pood's statement does not mean what he says it means? If you assert that pood's statement means what he says it means, then it is incumbent upon you - i.e., it is necessary for you - to distinguish relevant differences between his statement and mine. To this point, I have no reason to think that you are at all familiar with modal logic - specifically with its utility.

Go to the Other Philosophical Discussions forum.

Read her 120 post long screed + advertisement wherein she spends most of the time defending her favorite author's "Efferent Vision" theory.

Go ahead.

Please.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, looks like I didn't have to. Now she's defending it here. It's probably not a great idea to continue engaging with that?

Anyway, yes, I am also saying Pood is wrong with their interpretation. "I would have done otherwise if conditions had been different" is a bad way of saying it if the goal is "precise correctness", because it just shifts where the modal operator on the subject is being applied invisibly still.

It is still taking the 'immediate subject' I, the looking at "different conditions" and then ignoring the fact that this necessarily means the subject is a non-local set. It still a statement not about an individual self 'I' but a statement about everywhere where some self-property exists elsewhere.

It's still a modally charged statement and will be so until you parse the apparent single-modal subject with the possible-modal packaging of the predicate to create the possible-modal subject.

It's wrong to unpack it quite like that specifically because it doesn't complete the conjugation of the sentence.

I think I am better understanding your manner of expression. Let us see.

Is the immediate subject-I always a local set? If so, is your objection/criticism based on the notion that the subject-I referenced in different conditions is not (maybe even possibly) the immediate subject-I?

Well, due to the nature we use to select the nonlocal set subject, the mmediate/local "set" is almost always (and perhaps *necessarily*) a member of the nonlocal version.

{} != {{},{{}}} is a basic intuition in math. The correct operator is to say {{},{{}}} *contains* {}, not that it *equals*...

If that is the case (or close enough to what you mean), would what you regard as a problem be avoided if the at issue determinism matter were addressed/expressed entirely from the local set immediate subject-I context?

Kind of? There are complications to it which...

For instance, do you think there is a problem with the question: Given a local set immediate subject-I, is it already determined how that set/subject is going to be?

Now we're getting into a slightly more useful conversation:

Given a local set immediate subject I, at time 0, it is not at that location determined how the subject is going to be at time 1, because the very action of the determination is motion from 0 to 1, and the site where it is so determined is 1.

0 is not locationally at 1.

Are you saying that, given local set immediate-I at 0, local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1? If local set immediate-I at 0 is NOT contained in local set immediate-I at 1, is that because local set immediate-I at 0 is somehow no longer contained/containable within any set? If that rendering of mine is at all close to accurate, and if local set immediate-I at 0 is contained in local set immediate-I at 1, then is there only one local set at 1? Or, are there multiple local sets at 1? If there are multiple sets at 1, do all of those sets contain local set immediate-I at 0, or do only some of the multiple sets at 1 contain local set immediate-I at 0?

No, and now I feel almost like you're just trying to find things (which I'm not saying) by going between only tangentially related parts of my post as if one was intended to represent some containerization in the next.

Your whole post is a confusion upon a confusion, so it's not even making sense at all trying to parse it in terms of what I actually said.

The first half of the post was a discussion about the first half of your post which was about a slightly different thing than the later half.

I'm saying, specifically *in the second half of my post*, that if you look at any point in block spacetime and ask "what is determined here" this is *equivalent* to "what is happening here, now".

What you see is is what you get, as far as my second nontrivial block: You don't see the future determined there because the future isn't determined there.

Instead, it's determined in the future by the things in preceding moment in the future which determine it and the transformation that happens when the thing that is here in 3d falls to there in 3d across a fourth time dimension.

Without doing the falling, without scribing the ark or transiting the viewer or whatever, you don't get to see the result, in the sort of deterministic system I envision the universe as.

"There is no preferred reference frame" is a very important insight here, I think. No one location "best" says what happens. Different "possibilities" exist, and when we look forward across the time dimension explicitly, we call these "outcomes".

But again I reiterate, the outcome of some earlier point isn't already at some earlier point; it's only and *exactly* at the outcome.

Jarhyn previously said:

Given a local set immediate subject I, at time 0, it is not at that location determined how the subject is going to be at time 1 ...

On the face of it, as expressed, the statement quoted immediately above seems to disavow determinism. I have reason to suspect that such a disavowal is not intended.

Jarhyn also previously said:

... the very action of the determination is motion from 0 to 1, and the site where it is so determined is 1.

Motion in the above remark might be intended to simply indicate/acknowledge that a given state/context at time 0 changes to (or is differentiated from) a different state/context at time 1 - albeit a different state/context which is, in a sense, dependent upon the initially considered, sequentially prior state/context.

Alternatively, motion in the cited remark could be intended to indicate an extreme reductive physicalist perspective which asserts that macrophysical change is reducible to microphysical motion/occurrences/action. But, even then, the first cited statement still seems to assert a disavowal of determinism. In order to remain consistent with the first cited statement, the motion statement ("motion from 0 to 1") must hold that the motion itself is not determined at time 0, because, if that motion were itself determined, then there would be no basis for the claim that the state/context is not determined until time 1.

In yet another alternative expression, instead of motion, explication can be in terms of differentiation. But, even then, the differentiation itself has to be not-determined if the state/context is not determined prior to time 1.

Therefore, if a disavowal of determinism is not intended, then modification or abandonment of the above quoted remarks is warranted.

Most recently Jarhyn said:

I'm saying, specifically *in the second half of my post*, that if you look at any point in block spacetime and ask "what is determined here" this is *equivalent* to "what is happening here, now".

What you see is is what you get, as far as my second nontrivial block: You don't see the future determined there because the future isn't determined there.

If you assume block spacetime, then you assume past, present, and future are all devoid of (relevant) indeterminateness and are all determined, because by assuming block spacetime you assume utter determinateness at all spacetime points. At "any point in block spacetime", the future is determined even though the future is not actual at (or from the perspective of) any pre-future spacetime point. Given the assumption of block spacetime, all future points are always determined regardless of whatever point is dubbed the present, but none of those determined future points are actual at the point referenced as present. Given the assumption of block spacetime, talk in terms of alternatives is feckless despite being constituent of block spacetime.

 

[Jarhyn]

On the face of it, as expressed, the statement quoted immediately above seems to disavow determinism

No, it merely describes determinism: that by the rules of the function of the system that the transit "from here to there" exists and is determined by the rules.

The invariance of the system, the fact that there's a sequence of events each after the next with complete rules and complete outcomes is determinism.

This is the same concept of difference as "function" vs "relation", specifically "the function of space across time".

What this is saying is that there are no two undecidable values for a given time T at a given coordinate X/Y/Z.

Different values at different X/Y/Z/T is a given, and we don't need to look for a W dimension to find them.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Some additional thoughts.

Jarhyn said:

"There is no preferred reference frame" is a very important insight here, I think.

To assume block spacetime is to frame. Framing is not inherently objectionable. How can it be? Certainly for humans, framing is unavoidable. However, when an assumption, a framing, is treated as if it is impossible for it not to be the case/truth/what have you, then you possess the most preferred reference frame possible, and that preferential framing differs significantly from the framing done for the sake of argument or from mere preference of one framing over some other which has also been taken into account.

Jarhyn said:

The invariance of the system, the fact that there's a sequence of events each after the next with complete rules and complete outcomes is determinism.

The rules part is extraneous. Invariance (denying that actual(izable) variance is possible) is what is asserted with determinism. That is especially the case when block spacetime is assumed. The invariance being asserted proclaims that everything is always determined. To assert such invariance means that nothing is ever not determined. To assert that sort of invariance is to deny the possibility of anything otherwise in or given that context. Essentially, by my understanding, what the hard determinists are saying to the compatibilists is that to characterize a context as one of invariance (utterly devoid of the relevant indeterminateness necessary for there to be actual(izable) variance) while also asserting that there can be or could have been anything otherwise is to produce a contradiction. That aspect of their disagreement has nothing to do with any alleged modal fallacy.

I previously said:

From some given fully determinate context (set of conditions), it is necessarily the case that the one and only (even if actually contingent) possibility can/could/will become actual.

Notice the use of "necessarily" there. If someone were to object to that statement on the basis of that "necessarily" not being a reference to modal logic necessity, then that "necessarily" would get replaced by "unavoidably", and the meaning would remain absolutely the same, and the hard determinist position would remain intact and unscathed. This is to point out that modal logic is not sufficient for a successful defense of compatibilism.

 

[DBT]

It remains that determinism does not permit alternate actions, which negates choosing otherwise in any given instance of decision making (the no choice principle).

Which is why compatibilists define free will as acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, with no reference to being able to have done otherwise in any given situation.

As this ignores inner necessity, the underlying mechanism and process that generates thought and action, Compatibilism fails to make a case for the reality of free will.

Clearly determinism does not only permit but observably puts infinite numbers of alternative actions on display.

That makes no sense. If you select coffee rather than hot chocolate, the universe does not put the latter on display. You just order coffee and the perceived alternative does not happen, and is not on display.

 

[Jarhyn]

To assume block spacetime is to frame

No, it isn't. It's exactly the inverse of "framing".

From our point of view we still have to have somewhere we're looking in U, and "all of math and existence" outside some *existing* reference frame *is not a sensible concept*.

It's the same problem with trying to axiomize completeness...

It remains that determinism does not permit alternate actions, which negates choosing otherwise in any given instance of decision making (the no choice principle).

Which is why compatibilists define free will as acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, with no reference to being able to have done otherwise in any given situation.

As this ignores inner necessity, the underlying mechanism and process that generates thought and action, Compatibilism fails to make a case for the reality of free will.

Clearly determinism does not only permit but observably puts infinite numbers of alternative actions on display.

That makes no sense. If you select coffee rather than hot chocolate, the universe does not put the latter on display. You just order coffee and the perceived alternative does not happen, and is not on display.

Yes it does in the infinity of places where, with identical conditions around a different agent, hot chocolate happens, including suitably across the diner, and yesterday and tomorrow.

 

[DBT]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with [what you believe is] the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

Passing judgement has nothing to do with it. Light at the eye/instant vision is false. Not because I pass judgement or I say so, but it's just not the way the world physically works. It's impossible. Being physically impossible, it doesn't do you any good to argue for it.

You are judging his claim prematurely whether you think so or not. There is nothing in his claim that violates physical laws, not when you understand how the brain works. You cannot see it because you keep thinking in terms of light having to bring the image to our eyes through space/time distance. This alternate view needs to be examined with rigor, not thrown out because you can't imagine how this could occur. That's exactly what you're doing and sadly dissing his entire work as a result. He knew this would happen, but he didn't know the extent of the resentment that would follow.

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 and 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 was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature. Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a PROJECTING FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end. The other law asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with millions and millions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death.

It's not premature judgement, just physics. Where it isn't possible to see something before the light/ information reflected or radiated from the object is acquired by the eyes and processed by the brain.

As for "why me in this time and place," that can be said by anyone in any time or place where there are people.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with [what you believe is] the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

Passing judgement has nothing to do with it. Light at the eye/instant vision is false. Not because I pass judgement or I say so, but it's just not the way the world physically works. It's impossible. Being physically impossible, it doesn't do you any good to argue for it.

You are judging his claim prematurely whether you think so or not. There is nothing in his claim that violates physical laws, not when you understand how the brain works. You cannot see it because you keep thinking in terms of light having to bring the image to our eyes through space/time distance. This alternate view needs to be examined with rigor, not thrown out because you can't imagine how this could occur. That's exactly what you're doing and sadly dissing his entire work as a result. He knew this would happen, but he didn't know the extent of the resentment that would follow.

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 and 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 was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature. Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a PROJECTING FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end. The other law asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with millions and millions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death.

It's not premature judgement, just physics. Where it isn't possible to see something before the light/ information reflected or radiated from the object is acquired by the eyes and processed by the brain.

As for "why me in this time and place," that can be said by anyone in any time or place where there are people.

Right, it can apply to anyone who is alive at this infinitesimal moment of time which adks the question, “why am I here right now” because the chances, when looking at all the people who have died before us, seems like a lottery win. It’s an interesting question which, when explained, removes the strangeness.

 

[DBT]

It's not a matter of indoctrination. A claim such as 'light at the eye/instance vision' simply has no merit and only serves to discredit the book. It doesn't work, not logically, not physically. That is why anybody who has even a basic understanding of physics and how the eye and brain functions in terms of vision cannot take it seriously.

You need to drop it.

No DBT, i will not drop it. You are being too quick to pass judgment. The review against him on Amazon was a misrepresentation of his claim. He never said light was not at the eye or that we don’t need light to see. This is crazy and has ruined interest even though this knowledge can actually change our world for the better. I asked you to please refrain from throwing his knowledge out without a thorough understanding of why he claimed what he did. Talk about throwing the baby out with [what you believe is] the bathwater and Is a perfect example of having a dogmatic hold where the mere mention that science may have gotten it wrong throws you into a tizzy. This is not being open-minded which is the hallmark of good science!

Passing judgement has nothing to do with it. Light at the eye/instant vision is false. Not because I pass judgement or I say so, but it's just not the way the world physically works. It's impossible. Being physically impossible, it doesn't do you any good to argue for it.

You are judging his claim prematurely whether you think so or not. There is nothing in his claim that violates physical laws, not when you understand how the brain works. You cannot see it because you keep thinking in terms of light having to bring the image to our eyes through space/time distance. This alternate view needs to be examined with rigor, not thrown out because you can't imagine how this could occur. That's exactly what you're doing and sadly dissing his entire work as a result. He knew this would happen, but he didn't know the extent of the resentment that would follow.

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 and 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 was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature. Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a PROJECTING FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end. The other law asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with millions and millions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death.

It's not premature judgement, just physics. Where it isn't possible to see something before the light/ information reflected or radiated from the object is acquired by the eyes and processed by the brain.

As for "why me in this time and place," that can be said by anyone in any time or place where there are people.

Right, it can apply to anyone who is alive at this infinitesimal moment of time which adks the question, “why am I here right now” because the chances, when looking at all the people who have died before us, seems like a lottery win. It’s an interesting question which, when explained, removes the strangeness.

As the human race does happen to exist, evolution, genetics, etc, any of its members may ask themselves the question "why am I here." Given that the human race has evolved and it does exist, it is inevitable that we as individuals ask that question. A question that has probably been asked by each and every thinker in the history of the human race.