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

[pood]

We do tend to see the world through the lense of our beliefs, where some see signs wonders in what others consider to be mundane events, where one man's pastor, prophet or saviour may be seen by others as either mistaken/conditioned or fraudulent.

That is true. We see the world based on our experiences that form our beliefs. This is also why we develop associations with certain sounds, smells or sights that trigger an emotional response, but none of this negates his claim of real time vision. If anything, it supports it.

No, it doesn’t.

 

[peacegirl]

It's very easy to see that dogs cannot identify from a picture is because the image or lightwave is not traveling to their eyes or they would be able to recognize their masters whether in person (without other cues) or as a representation. You can do that experiment in your own home. You don't need a formal experiment using props like they did in the other forum I was at. They actually believed from this experiment that Lessans was disproved. He was not. As far as determinism goes, there could be small segments of the population using these principles to show that it works, but if people recognized the premises as 100% accurate, it can be easily seen that when these principles are applied globally, they will work because human beings cannot move against their nature, which would be to hurt others when not to hurt them is the better choice given the changed environmental conditions --- which takes away any justification to do so. That's the whole point of this discovery. Hurting others when not to hurt them offers greater satisfaction (which is the only direction we can move) is the very reason why this is an invariable law. Laws don't change with time.

Sorry again Papergirl, that is nonsense gibberish.

That's because you tore him apart after the first page. That's not the sign of a critical thinker. Please don't post if all you do is call it gibberish. You made statements about this man that you never knew and know nothing about. This is starting to be a form of libel. Plese stop! He wasn't anything like your description of him. Since you know so much, why is will not free? What is the two-sided equation? You say his chapters are incoherent, so put your money where your mouth is and show me where. If you can't, then stop while the going is good.

 

[pood]

Damn it, no page 100 party.

 

[DBT]

We do tend to see the world through the lense of our beliefs, where some see signs wonders in what others consider to be mundane events, where one man's pastor, prophet or saviour may be seen by others as either mistaken/conditioned or fraudulent.

That is true. We see the world based on our experiences that form our beliefs. This is also why we develop associations with certain sounds, smells or sights that trigger an emotional response, but none of this negates his claim of real time vision. If anything, it supports it.

How exactly does it support real time vision? A description of the means would help.

 

[steve_bank]

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

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

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

And yes, my sense of humor is working quite nicely.

Take a chill pill.

No, you.

If this was an NFL football game and I was a referee I'd call offsetting personal fouls on Pood and Peacegirl, unnecessary roughness and unsportsman like conduct. Replay the down....the clock will start on my whistle.

 

[steve_bank]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias,[a] or congeniality bias[2]) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[3] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:

attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Flawed decisions due to confirmation bias have been found in a wide range of political, organizational, financial and scientific contexts. These biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence. A medical practitioner may prematurely focus on a particular disorder early in a diagnostic session, and then seek only confirming evidence. In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views.

Christians will look at the world and say it is obvious the bible is true and god exists.

Peacegirl says it is obviously true, it is written in my book.

 

[pood]

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

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

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

And yes, my sense of humor is working quite nicely.

Take a chill pill.

No, you.

If this was an NFL football game and I was a referee I'd call offsetting personal fouls on Pood and Peacegirl, unnecessary roughness and unsportsman like conduct. Replay the down....the clock will start on my whistle.

Sorry, I haven’t committed any personal fouls. When peacegirl writes, “You just can’t stand his claim regarding the eyes,” etc., as opposed to addressing the arguments and evidence I have offered, that is classic argumentum ad hominem, which is against the rules here, in case you had not noticed. So you can call her for unsportsmanlike conduct, not me. Thus far I have refrained from reporting her ad hom posts, including one in which she used ad hom six separate times in the same post.

 

[peacegirl]

Yo0u are all over the place.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

If this is the best you can do, god help us!

 

[pood]

Yo0u are all over the place.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

If this is the best you can do, god help us!

See, Steve? How’s that for a response to your evidence and argument?

 

[peacegirl]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias,[a] or congeniality bias[2]) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[3] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:

attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Flawed decisions due to confirmation bias have been found in a wide range of political, organizational, financial and scientific contexts. These biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence. A medical practitioner may prematurely focus on a particular disorder early in a diagnostic session, and then seek only confirming evidence. In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views.

Christians will look at the world and say it is obvious the bible is true and god exists.

Peacegirl says it is obviously true, it is written in my book.

Absolutely false! This response is truly sickening. It's time for Steve to move on. If he doesn't leave I will not respond to him. It's a waste of my time and energy.

 

[pood]

How ya like that, Steve? Who is doing personal fouls?

 

[pood]

Peacegirl says it is obviously true, it is written in my book.

Absolutely false!

Absolutely true. If it were not true, it would be simple to prove. All you need to do is explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the two-sided equation, why a dog cannot recognize its master by sight alone, why the light both is, and is not, at the eye at the same time, and why the eye is not a sense organ. You NEVER do that. Instead, you just point us to the book, where no explanation is to be found, either. Yours is entirely an argument to authority — your father’s alleged authority — and you have even said that if your father had been wrong, he would have said so; he never said so, so he must be right.

 

[steve_bank]

Yo0u are all over the place.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

If this is the best you can do, god help us!

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance..

I kw it is true because what is n the book is true. If you read the nook you will see it is true. I checked it out with a dog and I conformed it is true.

As to cognitive dominance you rfuse to engage and acknowledge the textbook science you are presented with and keep repeating the same claims that are fruited.

A joke a physicist I worked with told.

Einstein is in the audience listening to a speaker.

At the end the speaker said 'Therefore this must be true.'
Einstein asked 'But why must it be true?'.
The speaker replied 'Because it is written'.
'Written where?' asked Einstein.

The speaker relied angrily pounding his fist on the podium 'Because it is written in my book!!!'.

You claim you arr true because it is written in your book. It can not be challenged.

 

[steve_bank]

How ya like that, Steve? Who is doing personal fouls?

That is rather regular conversation on the forum, not even close to ad hom or insult.

I do think you tend to cross the line to abusive langue that serves no purpose but to demean. That is up to the mods. Peacegirl seems capable of defending herself.

BTW, keep reminding me that you had already explained something to Peacegirl when I post.

I have one person on ignore, he tends to be abusive and says nothing. I never complained to mods, I put him on ignore.

 

[pood]

How ya like that, Steve? Who is doing personal fouls?

That is rather regular conversation on the forum, not even close to ad hom or insult.

I do think you tend to cross the line to abusive langue that serves no purpose but to demean. That is up to the mods. Peacegirl seems capable of defndimng herself.

BTW, keep remindng me that you had already explained somethng to Peacegirl when I piost.

Why don’t you point out even a single example of “abusive” language that I have employed toward her?

And yes, what she said to you was not ad hom, but it certainly was not any kind of response.

But yes, she has repeatedly replied specifically in ad hom fashion to me. That is against the rules. I just have not bothered to report those posts.

 

[pood]

I have one person on ignore, he tends to be abusive and says nothing. I never complained to mods, I put him on ignore.

Just trying to save you the trouble of saying something that has been said to her over a million times over the last quarter century at about ten different boards. But hey, knock yourself out. I’ll just sit back and be amused.

 

[peacegirl]

Yo0u are all over the place.

Point it out, otherwise your words are just bluster.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

Then why can't they recognize the person closest to them if this light is traveling to their eyes? Don't just handwave this away because it will do you no good.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Yes, the waves do that. Why are you moving the goalposts?

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

Because Steve says so.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

Think about what you just said. I hope you have enough common sense left to see you failed spectacularly.

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

This does not prove anything. Dogs can see movement, but they cannot recognize differences in facial features. If they could, they would be able to recognize their masters in human form as well as from a computer screen.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Babies can hear, smell, taste, and feel touch the moment they are born, but they cannot focus.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

Thats just the point. Context brings clues.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

Thats fine if your peers knew the subject and could give you valuable feedback.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

Your scrutiny is full of bias and ad homs. There’s no place for this kind of accusation. If I had to go to you for approval, this discovery would be thrown in a scrap heap like J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter almost went. Luckily one publishing company recognized the potential of her books and the rest is history.

 

[pood]

As I say …

 

[bilby]

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

Then why can't they recognize the person closest to them if this light is traveling to their eyes?

THEY CAN!

That's your "why" resolved, right there.

You could as well ask "If wings are made for flying, why can't birds fly?"

That's how reasonable you sound here.



... then where do all the calculators go??

 

[pood]

Hair dryers with tiny little wings sitting on clouds playing harps.