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

[DBT]

A baby not recognising objects in the world around them is not the same as literally not seeing these things.

A newborn baby would not be able to focus without the other senses stimulating him.

if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young, and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

Some are born deaf, yet do have sight. Being deaf may have effects on perception, but that doesn't eliminate being able to see.

He never said that it did. An infant would not be able to focus no matter how much light was present or how colorful the objects would be if the baby was not stimulated by any of the other senses. Sound is just one sense. Touch, smell, and taste could also do the job. Once the eyes are focused, the eyes stay focused. It's just when they are born that the other senses are of paramount importance when it comes to sight.

"What Did We Find?
As we thought, the deaf and hearing babies did behave differently in our experiment. The deaf babies took longer to habituate to the pictures of colorful toys. On average, they looked at the toys for about 70 total seconds during the test. The hearing babies looked at the toys for about 42 total seconds (Figure 2). We think this means the deaf babies took longer to process what they were seeing than the hearing babies."

Does Being Born Deaf Affect How We See?

Have you ever heard someone say that if you are born deaf, you have better vision to make up for it? People often think so, but is that actually true? We know that what babies hear, see, and touch determines how their brains develop. When you are growing, your brain is flexible. This means it...

kids.frontiersin.org

Interesting article. Thanks!

And it contradicts your claim.

 

[peacegirl]

A lot of well meaning people try to change the world for the better, and their work may be worthwhile, indispensable even, yet here we are in a world in crisis, needless suffering, inequality, war, ecosystems in decline.....

Lots of people think they had the solution, but this one can prevent needless suffering, inequality, war, which will open up the ability to stop the environmental destruction. This one really is the gem, not because he was my father but because of extending the principles. Understandably, people are skeptical and will continue to be skeptical until they understand why man's will is not free and why the eyes are not a sense organ. He did describe how we are conditioned to seeing what really isn't imbedded in light. No light is traveling with beauty and ugliness in them, yet this conditioning makes it appear that beauty and ugliness are part of the real world. We become conditioned due to words that lie to us, and there's no escape from this unless the words that are attached to certain features that condition us to seeing with our very eyes that some people are more beautiful or ugly than others, are removed from our dictionaries. Scientists and philosophers don't want to hear an outsider debating the creme de la creme in their particular field. They resent him highly. I'm only asking people to take the time to study the book and not compare it to others who meant well but didn't have the answer. We are in a crisis on many fronts. This should at least give people a pause before they jump to premature conclusions.

The issue of how we view the world, our attitude and how we respond has nothing to do with the speed of light or how our eyes work, but a host of other factors such as life experience and social conditioning, where what may have been good and moral for an ancient Roman or Aztec is not acceptable in this day and age.

It has everything to do with how the eyes work because of what we are conditioned to see due to words. Did you not read the excerpt?

Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which makes the projection appear real. By having the words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.

"Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.

The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and ideologies.

Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including nationalism, education, employment, entertainment, popular culture, religion, spirituality and family life. The social structure in which an individual finds him or herself influences and can determine their social actions and responses."

Social conditioning

Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society. The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and...

dbpedia.org

I am not disputing any of this. All I am saying is that we become conditioned to favoring certain facial features when we have learned from an early age what constitutes beauty in the eyes of society, and what doesn't. American faces to many Orientals are more beautiful so they are getting their eyelids done to look more American. This conditioning could not occur if not for words that give the appearance of reality. Being labeled beautiful or ugly also has an effect on social conditioning because of how people are judged by their looks and their social status. Every culture is slightly different in their standard of beauty, but this doesn't change how this conditioning takes place.

Again.

It's not the eyes that generate vision and see.

It is the brain.

Right.

The function of an eye is to detect light and convert whatever information is acquired and transmit it to the brain for processing.

Right.

Our social values and conditioning has nothing whatsoever to do with our eyes, light at the eye or instant vision, but the conditions in the world around us.

The eyes of ancient people, Khan's Mongols, Aztec, Romans, etc, were exactly the same as ours, yet they had different cultures and values.

The eyes are the window of the brain. The brain focuses the eyes to see, as the author described. No one said eyes worked differently in ancient cultures. This is getting way off track.

 

[DBT]

A lot of well meaning people try to change the world for the better, and their work may be worthwhile, indispensable even, yet here we are in a world in crisis, needless suffering, inequality, war, ecosystems in decline.....

Lots of people think they had the solution, but this one can prevent needless suffering, inequality, war, which will open up the ability to stop the environmental destruction. This one really is the gem, not because he was my father but because of extending the principles. Understandably, people are skeptical and will continue to be skeptical until they understand why man's will is not free and why the eyes are not a sense organ. He did describe how we are conditioned to seeing what really isn't imbedded in light. No light is traveling with beauty and ugliness in them, yet this conditioning makes it appear that beauty and ugliness are part of the real world. We become conditioned due to words that lie to us, and there's no escape from this unless the words that are attached to certain features that condition us to seeing with our very eyes that some people are more beautiful or ugly than others, are removed from our dictionaries. Scientists and philosophers don't want to hear an outsider debating the creme de la creme in their particular field. They resent him highly. I'm only asking people to take the time to study the book and not compare it to others who meant well but didn't have the answer. We are in a crisis on many fronts. This should at least give people a pause before they jump to premature conclusions.

The issue of how we view the world, our attitude and how we respond has nothing to do with the speed of light or how our eyes work, but a host of other factors such as life experience and social conditioning, where what may have been good and moral for an ancient Roman or Aztec is not acceptable in this day and age.

It has everything to do with how the eyes work because of what we are conditioned to see due to words. Did you not read the excerpt?

Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which makes the projection appear real. By having the words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.

"Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.

The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and ideologies.

Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including nationalism, education, employment, entertainment, popular culture, religion, spirituality and family life. The social structure in which an individual finds him or herself influences and can determine their social actions and responses."

Social conditioning

Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society. The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and...

dbpedia.org

I am not disputing any of this. All I am saying is that we become conditioned to favoring certain facial features when we have learned from an early age what constitutes beauty in the eyes of society, and what doesn't. American faces to many Orientals are more beautiful so they are getting their eyelids done to look more American. This conditioning could not occur if not for words that give the appearance of reality. Being labeled beautiful or ugly also has an effect on social conditioning because of how people are judged by their looks and their social status. Every culture is slightly different in their standard of beauty, but this doesn't change how this conditioning takes place.

Again.

It's not the eyes that generate vision and see.

It is the brain.

Right.

The function of an eye is to detect light and convert whatever information is acquired and transmit it to the brain for processing.

Right.

Our social values and conditioning has nothing whatsoever to do with our eyes, light at the eye or instant vision, but the conditions in the world around us.

The eyes of ancient people, Khan's Mongols, Aztec, Romans, etc, were exactly the same as ours, yet they had different cultures and values.

The eyes are the window of the brain. The brain focuses the eyes to see, as the author described. No one said eyes worked differently in ancient cultures. This is getting way off track.

Didn't you say that light is 'at the eye' with no travel time? How does it get there?

And the point of my remark is that it is not the eye or light that creates conditions in the world.

 

[bilby]

This makes sense.

How could you possibly know? You have demonstrated an astonishing inability to determine what does or does not make sense.

 

[bilby]

I do think it is the kind of thing that when you first really internalize what it means, it shows up as a brand new insight and feels like no one has ever explained it correctly before. Truth as a pathless land kind of thing. I know it did for me anyway.

I believe I discovered Krishnamurti while reading Henry Miller in my 20s. He was a big fan of K. Incidentally, this author has penned humorous raunchy sex stuff that matches and may exceed that of Miller. But in “compiling” this book, peacegirl took all that out. Too bad. If I had been the editor of this work — and I have worked for a long time as a professional editor and writer — I would have put all the sex stuff smack in the first chapter as a hook to leading readers to the two-sided equation and all that. With that great funny sex stuff in their minds, the readers might have been conditioned to give the author the benefit of the doubt about his light and sight claims. Peacegirl might have had a best seller. Still could, if she would present the stuff as recommended and also trim the book length considerably. I believe it is almost 600 pages long

You're just continuning to goof on me. I already told you that my father had a sense of humor and used it as comic relief. I didn't take it out. Your motive has never been to help me. It's been to make me look foolish. In context, the chapter on marriage was part of how this knowledge extends. It wasn't really raunchy unless you're a puritan. He purposely used words to show that in the new world, as long as two people like what they are doing, it is not perverted. Remember, he came from a time that women were frigid because of being taught that sex was dirty. Please stop what you're doing, okay? You're being unfair and you know it. This was in one of his other books:

Chapter Nine: Inception of the Golden Age​

“Before we get started, I would like to know if dirty words will be used in the new world?”​

“If you can tell me the difference between vagina and cunt, penis and cock, sexual intercourse and fuck, I will answer your question, Charlie.”
“The one group of words pertains to an objective description, while the other is subjective and emotionally involves the user.”
“That was pretty good, Larry.”
“Now tell me, is anybody being hurt by the use of these words?”
“Certain people are judged very critically if they are involved in them and other things, like the President and his family. They have to adhere to the strictest protocol, and if it was known that they used such language or looked at dirty books, the people would look down on them, perhaps not even vote for them.”
“In other words, the hurt is this judging of what is right for others, which has already been established as wrong. Consequently, the moment people are compelled to refrain from criticizing others when there is no one being hurt — because all criticism is a form of hurt for which they know they will not be blamed — then the real hurt, not these words, must come to an end. But you will understand this much better when I get to education and discuss other words… the ones that really hurt. Can I get started now?”
“I’m satisfied with your answer.”​

It's so much easier to get satisfying answers when your interlocutor is imaginary, and you can write both sides of the discussion.

How informative the result of a debate between an author and his fictional creation is, is another matter.

Astonishingly, many people seem to consider such "debates" a valuable way to determine and/or impart truths about reality. We call those people 'gullible fools'.

 

[bilby]

Peacegirl, here is the problem. It is just a fact that the eye is a sense organ, and that we do not see in real time. Yet you keep promoting this work at boards filled with educated, intelligent people who are never going to swallow what the author is selling. They never have, and never will. Uneducated people, on the other hand …

OMFG HAVE I GOT AN IDEA FOR YOU!! EUREKA!! IT HIT ME LIKE A FLASH IN THAT LAST SENTENCE I BROKE OFF TYPING!!!

Peacegirl. This is serious.

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

Now listen. Follow the logic. Remember when your author sued President Jimmy Carter for declining his request to present his “discoveries” in an Oval Office meeting in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists)?

TRUMP IS NOW GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!!!

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

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

Peacegirl, I am quite serious about this. The public at large will believe just about anything, especially if their Orange Messiah tells them to believe. This is the sure ticket to fame for you and your author — and fortune for you! (Unless Trump steals your cut of the book sales.)

If, as, and when this actually happens, I shall not hesitate to blame you for it.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. If you felt justified to blame me, then your conscience would permit this blame.

The post was not directed at you. I was replying to pood, as the QUOTE tags clearly show.

I'm not exactly sure what would be giving you the justification (from the above post), but one thing is for sure; you would have to feel I have wronged you or someone else in some way. Sometimes we believe things that allow us to feel justified to blame until we realize the belief we were holding onto was false.

And sometimes we just leap to conclusions before we carefully examine the facts, and end up trying to rationalize our role in something we were never even a part of.