“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.

 

[peacegirl]

A simple rewrite:

Some people may think, wrongly, that images ride on wings of light, with beauty and ugliness built into them, for us to see. But it’s not so. Nothing rides on wings of light — it is just light.

If it is just light, then what do light wavelengths mean? It means we see an object due to the wavelength. Duh!

And while, of course, the eye is a sense organ, in another sense — so to say — it isn’t, because what really makes sense of the world is the brain, but the brain is conditioned — and it is there that value judgments, like beauty and ugliness, are formed.

Then get rid of the stuff about god turning on the sun at noon, and the stuff about dogs and children, and bam, you are good to go. That’s all it takes.

Why should he when this is exactly how our conditioning occurs. You want to take away the source of his knowledge. Of course you do. Then you could be right about delayed vision.

Of course, you won’t to do, because you literally believe your father was infallible and could not be wrong.

Not at all. He was not infallible. He was fallible like anybody else, but his discoveries happened to be correct. They speak for themselves.

 

[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.

If you can't even entertain the idea as to why traveling light doesn't immediately create a response in dogs (especially ones that adore their owners and haven't seen them in a while) and doesn't give you pause (not paws lol), this thread is probably not for you. Calling it gibberish is not an answer.

I said a dogs eye works basically the same as a human.

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.

If you can't even entertain the idea as to why traveling light doesn't immediately create a response in dogs (especially ones that adore their owners and haven't seen them in a while) and doesn't give you pause (not paws lol), this thread is probably not for you. Calling it gibberish is not an answer.

UIhhh..your quote is what you said not me,

I said human or dog there is a delay in arrival of light, a delay through the eye to nerves, a delays along nerves, and a delay in processes of the brain.

They should, right? Then why don't they?

You seem to go back and forth between agreeing with that and arguing for an alternative explanation of the eye.

No. I am not agreeing with that.

And somehow it all related to determinism and getting rid of evil.

Yes, and you have no idea what you think you understand, so please don't make a fool of yourself.

I also said in experiments with dogs you have to be careful not to interpret results as actual choice and not conditioning , the example of Clever Clause

They admitted there were undetectable clues that allowed the horse to know how to tap the right answer.

I watched shows on animal choice and intelligence. Experimenters go to great lengths to keep the animal subjects isolated from experimenters before the experiments.

Well, it must have been overlooked with the Clever Clause hons experiment. It's no wonder he wouldn't do math when his owner was not there. He wasn't given the usual cues.

I watched something about baboons. One of a group got run over by a car. After that whenever a car that looked like the one that ran over the baboon came by the group threw rocks at it.

What the hell does this have to do with delayed light? You tell me.

There is no doubt there is non human intelligence. Learning, perception, and tool making.

Why are you shifting the debate to something that is unrelated?

There are self awareness tests with chimps. Paint a spot on the face of a chimp and see if the chimp sees it in a mirror and puts a finger to it.

House pet dogs who are continued to the owner's voice and body language are not good subjects for experiments.

Yes, let's experiment in a way that is objective. Steve, please be honest. What does this have to do with the eyes?

 

[peacegirl]

A simple rewrite:

Some people may think, wrongly, that images ride on wings of light, with beauty and ugliness built into them, for us to see. But it’s not so. Nothing rides on wings of light — it is just light. And while, of course, the eye is a sense organ, in another sense — so to say — it isn’t, because what really makes sense of the world is the brain, but the brain is conditioned — and it is there that value judgments, like beauty and ugliness, are formed.

Then get rid of the stuff about god turning on the sun at noon, and the stuff about dogs and children, and bam, you are good to go. That’s all it takes.

That's not what it takes and that's not what he demonstrated that that's all that it takes. If he is right, then we see the Sun instantly and each other after 81/2 minutes. You want him to exclude this so you can believe in delayed vision. I'm sorry but I cannot accomodate you.

Of course, you won’t to do, because you literally believe your father was infallible and could not be wrong.

This is exactly why you are wanting me to give a quick summary. It would never suffice. That's not what you're going to get. You will get his full explanation.

 

[peacegirl]

There are self awareness tests with chimps. Paint a spot on the face of a chimp and see if the chimp sees it in a mirror and puts a finger to it.

Ants pass the same mirror test.

House pet dogs who are continued to the owner's voice and body language are not good subjects for experiments.

My dog heard my voice when I went to pick her up (an Old English sheepdog). She heard me and you could hear her barking in the background because she recognized my voice. What does this have to do with sight Pood?

Dogs don’t pass the mirror test, but it has been found that they do pass a self-awareness through odor test.

Have you noticed that smell is not sight, or are you trying to say that odor IS sight?

 

[peacegirl]

Yes Peacegirl, you do not understand what your feather's work looks like to us and probably to anyone in science.

I believe what you are trying to prove comes under experimental and cognitive psychology today.

Cognitive psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cognitive psychology is the scientific study of mental processes such as attention, language use, memory, perception, problem solving, creativity, and reasoning.[1] Cognitive psychology originated in the 1960s in a break from behaviorism, which held from the 1920s to 1950s that unobservable mental processes were outside the realm of empirical science. This break came as researchers in linguistics and cybernetics, as well as applied psychology, used models of mental processing to explain human behavior. Work derived from cognitive psychology was integrated into other branches of psychology and various other modern disciplines like cognitive science, linguistics, and economics.

Experimental psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Experimental psychology refers to work done by those who apply experimental methods to psychological study and the underlying processes. Experimental psychologists employ human participants and animal subjects to study a great many topics, including (among others) sensation, perception, memory, cognition, learning, motivation, emotion; developmental processes, social psychology, and the neural substrates of all of these.[1]

This has no bearing on his claim regarding how the eyes work. Keep trying Steve.

 

[peacegirl]

You cannot use Christian theology or any other kind of religious doctrine as a comparison to this discovery, so it's not fair to use this analogy against him.

No one is using any analogy against him. His claims about light and sight are just wrong.

You don't know that just because you don't like it. Not liking it does not prove him wrong Pood.

See the repair I offered upthread. I give it to you for free. You will reject it, and go down this futile path of yours.

I read all the posts as far as I know. I'm not going back again. If I missed something, let me know in a later post.

 

[peacegirl]

lightning as we know it in nature is an electrical charge that is not a form of matter.

No, lightning is the effect of an electrical discharge on the air it passes through. The bright flash we see is the air plasma created when the potential difference between the cloud and the ground exceeds the voltage needed to ionise the nitrogen and oxygen molecules; It's very much a form of matter. The plasma is far more conductive than unionized air, so it's fairly common for multiple strikes to follow the same (or part of the same) path over the course of a second or two.

Not that any of this is particularly relevant. But it's worth noting for the record that you are badly wrong about this, too. It's the hallmark of a busted epistemology, that users of it are wrong about a lot of different things.

I'm not debating this so how can I wrong about it?

Er...

By saying something that isn't right:

"lightning as we know it in nature is an electrical charge that is not a form of matter".

This is wrong, regardless of whether or not it is part of a debate. It is wrong because it is not right. You said it; Ergo, you were wrong.

That you din't even understand what "wrong" means is astonishing and bizarre (but at this point, rather less surprising than I am comfortable with).

Thank you for the lesson though. As to the hallmark of a busted epistemology, the verdict is still out.

Well, if you don't understand that saying something untrue is being wrong; And if you imagine that "debate" is necessary in order to achieve that state, then your epistemology is busted beyond repair.

We often notice two or more objects or patterns of behavior that are alike but have slight differences. Therefore, the shade of difference observed in this external substance is real and can be easily identified when given a separate name by means of a new word symbol. For example, many automobile manufacturers work to differentiate and distinguish their models from the standpoint of exterior and interior design. Giving each model a separate name allows the buyer to see the differences that set them apart.

Yes, names work that way.

But all the words in the world, such as mature, educated, intelligent, etc., are not going to better describe something that is not a part of the real world.

What would the point be of even trying to describe anything that is not part of the real world?

I should never have quoted from this chapter when it was never read. You have no understanding as to how words make us believe that this stratification of value that makes some individuals feel superior to others actually exists.

You can do it in fiction - Lewis Carrol describes the Jabberwock, part of whose description is his unreality. But in fiction, literally anything goes; You can make up any old shit, and as the author cannot be challenged on its accuracy (only on its entertainment value).

It is this difference that either confused epistemology or those who tried to understand what the epistemologists themselves could not.

That string of words is complete gibberish to me; I have no clue what you are trying to say here. Could you try to rephrase it for me?

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, and is not in a similar category to "those who tried to understand", who are a group of people. The single verb "confused" cannot apply to both while retaning a constant meaning.

I tried. If you still don't get it, all I can tell you is keep trying.

 

[peacegirl]

Peaceful, the book starts with a declaration of ridding the world of evil, reference to god, and a line form the Lord's Prayer. That says theology.

It is not framed as human behavior or psychology, the word evil is used.

The book bastardizes what he read.

I do make an analogy to theology.

You're way off.

To repeat what we see today is no different tan what has always been. I would argue that western liberal democracy post WWII is major step forward in redcing large scale war, social inequity, and poverty.

That may be true but so far liberal democracy may be better than communism but it hasn't solved problems that appear insurmountable.

Modern medicine and agriculture has allowed populations to grow and we are heading to unstable populations. Hence the large scale migrations. Our southern border.

'Evil' really is a minor factor.

Really? Then why do all religions pray for its removal?

After nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic that it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

“That’s what I wanted you to admit. I resent your bringing God into this at all. I don’t go for all that religious crap when you’re talking about science. Lots of people like religion, but I can’t stand all this ritual mumbo jumbo. Most people who go to church are hypocrites anyway. Besides, I know you never believed in religion either, never went to synagogue, and never prayed to God. I say again, I resent this.”

“Why are you telling me how I should go about presenting my discoveries? And why are you always jumping to conclusions? Is that what they taught you in college? Now remember, anytime you don’t like how I present my case, you can leave, but this is equivalent to resigning from chess when you can’t win. In order for me to show you how these so-called miracles come about, you must let me do it my way. Is that asking too much or am I being unreasonable?”

“I’m sorry, and I apologize. Continue.”

The fact that I never went to synagogue or prayed is equivalent to my not wanting to do other things that didn’t interest me. But after making my discoveries, I knew for a fact that God (this mathematical reality) was not a figment of the imagination. The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

 

[peacegirl]

Woe is me. I slaved for years reading and studying making the most important recovery of our times and nobody will listen. Psychology and psychiatry have got it all wrong.

Woe is me, I alone can can save the world and nobody will listen.

Psychology and psychiatry are trying to help mentally ill individuals, but when the environment is altogether different such that no one is judged inferior productions of the human race, and people are not hurt in other ways, there will be no need for these institutions because mental illness will be virtually wiped out.

 

[peacegirl]

I never heard that professors are already aware that man doesn't have five senses.

That there are many things of which you have never heard may come as a surprise to you, but it really shouldn't.

Can you point me to any information you can find? According to what people are taught, we have five senses. It would be nice to know that he was not alone.

Can you use Google?

Humans have an estimated 22 to 33 different senses, depending on how sense are defied.

If you use Google, you can also discover that the eye is a sense organ, and that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it eight minutes later.

I don't care what information is out there. Google doesn't prove the eyes are a sense organ. It just regurgitates the belief that information travels through eons of space/time to reach the eye or telescope. Google and AI just spit it out the latest data which can be quite helpful when the data is correct.

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes don't have nerve endings like the other senses.

Yes, they do.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/rods-and-cones

You can call them what you will but what Lessans was saying is that if a baby had no sensory stimulation, he would never be able to focus the eyes.

Yes, I understand that that's what he said. It would be extraordinary, if true.

What evidence has he for that claim?

He explained it.

Repeating an assertion in more words isn't evidence. Even the most detailed explaination is not evidence.

I asked "What evidence has he for that claim?". I await an answer.

You may not think this is true and of course this is hypothetical because we can't actually test this in this way

So, no evidence. OK, well then I don't believe him. Extraordinary claims with no evidence not only can be, but should be dismissed.

Okay, if that's what you believe.

It is the only alternative to believing literally any crazy shit anyone has ever said.

but if he is right, then what?

That's putting the cart before the horse. He isn't right, so we need not worry about it.

Are you dismissing him outright?

Yes, but only because the alternative would be to believe whatever crazy shit anyone ever says. Which would be literally insane.

What makes his unevidenced claim any better than anyone else's?

I don't know what you mean by "unevidenced claim." He explained why his claim was correct by demonstrating what occurs with light. Why was his demonstration worse than what delayed vision claims? I don't get it.

Because it's not evidence. It doesn't entail
observations of reality that anyone can repeat for thrmselves; Just his interpretations of the meaning of his assertions. It's all internal to him. It doesn't reference reality. So it's not evidence, it's just speculation.

Without evidence

He had evidence

Then you should be able to present it.

, why would I choose to believe that a baby could not develop sight without assistance from the other senses, and not also choose to believe that the Moon is made from Stilton cheese, or that the Earth is flat, or any other crazy hunch anyone has ever had?

No one, of all people this author took 30 years to come to this conclusion would ever make a claim that was inaccurate.

Literally everyone makes claims that are inaccurate.

It is worthy of investigation. He was objective in his analysis.

Then present the evidence - the objective evidence, not his speculations about his assertions - so we can repeat his analysis for ourselves, and determine whether his conclusions are warranted.

I have given you his demonstration. Values that condition us can only be obtained through words. Without the words that are projected onto real substance, we could not be conditioned to seeing some people as beautiful and others as ugly, even though there will always be personal preference. I'm done debating you because you have made up your mind that he's wrong without any effort to understand what he's talking about. I can feel your contempt.

 

[peacegirl]

an equation needs to be proven true before we can use it to land men on the moon.

You really don't have any understanding of what science IS, do you?

You are doing stuff that looks to you like science, but are oblivious to the fact that you are not doing science, because you have never been taught how science works.

That is not true. Astute observation is part of epistemology and must be confirmed but good science does not always entail starting off with a hypothesis.

As I said before:

The problem, as I see it, is the way that science is taught in schools, particularly at the primary school level, which for many (likely most) people in any given community is the only science education they ever get.

See, people have this impression, based on that educational experience, that science is much the same as all the other subjects we study. But it is not. Science is fundamentally different, and most people are never exposed to that fact.

Worse, we use the word "science" in two distinct ways, and this only adds to the confusion. "Science" can mean "The methodology by which we find out about reality"; But it can also mean "The body of information generated by the scientific method"

Education (in the west, at least) started off as a religious activity, and in primary education, this history has an enduring footprint. When teaching children about Christianity, there is a primary reference, the Bible, which is supposedly unquestionable, and which contains the right answers. Even in non-Christian religions, there are fundamentals that are to be accepted without question; And behind it all is the pre-literacy understanding that writing is magic.

If something is written, then it is true. The answer is in the book.

Obviously, what is written doesn't mean it's true. But if what a scientist or anyone is trying to get across is better understood through the written word, then by all means it should be read. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about books just because they contain the written word.

If a teacher and his student are in dispute, they resolve the dispute by refering to the textbook. The book has the right answer. If the book agrees with you, you win the argument.

Science (the methodology) fundamentally rejects this. In science (the methodology), books are just the words of people who are not even present; No dispute can be resolved by direct reference to mere writings. The writings themselves must be tested against reality.

I have no problem with that. Just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true.

Science (the body of information) is just an attempt to save time and effort. When the methodology has been applied repeatedly to a given question, and has so far always given the same answer, we write the answer in a book and get kids to memorise it, not because it is The Truth^TM, but because it would be impossible to get things done if every time we wanted to examine anything, we had to start by demonstrating (yet again) that matter comprises particles of such-and-such a mass, with such-and-such an electric charge, etc., etc.

I agree unless something that science has determined is true has been found to be questionable. Isn't that what science is supposed to mean?

When I want to know the speed of light in a vacuum, I look it up in a book. Not because the books are never wrong, but because I have decided to provisionally trust the existing science (the body of information), as a time saving shortcut. If I had any inkling of a doubt, I could, should, and would reject what is written, and go test for myself using science (the methodology) to find the speed of light in a vacuum.

Disputes in science (the methodology), regarding what is a part of science (the body of information) are resolved by reference to reality - we devise and conduct experiments to test hypotheses, and these experiments belong, not to a priestly class, nor to a teacher who has control of the textbook, nor to a Board of Education who decide which books are textbooks and which are not, but to anyone who wants to conduct them.

You are preaching to the choir bilby. But once again, the observation regarding the eyes is not something that can be tested directly, although it is easy to see that how we become conditioned involves words. Pood said just leave out the whole idea about light and sight and you'll be good to go, but this is central to understanding how we become conditioned in the first place. The words that condition us do not come from light. We do not see beauty in light that strikes the optic nerve. We do not see ugliness in light for the same reason. We are conditioned to seeing certain features as beautiful and certain features as ugly through words that have conditioned us yet do not have any corresponding reality.

Science (the methodology), unlike any other educational discipline, is ruthlessly egalitarian. Anyone can overturn science (the body of work) by coming up with a test that anyone else can repeat, and which reliably demonstrates (a part of) that body of work to be false.

But (at primary school) we teach science (the body of work) the way we teach religion; And we don't teach the methodology part at all, or if we do, we treat it as though it were just another rule to be memorised and regurgitated without question

Kids are left with the impression that science (the body of information) is just another set of beliefs. And as we see from the massive diversity of sects just within one major branch of one religion, this implies that anyone can just make up any old rubbish they like, and then set about collecting disciples, adherents, and evangelists to believe it and spread the word. The criteria for success are having as many adherents as possible; Having evangelical zeal, to accrue still more adherents to your position; And most importantly of all, having a book.

Please don't put me in this category. I am the most skeptical person you want to know. Cults are often established because of a person's gullibility and vulnerability due to an unmet need, which sucks them in.

Science (the body of information) is taught this way in schools. So it's hardly surprising that so much pseudoscience arises amongst those with limited exposure to science as a methodology, rather than as a body of information.

This fundamental failure to grasp what science (the methodology) is, or how science (the body of information) came to be, and how it can be (and constantly is) changed as new observations are made and new experiments carried out, is at the root of the problem here.

I'm still not sure what the root of the problem here is. He made an observation that is either correct or not. It's not just because it's written in a book.

We can talk about free will, eyes as sense organs, how light works, etc., etc., until the cows freeze over, and it won't change a thing - because peacegirl is not on the same page as the rest of us. Peacegirl doesn't understand that science differs in any important way from theology, and so is determined to win her argument on the basis of theological rhetoric. She has a new book, and wants it to replace, or supplement, the old book. Because she thinks that's how knowledge works.

This is getting nuttier by the minute. There is no theological rhetoric in this book at all. You are doing the very thing you rail against.

She does not, and perhaps cannot, grasp that the science books we use are not books of power, but are mere aide-mémoires that tally the current state of the game.

Replacing Newton's Optiks, or Einstein's General Relativity, or Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations, with a new book of wondrous claims is not only difficult; It is futile. No part of science (the methodology) is beholden to books of science (the body of information); Unlike in literally every other educational discipline*, in science the relationship is reversed.

The body of work derives from, and is entirely subservient to, the methodology. You can subvert a church by replacing its Bible with a new work (a Koran, or a Book of Mormon, or the scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard, or of Lessans, or of anyone). But you can only subvert science (the body of information) by following the scientific method - and if a change is shown by that method to be required, the science books are all rendered obsolete at a stroke. There are no sects or splinter groups - only people who have abandoned the scientific methodology, and thereby rendered themselves irrelevant.

The methodology is simple. Hypotheses, rigorously tested against repeatable and universally testable observations, and those shown to be false, discarded.

Certain observations cannot easily be tested directly. They can be inferred based on the observations.

If you want to change science (the body of information) it is simple (but not easy): Just detail an observation that anyone else can make for themselves, which demonstrates that a part of that body of information is false.

Be aware that trust is not a part of science (the methodology). No scientist trusts anyone, particularly not himself.

He never asked anyone to trust him without proof.

The question is not "should we trust Newton, or should we trust Lessans?". The question is "Which of these two has given us the details needed to repeat his work, and surprise ourselves into agreeing with his answers, starting from a provisional assumption that his answers are bullshit?"

Starting from a provisional assumption that his answers are bullshit is worse because bias in either direction could easily sway one's conclusions incorrectly.

Newton has done that. You don't need to take his word for anything, and he doesn't ask you to; He has provided a detailed set of procedures for proving him wrong, and invites you to give it your best shot, either using his procedure, or coming up with your own. That, right there, is science.







* The very word 'discipline', meaning 'a field of study', carries the historical baggage of the idea that one learns by rote, from infallible books, whereby error arises only from incorrect reading or interpretation of the sacred text. Science ain't like that, but primary education usually acts as though it were.

Your teachers have failed you, as they fail so many people. You have been provided with a medieval set of tools for deciding what is or is not real, which in a post-Enlightenment world, is a vile crime and terrible harm to do to a child.

I agree. I have always taught my children and grandchildren to think for themselves and to use critical thinking to determine whether something has any validity or not.

You are, of course, blameless in this. Even most of your teachers (in the broadest sense, including your parents and friends, as well as formal teachers) are similarly blameless, having been deprived in their turn of the tools to make sense of reality - a deprivation that is welcomed by the superstitious and the religious, who feel more comfortable living a medieval mental life, while taking physiological advantage of the modern science they do not even begin to comprehend.

I totally agree but please don't put me in the same pot as those who are superstitious and believe in magic. I'm always researching double blind studies to determine whether those studies were well-designed. I believe in science bilby, so stop telling me I'm someone who I'm not.

 

[peacegirl]

Indeterminism does not negate causality.

“The reason we can’t predict the outcome of a quantum measurement,” she explains, “is that we are missing information,” that is, hidden variables. Superdeterminism, she notes, gets rid of the measurement problem and nonlocality as well as randomness. Hidden variables determine in advance how physicists carry out the experiments; physicists might think they are choosing one option over another, but they aren’t. Hossenfelder calls free will “logically incoherent nonsense.”

Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will?

Superdeterminism, a radical quantum hypothesis, says our “choices” are illusory

www.scientificamerican.com

That is speculation, at this time it is not knowable.

Looking at all of science my conclusion is we have no idea what the reality is that we are immersed in.

You can b find scientific opinions to support most any subjective view.

I know QM models work from what I did for work. Whether the QM models actually reflect reality is not knowable.

We have no metric or absolute point of reference from which to deduce we have discovered everything.

So in turn there is no way of determining if determinism is true or false.

You're wrong. Man does not have free will and it's been proven.

All things in science come down to a measurement. Measurements come down to points of reference. System International defines all units of measure which are based on how the meter, kilogram, and seconds are defined.

On a macro level, theories about QM do not prove free will in sentient beings. No matter what can be learned from QM cannot prove free will true because we can't go back in time to prove this, so not only can free will not be proved true but determinism, as the opposite of free will, cannot be proved false. It is a fact that man can only move in one direction, which means that once a decision is made, it could not have been otherwise.

Free will and determinism are abstract philosophical concepts. With the rise of modern science and areas like QM the philosophical debate conflates science and philosophy.

Neither free will nor determinism are provable or disprovable by experiment. If it were the question would have been decided by now. and an entire area of philosophy wold go away.

If determinism was finally confirmed to be true, then this area of philosophy would go away.

There is agreement on what free will and determinism means.

My view is we are conditioned by experience from birth, there is no way to separate that out from decisions we make. Experience becomes a permanent part of our brains and is intertwined with decision making.

True.

I thunk the question of free will and determinism are irrelevant.

Not true.

If you want to convince me determinism is true

1. Define the term preisely and unambiguously such that there can be no misinterpretation. Not as easy as it sounds. Quoting the book or a net definition is not acceptable,

I have gone over why determinism is true too many times to count Steve.

2. Define all attributes that wound be manifested in reality based on #1.
3. Define how you would demonstrate the attributes such that there can be no questions of the outcomess, procedures, and ion conclusions.

He shows why man's will is not free. Then he goes about showing how the corollary to this is extended into all areas of human relations. The economic system is the most important because people will hurt others if by not doing this makes them losers. It's called self-preservation.

4. How would you select participants?
5. Is a control group possible?

I have said that these principles could be tested on a smaller scale.

That is the level of detail required if you want to get the attention of science.


That would be a major project to formulate and pass peer review. I expect it would take a team to do it.

It could be done but I've done my part already. I'm not going to do more other than trying to get it into the hands of people who will give this work more time than what has been given here. No one has studied the book. People think he's wrong because they cannot imagine how the eyes, being efferent, could see events in real time. What can I say?

Are we having fun yet?

I wish.

 

[peacegirl]

Of course, he can be challenged but the challenge can't just be, "he is wrong because the science is settled."

That's not the challenge.

The challenge is "he is wrong because the scientific method, applied to his claims, using observations about reality to test those claims, shows him to be wrong".

The science is never settled. That's not how science works. It isn't a religion, and it isn't similar to religion.

Anyone who says "the science is settled" is making the same category of error thst you (and he) are; This often happens as a deliberate shortcut in appealing to the mass of scientific illiterates, who are actually impressed by proclaimations of authority. But it remains erroneous and fallacious, even when it is applied to statements that are actually true.

Of course, he can be challenged but the challenge can't just be, "he is wrong because the science is settled."

That's not the challenge.

The challenge is "he is wrong because the scientific method, applied to his claims, using observations about reality to test those claims, shows him to be wrong".

Where? How are we conditioned bilby? Show me that values can be transmitted through wavelengths? Don't you see that conditioning is caused by words that have no reality at all? He shows exactly how we become conditioned by this projection of words. He doesn't just assert it.

The science is never settled. That's not how science works. It isn't a religion, and it isn't similar to religion.

Anyone who says "the science is settled" is making the same category of error thst you (and he) are; This often happens as a deliberate shortcut in appealing to the mass of scientific illiterates, who are actually impressed by proclaimations of authority. But it remains erroneous and fallacious, even when it is applied to statements that are actually true.

Nothing is ever settled in science even when the statements are actually true? I understand that we cannot take what a person says (especially someone unknown) at face value. It has to be thoroughly investigated. Telling me that there is no evidence is not true. He describes exactly how words condition us. Do you not see how this takes place, or do you not want to see how this takes place because it questions what science says is true? I thought nothing is settled in science, yet you're sure acting like it is.