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

[bilby]

I believe in science bilby, so stop telling me I'm someone who I'm not.

But that's exactly what I am telling you.

You believe in science. So you are doing it wrong.

Belief in things is the antithesis of science.

I am asking you to please stop.

Why?

This is not the antithesis of science.

Yes, it is.

You have a preconceived idea that is ruining it for you and for the author, as well-intentioned as you are trying to be.

My preconceived idea is "don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence"; And the author is "ruining it" for himself by not providing evidence sufficient to support his claims.

But you genuinely think of science as just another of the many possible religions you might believe in; And you feel (as all believers do) smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, your conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions.

That's not how science works.

OMG, this is insane. I am asking you politely to stop this bullshit trying to compare Lessans to religion or any other fraudulent claim. This is not the same thing, so please back off!

It is exactly the same thing. He (and you) want his idea to be exempt from the scientific method, which is used to assess the falsity of ideas, while still claiming to be making a useful contribution to human knowledge.

In place of that method, you want to put trust, faith, and belief. That makes the claim being tested a religious claim, whether you like it or not.

And you appear to be outraged at the lack of faith and trust your idea is getting. Again, that's what religion does.

Scientific claims are untrusted claims. People are compelled to believe them, even against their will, by the evidence they can test for themselves. Not by bullying, or outrage, or appeals to an authority; By the evidence.

If you need people to trust you (or your book, or the guy who originated the idea) before they accept the idea as true, then you are doing religion, not science.

"Nullius in Verba", as they say at the Royal Society.

 

[bilby]

You're not even hearing his reasoning. You are assuming his premise is wrong because you believe science got it right.

No, I am assuming that his premise is wrong because of the overwhelming evidence that his premise is wrong.

Based on the conventional thought.

No, based on observation of reality.

Again, whether you think there is overwhelming evidence against him is because the conventional theory believes they got it right and it looks like all the pieces fit together.

That's not actually a sentence. The "whether" demands two clauses, even if the second is a simple "... or not".

If you wanted to say "You think there is overwhelming evidence against him, because the conventional theory believes they got it right, and it looks like all the pieces fit together", then no, I think there is overwheming evidence against him because there is lots of evidence against him; So much, indeed, that it can be described as "overwhelming".

It does look like all the pieces fit together.

It's completely irrelevant or unimportant what I or anyone else believes, or what any other theory says. His claims stand or fall on their own. They can be wrong whether or not a "conventional theory" or, indeed, any other theory at all exists.

An explanation can be wrong, even when the only competing claim is "I don't know. Nobody knows".

But there is a problem with their view. Should he never have said anything just to make scientists happy?

Not at all. He should absolutely put his ideas out there to be tested, as should we all. Unless he was going to get upset when they failed the tests. Then, perhaps, it would have been better for him not to have put his idea out there before he had tested it to destruction himself.

But that's just avoiding the embarrassment of being mistaken. Science doesn't care either way whether anyone is embarrassed; Just whether any claim is, or is not, demonstrably false.

I don't believe that science got it right; Science isn't even a thing that can get things right. It's a tool for determining what is wrong.

Exactly, so let's find out who is wrong, not just assume he is wrong because you believe science got it right.

OK. Lets.

Science takes claims and sorts them into two categories: Proven to be wrong; and Not yet proven to be wrong.

If your worldview includes a "Proven to be right" category, then you are not doing science.

Isn't that what science is doing when they make the claim that the eyes are a sense organ?

No, it's not. That is a claim that has yet to be proven wrong. If you can prove it wrong, that's great.

But the ONLY way to do that is to point out an observation or test, that anyone can repeat, and that is logically incompatible with the eye being a sense organ.

You have yet to even start doing this; Instead you have presented reams of speculation and musings.

It's such a double standard when no one dares to say otherwise or the repercussions will be tarring and feathering.

This is simply not true. There is no double standard; And the sole "penalty" for being wrong is to be told that you are wrong.

If you can't cope with having your errors identified as errors, that's on you.

Can't you see the problem here?

The problem seems to be a petulant refusal to accept the demonstrable fact that you are mistaken.

 

[peacegirl]

The basics:


View attachment 48569



"First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus.

Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in.

Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina.

When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.

These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see."

How the Eyes Work | National Eye Institute

All the different part of your eyes work together to help you see. Learn the jobs of the cornea, pupil, lens, retina, and optic nerve and how they work together.

www.nei.nih.gov

None of how vision works changes. Light is still at the eye and transduction still applies. The only difference is that the brain looks through the eyes to see the external world. The external world doesn't travel to the eye in delayed time.

The physics of how light is simply 'at the eye' without travel time is something you need to explain.

Efferent vision. This is the problem. You are thinking in terms of light traveling to your eye. If the brain is looking through the eyes (as a window to the external world), then the wavelength is already there. There is no time or distance involved. It's the opposite of afferent vision, where the light would travel millions of miles to reach the eye. That doesn't mean light doesn't travel, but the object doesn't reflect the wavelength that then travels great distances. We see the object because the object is bright enough and large enough so that it's within our field of vision or telescope to be seen, but again, the wavelength that allows us to see the object doesn't bounce or get reflected. The belief is that past events are traveling forever and ever. All I can do is give you the excerpts again and hope that you understand his reasoning. If you're convinced he's wrong, nothing he writes will phase you in the slightest.

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again, my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound, the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, tells us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present, and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking and the object seen has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light; therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would.

 

[peacegirl]

If it is just light, then what do light wavelengths mean?

Colours. Different wavelengths of light are different colours.

That's all.

Nothing changes other than the brain using the eyes, as a window, to look through them to see the object.

OK, not only does that sentence not make a lot of actual sense, it also appears completely unrelated to the post it is quoting.

We aren't talking about changes in anything. We are talking about the meaning of the word "wavelength".

Wavelength, frequency, and colour, are (for light) different ways of describing the exact same thing.

Sorry if I didn't answer the question. I realize a wavelength, its frequency, and color are different ways of describing the same thing.

The wavelength is a property of a wave that is the distance between identical points between two successive waves. The distance between one crest (or trough) of one wave and the next is the wavelength of the wave. In equations, wavelength is indicated using the Greek letter lambda (λ).

Wavelength Examples​

The wavelength of light determines its color, and the wavelength of sound determines the pitch. The wavelengths of visible light extend from about 700 nm (red) to 400 nm (violet). The wavelength of audible sound range from about 17 mm to 17 m. Wavelengths of audible sound are much longer than those of visible light.

What Is a Wavelength?

Explore the definition of a wavelength in science and math together with examples and the equation of the length of wavelengths.

www.thoughtco.com

It cannot see the object without the wavelength, but it does not work the way science thinks.

It doesn't "work" at all.

If I look at an apple, it might be green. It would make exactly no sense whatsoever to say: "the eye cannot see the apple without the green, but it does not work the way science thinks". 'Science' doesn't think; Scientists don't think that colour is crucial to the operation of the eye, largely because it's obviously NOT - we see green apples exactly the same way that we see red apples. Wavelength is completely irrelevant within the visible portion of the EM spectrum, and we don't see light of other wavelengths at all.

That is the reason for this refutation.

What is? You haven't goven a reason for anything, nor do you appear to be talking about, much less refuting, the post to which this is apparently a response.

It amazes me how quickly people defend science yet they say science is never settled.

I am not defending science, I am pointing out the definition of the word "wavelength". If anything, I am defending vocabulary.

Go figure. Bilby said is something possible or is it not?

No, bilby said: "Colours. Different wavelengths of light are different colours. That's all".

Okay

In this case, it is possible that Lessans could be right because there is nothing so outrageous by these claims that would appear impossible such as flying elephants.

The question was "What do light wavelengths mean?", and Lessans cannot be right unless he said: "Different wavelengths of light are different colours".

Because that's a full, accurate, and complete answer to:

If it is just light, then what do light wavelengths mean?

This is all very interesting but he wasn't debating this.

1. 
   Visible light waves are the only wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see1. The human eye can detect wavelengths from 380 to 700 nanometers2. This portion of radiation is called "visible light"3.

Light waves across the electromagnetic spectrum behave in similar ways. When a light wave encounters an object, they are either transmitted, reflected, absorbed, refracted, polarized, diffracted, or scattered depending on the composition of the object and the wavelength of the light.
Specialized instruments onboard NASA spacecraft and airplanes collect data on how electromagnetic waves behave when they interact with matter. These data can reveal the physical and chemical composition of matter.

Wave Behaviors - NASA Science

Light waves across the electromagnetic spectrum behave in similar ways. When a light wave encounters an object, they are either transmitted, reflected, absorbed, refracted, polarized, diffracted, or scattered depending on the composition of the object and the wavelength of the light. Specialized...

science.nasa.gov

 

[bilby]

If it is just light, then what do light wavelengths mean?

Colours. Different wavelengths of light are different colours.

That's all.

Nothing changes other than the brain using the eyes, as a window, to look through them to see the object.

OK, not only does that sentence not make a lot of actual sense, it also appears completely unrelated to the post it is quoting.

We aren't talking about changes in anything. We are talking about the meaning of the word "wavelength".

Wavelength, frequency, and colour, are (for light) different ways of describing the exact same thing.

Sorry if I didn't answer the question. I realize a wavelength, its frequency, and color are different ways of describing the same thing.

The wavelength is a property of a wave that is the distance between identical points between two successive waves. The distance between one crest (or trough) of one wave and the next is the wavelength of the wave. In equations, wavelength is indicated using the Greek letter lambda (λ).

Wavelength Examples​

The wavelength of light determines its color, and the wavelength of sound determines the pitch. The wavelengths of visible light extend from about 700 nm (red) to 400 nm (violet). The wavelength of audible sound range from about 17 mm to 17 m. Wavelengths of audible sound are much longer than those of visible light.

What Is a Wavelength?

Explore the definition of a wavelength in science and math together with examples and the equation of the length of wavelengths.

www.thoughtco.com

It cannot see the object without the wavelength, but it does not work the way science thinks.

It doesn't "work" at all.

If I look at an apple, it might be green. It would make exactly no sense whatsoever to say: "the eye cannot see the apple without the green, but it does not work the way science thinks". 'Science' doesn't think; Scientists don't think that colour is crucial to the operation of the eye, largely because it's obviously NOT - we see green apples exactly the same way that we see red apples. Wavelength is completely irrelevant within the visible portion of the EM spectrum, and we don't see light of other wavelengths at all.

That is the reason for this refutation.

What is? You haven't goven a reason for anything, nor do you appear to be talking about, much less refuting, the post to which this is apparently a response.

It amazes me how quickly people defend science yet they say science is never settled.

I am not defending science, I am pointing out the definition of the word "wavelength". If anything, I am defending vocabulary.

Go figure. Bilby said is something possible or is it not?

No, bilby said: "Colours. Different wavelengths of light are different colours. That's all".

Okay

In this case, it is possible that Lessans could be right because there is nothing so outrageous by these claims that would appear impossible such as flying elephants.

The question was "What do light wavelengths mean?", and Lessans cannot be right unless he said: "Different wavelengths of light are different colours".

Because that's a full, accurate, and complete answer to:

If it is just light, then what do light wavelengths mean?

This is all very interesting but he wasn't debating this.

1. 
   Visible light waves are the only wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see1. The human eye can detect wavelengths from 380 to 700 nanometers2. This portion of radiation is called "visible light"3.

Light waves across the electromagnetic spectrum behave in similar ways. When a light wave encounters an object, they are either transmitted, reflected, absorbed, refracted, polarized, diffracted, or scattered depending on the composition of the object and the wavelength of the light.
Specialized instruments onboard NASA spacecraft and airplanes collect data on how electromagnetic waves behave when they interact with matter. These data can reveal the physical and chemical composition of matter.

Wave Behaviors - NASA Science

Light waves across the electromagnetic spectrum behave in similar ways. When a light wave encounters an object, they are either transmitted, reflected, absorbed, refracted, polarized, diffracted, or scattered depending on the composition of the object and the wavelength of the light. Specialized...

science.nasa.gov

So, what does it mean to say "The [wavelength] is at {the eye}"?

I put it to you that this makes as much sense as describing a road trip on Route 66 by saying "The [distance between Flagstaff and Winona] is at {Chicago}".

It's a category error. A [distance] cannot be at a {location}.

 

[peacegirl]

I believe in science bilby, so stop telling me I'm someone who I'm not.

But that's exactly what I am telling you.

You believe in science. So you are doing it wrong.

Belief in things is the antithesis of science.

I am asking you to please stop.

Why?

This is not the antithesis of science.

Yes, it is.

You have a preconceived idea that is ruining it for you and for the author, as well-intentioned as you are trying to be.

My preconceived idea is "don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence"; And the author is "ruining it" for himself by not providing evidence sufficient to support his claims.

But you genuinely think of science as just another of the many possible religions you might believe in; And you feel (as all believers do) smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, your conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions.

That's not how science works.

Who in the world thinks that? "I don't think science is just another of the many possible religions I might believe in. And feel smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, my conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions." You seem to be trying to fit me into a mold that doesn't fit.

OMG, this is insane. I am asking you politely to stop this bullshit trying to compare Lessans to religion or any other fraudulent claim. This is not the same thing, so please back off!

It is exactly the same thing. He (and you) want his idea to be exempt from the scientific method, which is used to assess the falsity of ideas, while still claiming to be making a useful contribution to human knowledge.

I'm okay with people trying to falsify these claims, but not to disregard them because it's believed that the science is settled. That's not fair either. I just happen to believe he was right in his conclusions because his explanation as to how the eyes are conditioned to see what is only a projection makes sense. Could we be conditioned without the words that do the projecting? No. You really need to read and reread that chapter.

In place of that method, you want to put trust, faith, and belief. That makes the claim being tested a religious claim, whether you like it or not.

You're wrong. I want people to test the claims, but the scientific method is not the only epistemological way to determine whether something is true. Additionally, tests that are poorly designed can be more destructive than no test at all. That's why replication in different settings is so important. I think people are so angry by this claim that they are trying to find flaws that aren't there. I hope you can test certain things for yourself, but not everything can be tested that way. You said your dogs recognized you at the gas station. That is not an accurate test, which is exactly what I'm alluding to.

And you appear to be outraged at the lack of faith and trust your idea is getting. Again, that's what religion does.

Scientific claims are untrusted claims. People are compelled to believe them, even against their will, by the evidence they can test for themselves. Not by bullying, or outrage, or appeals to an authority; By the evidence.

I agree but it's not possible to test that the eyes are not a sense organ because it would be unethical to remove an infant from all sense experience. The closest that came to that was the Romanian children who were cross-eyed and had brain damage. I'm sure there could be other ways, even if it meant starting a group where no one used words like beauty, ugly, (intelligent, unintelligent, you'll have to read that chapter to understand why these words also create a stratification system that makes some people more important than others intrinsically), not only will no one see certain features as beautiful or ugly, and no one criticizes their choice in a partner, nobody will look at themselves through a lens that tells them they were born inferior.

If you need people to trust you (or your book, or the guy who originated the idea) before they accept the idea as true, then you are doing religion, not science.

"Nullius in Verba", as they say at the Royal Society.

People are not even trying. They just say he's wrong, and that's the end of that.

 

[bilby]

I believe in science bilby, so stop telling me I'm someone who I'm not.

But that's exactly what I am telling you.

You believe in science. So you are doing it wrong.

Belief in things is the antithesis of science.

I am asking you to please stop.

Why?

This is not the antithesis of science.

Yes, it is.

You have a preconceived idea that is ruining it for you and for the author, as well-intentioned as you are trying to be.

My preconceived idea is "don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence"; And the author is "ruining it" for himself by not providing evidence sufficient to support his claims.

But you genuinely think of science as just another of the many possible religions you might believe in; And you feel (as all believers do) smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, your conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions.

That's not how science works.

Who in the world thinks that? "I don't think science is just another of the many possible religions I might believe in. And feel smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, my conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions." You seem to be trying to fit me into a mold that doesn't fit.

OMG, this is insane. I am asking you politely to stop this bullshit trying to compare Lessans to religion or any other fraudulent claim. This is not the same thing, so please back off!

It is exactly the same thing. He (and you) want his idea to be exempt from the scientific method, which is used to assess the falsity of ideas, while still claiming to be making a useful contribution to human knowledge.

I'm okay with people trying to falsify these claims, but not to disregard them because it's believed that the science is settled.

Then it's a good thing nobody is doing that.

It's a bit disappointing that you keep making that false accusation though.

That's not fair either. I just happen to believe he was right in his conclusions because his explanation as to how the eyes are conditioned to see what is only a projection makes sense.

Yes, you believe. I don't agree that belief is evidence of shit.

Could we be conditioned without the words that do the projecting? No. You really need to read and reread that chapter.

In place of that method, you want to put trust, faith, and belief. That makes the claim being tested a religious claim, whether you like it or not.

You're wrong. I want people to test the claims, but the scientific method is not the only epistemological way to determine whether something is true.

Really? What is/are the others?

Additionally, tests that are poorly designed can be more destructive than no test at all.

Destructive of what? Tests that are poorly designed just fail to test the thing we wanted to test.

That's why replication in different settings is so important.

It certainly is.

I think people are so angry by this claim that they are trying to find flaws that aren't there.

Reality doesn't care what you think. And nobody is doing that. Though I understand why you might wish that they were.

I hope you can test certain things for yourself, but not everything can be tested that way.

Most things can.

You said your dogs recognized you at the gas station.

Yes.

That is not an accurate test, which is exactly what I'm alluding to.

What is wrong with it?

And you appear to be outraged at the lack of faith and trust your idea is getting. Again, that's what religion does.

Scientific claims are untrusted claims. People are compelled to believe them, even against their will, by the evidence they can test for themselves. Not by bullying, or outrage, or appeals to an authority; By the evidence.

I agree but it's not possible to test that the eyes are not a sense organ because it would be unethical to remove an infant from all sense experience.

It would be; But your conclusion doesn't follow - that is not the only possible test. Indeed, it wouldn't be a particularly good test even if it were not unethical.

The closest that came to that was the Romanian children who were cross-eyed and had brain damage. I'm sure there could be other ways, even if it meant starting a group where no one used words like beauty, ugly, (intelligent, unintelligent, you'll have to read that chapter to understand why these words also create a stratification system that makes some people more important than others intrinsically), not only will no one see certain features as beautiful or ugly, and no one criticizes their choice in a partner, nobody will look at themselves through a lens that tells them they were born inferior.

You are far too fixated on one tiny aspect of vision and sight. There are plenty of animals with eyes that have no apparent concept of beauty. Spiders use their eyes to locate their prey, for example. They don't learn from other spiders about beauty or love. They just use eyes to detect light, and to sense the world around them. As do we.

If you need people to trust you (or your book, or the guy who originated the idea) before they accept the idea as true, then you are doing religion, not science.

"Nullius in Verba", as they say at the Royal Society.

People are not even trying. They just say he's wrong, and that's the end of that.

I don't need to try in order to recognise the truth of a claim; The claimant needs to try to persuade me of it.

So far, you have not only failed, but are not doing the kinds of things necessary to succeeed - ie provide an unadorned methodology by which I can test the claim for myself, and which does not require me to believe anything not yet tested, or anything already tested and found to be false.

I don't have any obligation to try; The burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

[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.

That is true but if you understood how we are conditioned, you would understand why removing words like beautiful and ugly, which create a false stratification of value, would bring everyone up to a level of equality. This was the point of that chapter, which also leads into other words that are not descriptive of reality. People have been so hurt by words, it's hard to even measure the extent of the harm these words have caused. The conditions of the world are a separate issue where the corollary that goes along with no free will (no blame) will revolutionize the world in ways that are hard to envision coming from the world we live in.

How we are conditioned by our environment and our own make-up is well enough understood.

Where the first step in understanding is to realize that we are conditioned, that a lot of our thinking is conditioned, that this is not other people, the other guy, but we ourselves, where the idea of light at the eye and instant seeing has no relevance.

It’s true that a lot of our thinking is determined by what we think. But a lot of what we think is conditioned by our values. When it comes to what we see, we are conditioned by words that contain these values that could not occur any other way than through this projection that the brain is capable of doing. That is the reason it has everything to do with how the eyes work and why they don’t function like the other four senses.

What we think is shaped, formed, determined, by an interaction of genes and environment, circumstances, character, life experiences.

Asserting that light is at the eye without travel time, instant seeing, is false and adds nothing relevant to matter.

 

[peacegirl]

I believe in science bilby, so stop telling me I'm someone who I'm not.

But that's exactly what I am telling you.

You believe in science. So you are doing it wrong.

Belief in things is the antithesis of science.

I am asking you to please stop.

Why?

Because I'm not anti-science. I'm not a fundamentalist or a believer in anything that doesn't have proof. I'm a true skeptic. The author said science will need to take over.

Even if I had never made this discovery, it would come to light sooner or later because what is revealed is a definite part of the real world, not a figment of the imagination. Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide. The truth will be very easy to convey once it is understood and acknowledged by scientists because it involves undeniable relations such as two plus two equals four, but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts and dogmatically closed the door to further investigation. However, when theologians fully realize that not only were they teaching something false and that God’s will, the truth, was hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic boom. They will strongly desire to spread word of the new gospel that will soon put an end to all evil, even if this puts them out of business. Although we must enter this new world of our own free will because no force will be used, the comparison of what we now have with what is now possible gives us no choice because our will is not free to move against what we believe is better for ourselves. This will compel us to desire studying for the examination (which will only require the very basic understanding of these principles) so we can become citizens as quickly as possible after the transition has been officially launched.

This is not the antithesis of science.

Yes, it is.

You have a preconceived idea that is ruining it for you and for the author, as well-intentioned as you are trying to be.

My preconceived idea is "don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence"; And the author is "ruining it" for himself by not providing evidence sufficient to support his claims.

But you genuinely think of science as just another of the many possible religions you might believe in; And you feel (as all believers do) smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, your conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions.

That's not how science works.

OMG, this is insane. I am asking you politely to stop this bullshit trying to compare Lessans to religion or any other fraudulent claim. This is not the same thing, so please back off!

It is exactly the same thing. He (and you) want his idea to be exempt from the scientific method, which is used to assess the falsity of ideas, while still claiming to be making a useful contribution to human knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, but he never started out with a hypothesis. He was an astute observer and that's where he was able to use his reasoning to show why the eyes aren't a sense organ and why man's will is not free. Observation is part of epistemology. It can be empirically tested eventually when more experiments are done. Scientists couldn't imagine light being at the eye instantly because they couldn't see how this was even possible. They don't understand efferent vision because their explanation that the eyes are afferent didn't question their conclusions. To refresh your memory, efferent vision means we could see the Sun explode before we would see each other, even though the Sun is 93 million miles away and we are a few feet away. This is a hypothetical situation to explain why this would be the case. The eyes are the window to the brain, so why is it hard to imagine the brain peering through the eyes as a window? It works both ways.

In place of that method, you want to put trust, faith, and belief. That makes the claim being tested a religious claim, whether you like it or not.

And you appear to be outraged at the lack of faith and trust your idea is getting. Again, that's what religion does.

If you look back in history, anyone with an actual discovery that went againt the thinking of the day received ostracism and some were burned at the stake. You know this as well as I. I'm not outraged; I just don't like being told I'm a religionist because I don't do science. This is crazy talk.

Scientific claims are untrusted claims. People are compelled to believe them, even against their will, by the evidence they can test for themselves. Not by bullying, or outrage, or appeals to an authority; By the evidence.

I'm not bullying you, and I'm certainly not appealing to authority. It seems like people here are. I don't have authority to appeal to.

If you need people to trust you (or your book, or the guy who originated the idea) before they accept the idea as true, then you are doing religion, not science.

"Nullius in Verba", as they say at the Royal Society.

No one is asking you to accept anything at face value, but you keep insisting that you have to see it for yourself. You cannot see this for yourself. The only thing the author was trying to get people to see is that dogs cannot recognize their owners without other cues, which is absolutely true. They don't have the language to do this. Your gas station experiment was flawed. They saw your gait and they were in the car. They saw you coming toward them. This experiment of yours didn't test the thing that was supposed to be tested. Confirmation bias is so easy to sway something to appear conclusive when it's not. You know all this. I don't have to tell you.

 

[DBT]

"Our findings show that dogs have an innate way to process faces in their brains, a quality that has previously only been well-documented in humans and other primates,’ said Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist at Emory University in the state of Georgia and the senior author of the study.

He explained that having part of the brain dedicated to face processing suggests that this ability is hard-wired through cognitive evolution and may explain the ability of dogs to pick up on even the subtlest of human social cues."

Dogs have a specialised part of the brain to recognise faces

Experts at Emory University in Atlanta used a fMRI scanner to provide the first evidence for a face-selective region in the temporal cortex of dogs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[bilby]

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, but he never started out with a hypothesis.

So, he wasn't doing science.

He was an astute observer and that's where he was able to use his reasoning to show why the eyes aren't a sense organ and why man's will is not free.

So he definitely wasn't doing science.

 

[bilby]

Observation is part of epistemology.

That's another category error. Observation is not the kind of thing that can be a part of epistemology.

It can be empirically tested eventually when more experiments are done.

It's not science until it can be empirically tested. Until "eventually", it is therefore mere speculation.

Scientists couldn't imagine light being at the eye instantly because they couldn't see how this was even possible.

Scientists can easily imagine it. But then they realise that either it is wrong, or literally all of physics, a big chunk of biochemistry, a fair part of neuroscience, and most of philosophy is wrong.

Physics isn't wrong; We checked.

They don't understand efferent vision because their explanation that the eyes are afferent didn't question their conclusions.

They don't understand it because it's batshit nutso crazy. That is, it demands that they reject a vast body of well tested work, on the basis of a wild-assed guess which will allegedly be "empirically tested eventually". Which would be insane.

To refresh your memory, efferent vision means we could see the Sun explode before we would see each other, even though the Sun is 93 million miles away and we are a few feet away.

Yup. Let's accept this unsupported and counterintuitive guess, and reject three and a half centuries of painstaking observation and experiment. Why on Earth wouldn't we do that?

 

[peacegirl]

You're not even hearing his reasoning. You are assuming his premise is wrong because you believe science got it right.

No, I am assuming that his premise is wrong because of the overwhelming evidence that his premise is wrong.

Based on the conventional thought.

No, based on observation of reality.

Again, whether you think there is overwhelming evidence against him is because the conventional theory believes they got it right and it looks like all the pieces fit together.

That's not actually a sentence. The "whether" demands two clauses, even if the second is a simple "... or not".

Again, whether you think there is overwhelming evidence against him or whether you believe the conventional theory is right because it looks like all the pieces fit together, it may still be misleading.

If you wanted to say "You think there is overwhelming evidence against him, because the conventional theory believes they got it right, and it looks like all the pieces fit together", then no, I think there is overwheming evidence against him because there is lots of evidence against him; So much, indeed, that it can be described as "overwhelming".

It does look like all the pieces fit together.

It's completely irrelevant or unimportant what I or anyone else believes, or what any other theory says. His claims stand or fall on their own. They can be wrong whether or not a "conventional theory" or, indeed, any other theory at all exists.

They can be wrong or they can be right whether or not a "conventional theory" or, indeed, any other theory at all exists.

An explanation can be wrong, even when the only competing claim is "I don't know. Nobody knows".

Fair enough.

But there is a problem with their view. Should he never have said anything just to make scientists happy?

Not at all. He should absolutely put his ideas out there to be tested, as should we all. Unless he was going to get upset when they failed the tests. Then, perhaps, it would have been better for him not to have put his idea out there before he had tested it to destruction himself.

He would have never put it out there if he didn't know what he was talking about.

But that's just avoiding the embarrassment of being mistaken. Science doesn't care either way whether anyone is embarrassed; Just whether any claim is, or is not, demonstrably false.

I get that, but again, he would have never put it out there in the first place. NEVER!!!! You didn't know him.

I don't believe that science got it right; Science isn't even a thing that can get things right. It's a tool for determining what is wrong.

Exactly, so let's find out who is wrong, not just assume he is wrong because you believe science got it right.

OK. Lets.

That's what I'm trying to do.

Science takes claims and sorts them into two categories: Proven to be wrong; and Not yet proven to be wrong.

If your worldview includes a "Proven to be right" category, then you are not doing science.

Isn't that what science is doing when they make the claim that the eyes are a sense organ?

No, it's not. That is a claim that has yet to be proven wrong. If you can prove it wrong, that's great.

But the ONLY way to do that is to point out an observation or test, that anyone can repeat, and that is logically incompatible with the eye being a sense organ.

You have yet to even start doing this; Instead you have presented reams of speculation and musings.

For starters, I asked people why can't dogs recognize their masters in a picture? This is not proof but he was trying to show that if the eyes were a sense organ, why is it that dogs can't recognize images if the light is traveling to their eyes? The answer was "they can't." Pood disagrees and will go to great lengths to prove that I'm wrong by saying that bees can identify their beekeeper's face. Maybe they can associate the time their beekeeper is entering to give them pollen or nectar. But in a different environment? Does anybody actually believe that a bee can recognize a beekeeper's face in a picture or a lineup?

It's such a double standard when no one dares to say otherwise or the repercussions will be tarring and feathering.

This is simply not true. There is no double standard; And the sole "penalty" for being wrong is to be told that you are wrong.

If you can't cope with having your errors identified as errors, that's on you.

I can cope if there were errors, but I do believe his observations challenge the present theory of delayed vision.

Can't you see the problem here?

The problem seems to be a petulant refusal to accept the demonstrable fact that you are mistaken.

No bilby, why should I refuse to accept "the demonstrable fact" (I thought science didn't deal with facts) that he was mistaken when I don't think he was? You have already decided he couldn't be right. You espouse the scientific method, yet you're too quick to dismiss his claims.

 

[bilby]

If you look back in history, anyone with an actual discovery that went againt the thinking of the day received ostracism and some were burned at the stake.

Sure. But nobody is doing that here; They are just disagreeing wirh a very foolish idea which has no observational basis and no reasonable mechanism.

You know this as well as I. I'm not outraged; I just don't like being told I'm a religionist because I don't do science.

Then stop doing the 'belief' shit, and start doing science!

This is crazy talk.

Amen.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, but he never started out with a hypothesis.

This is a hypothetical situation to explain why this would be the case.

Hmmm.

 

[bilby]

I don't have authority to appeal to.

The author said...

Hmmm.

 

[bilby]

No one is asking you to accept anything at face value, but you keep insisting that you have to see it for yourself. You cannot see this for yourself.

Hmmm.

Are you even aware that you repeatedly contradict yourself?

 

[bilby]

He would have never put it out there if he didn't know what he was talking about.

I can find more examples in a single newspaper of people putting out there things they don't know jack-shit about, than I can find of people who do have a clue what they are talking about when they "put it out there".

This claim, for ANY value of "He", is so absurd and so obviously wrong as to bring into question your exposure to reality.

What possible basis could you have for making such an absurd statement, and what on Earth posessed you to actually post it, expecting anything other than ridicule?

This statement is a perfect and absolute contradiction of your earlier claim:

I'm not a fundamentalist or a believer in anything that doesn't have proof.

 

[peacegirl]

If you look back in history, anyone with an actual discovery that went againt the thinking of the day received ostracism and some were burned at the stake.

Sure. But nobody is doing that here; They are just disagreeing wirh a very foolish idea which has no observational basis and no reasonable mechanism.

It's a foolish idea until you see that it's not a foolish idea after all.

You know this as well as I. I'm not outraged; I just don't like being told I'm a religionist because I don't do science.

Then stop doing the 'belief' shit, and start doing science!

I'm trying to show his reasoning as to why he questioned this "scientific theory." With all the "science" backing up their theory, according to the scientific method itself, it doesn't mean it couldn't have been mistaken.

This is crazy talk.

Amen.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't have authority to appeal to.

The author said...

Hmmm.

He wasn't an authority figure because he was unknown. People often use the fact that someone of great stature claimed something was true not because of any proof but because they are considered the experts in the field. This is not an appeal to authority in the way the word is used.