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

[peacegirl]

Adios amigos y amigas.

I have run out of things to say.

May the bird of paradise fly up your nose(s).

Back to dogs’ eyes — we are all over the map — they aren’t as good as human eyes in color perception, as I noted, because they have one less cone than we do, but they are better at night vision because they have more rods (all of which, of course, demonstrates for the billionth time that all eyes are sense organs). However, it is true that their main sense organ is the nose for scent, whereas our main sense organ is they eye (though again, this does not mean they can’t recognize humans by sight alone. They can).

No they can't. It's hard to tease out cues that would indicate they recognize but put them in front of a picture or a cardboard replica of their owner which is right in front of them and see what happens. This could be done when the dog hasn't seen his owner in a while and loves his owner very much by the anticipation every day when his owner has come home from work. This can't be that hard to test without levers.

Their sense of smell is mind-blowing. They can smell cancer. They can smell moods. They can smell scents from a mile away that we lost after a couple of feet. They can smell in stereo, whatever that means. When they look out the rolled-down windows of moving cars, as they so often do, they are not sight-seeing as we would, but scent-smelling. Dawkins speculates they smell in color. Some people do, too, or experience color through sounds. It is called synesthesia. Van Gogh may have had it. He took piano lessons and loudly banged on the keys while crying, “Chrome Yellow! Prussian Blue!” etc. His piano teacher thought he was a madman and stopped giving him lessons.

That's so sad!

It's all beside the point.

Animals have evolved eyes and brains in order to detect light in the external world and make sense of it in order to visually navigate and survive.

Whatever a dog or cat, chimp or whatever can or can't do, recognize objects in pictures, etc, is a matter of the architecture of their brain, not their eyes.

That's what I've been saying all along. The brain takes a photograph of the relation between the object and the word, which creates a connection that is then recognized whenever the word is mentioned. But a dog is very limited in this ability to do this.

It's an association. We relate mental images of objects with words. And what other animals are capable of is determined by the structure of their brains.....where dogs have a vastly superior sense of smell, for instance, yet are demonstrably able to recognise objects by sight alone.

No they can't, not if the demonstration is testing the right thing and using the right tools

 

[bilby]

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.

Any appeal to a person whose work must be accepted without question, is an appeal to authority.

While it is common for the authority to be unquestionable because they are of great stature, it is quite possible for them to be unquestionable because they are not present (or even are deceased).

Saying "The author said..." is a classic case of appeal to authority.

By saying it, you are hiding behind the author. You are trying to exempt what comes next from cross examination, by pretending that it's not what you yourself are saying, but rather is being said by someone who (conveniently) isn't here to defend it.

But you are saying it; And if it's part of your argument, you must defend it or your argument fails.

If it is true, it doesn't matter who said it. If it matters who said it, it's an argument from authority.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Any appeal to a person whose work must be accepted without question, is an appeal to authority

Who is saying that?

.

While it is common for the authority to be unquestionable because they are of great stature, it is quite possible for them to be unquestionable because they are not present (or even are deceased).

Saying "The author said..." is a classic case of appeal to authority.

That could be the case, but it could also not be the case.

7 Scientists whose ideas were rejected during their lifetimes

We've all had ideas - some good, some not so good. I can't begin to imagine how hair-pullingly frustrating it must be to hatch a brilliant new idea, believe passionately that it's right, then find everyone else ignoring you, or telling you that you're wrong, or even mocking you. Worse still...

www.famousscientists.org

By saying it, you are hiding behind the author. You are trying to exempt what comes next from cross examination, by pretending that it's not what you yourself are saying, but rather is being said by someone who (conveniently) isn't here to defend it.

I understand the book well enough to defend it on his behalf. I am glad his books are online for posterity if I cannot make headway in my lifetime.

But you are saying it; And if it's part of your argument, you must defend it or your argument fails.

That's what I'm trying to do, but because you won't read what he wrote, you're only getting small snippets, which will not do his discovery justice. Of course, if you would never consider the possibility that his claim of seeing in real time could be correct and you would never agree with his claim that man does not have free will (and how the extension of this knowledge will change our world for the better), this book will be of no interest to you anyway.

If it is true, it doesn't matter who said it. If it matters who said it, it's an argument from authority.

That is true, and he tried to explain this to the reader.

The taboo reaction is due, in part, to the pride of those people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even consent to listen, you must qualify not by what you are prepared to prove in a mathematical manner but by your educational rank. Do you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give me the time, even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all mankind. This pride is the first half of the primary problem: that the very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do, could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and knowledge is at stake? Have you noticed the parallels between the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be—the clergymen even refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in their hands and thus needed no verification) and today’s self-righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas? Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask a question of every reader, but especially of philosophers, professors, and theologians. Is there the slightest possibility that the knowledge you possess does not contain as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you gamble your life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or is there just the remotest chance that you only think you know? What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your knowledge and wisdom—the fact that it was taught in college? Is your determination of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author, composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three forces that control the thinking of mankind: government, religion, and education—the most dangerous thinking of all, the kind that really doesn’t know the truth, as Socrates observed, but because of some kind of fallacious standard presumes to know—I have found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope that I can reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of lives. Now be honest with yourselves; do you really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I know this is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard; otherwise, you had better not read this book, for my words are not meant for your ears. But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage, I would like to remind you once again that this book is not a religious or philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific, as you will see, and should the word ‘God’ seem incongruous, kindly remember Spinoza, and you will understand immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and crime are compelled to take leave of the earth.

 

[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

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

All that means is that the wavelength (the light) is at the eye or retina instantly when the object is within one's field of view.

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}.

That is true, but this is not traveling in a car, which obviously takes travel time and distance to get to its destination. There is no distance in the case of real-time vision ONLY if he is right that the brain is looking through the eyes as a window to the outside world. I am not sure where this is a category error.

 

[bilby]

I am not sure where this is a category error.

I explicitly pointed it out:

A [distance] cannot be at a {location}.

 

[DBT]

Adios amigos y amigas.

I have run out of things to say.

May the bird of paradise fly up your nose(s).

Back to dogs’ eyes — we are all over the map — they aren’t as good as human eyes in color perception, as I noted, because they have one less cone than we do, but they are better at night vision because they have more rods (all of which, of course, demonstrates for the billionth time that all eyes are sense organs). However, it is true that their main sense organ is the nose for scent, whereas our main sense organ is they eye (though again, this does not mean they can’t recognize humans by sight alone. They can).

No they can't. It's hard to tease out cues that would indicate they recognize but put them in front of a picture or a cardboard replica of their owner which is right in front of them and see what happens. This could be done when the dog hasn't seen his owner in a while and loves his owner very much by the anticipation every day when his owner has come home from work. This can't be that hard to test without levers.

Their sense of smell is mind-blowing. They can smell cancer. They can smell moods. They can smell scents from a mile away that we lost after a couple of feet. They can smell in stereo, whatever that means. When they look out the rolled-down windows of moving cars, as they so often do, they are not sight-seeing as we would, but scent-smelling. Dawkins speculates they smell in color. Some people do, too, or experience color through sounds. It is called synesthesia. Van Gogh may have had it. He took piano lessons and loudly banged on the keys while crying, “Chrome Yellow! Prussian Blue!” etc. His piano teacher thought he was a madman and stopped giving him lessons.

That's so sad!

It's all beside the point.

Animals have evolved eyes and brains in order to detect light in the external world and make sense of it in order to visually navigate and survive.

Whatever a dog or cat, chimp or whatever can or can't do, recognize objects in pictures, etc, is a matter of the architecture of their brain, not their eyes.

That's what I've been saying all along. The brain takes a photograph of the relation between the object and the word, which creates a connection that is then recognized whenever the word is mentioned. But a dog is very limited in this ability to do this.

It's an association. We relate mental images of objects with words. And what other animals are capable of is determined by the structure of their brains.....where dogs have a vastly superior sense of smell, for instance, yet are demonstrably able to recognise objects by sight alone.

No they can't, not if the demonstration is testing the right thing and using the right tools

Do you have something to support your contention? Links to studies, quotes?

 

[peacegirl]

I am not sure where this is a category error.

I explicitly pointed it out:

A [distance] cannot be at a {location}.

Distance is a measurement of how far something is from something else.

Distance is a numerical or qualitative measurement of how far apart objects, points, people, or ideas are12. It complements the concepts of location and direction1

 

[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.

No it isn't.

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.

He definitely demonstrated why the eyes are not a sense organ. It could be further tested if it was ever of interest to scientists, but obviously they believe the science is settled. The fact that people believe dogs can recognize their owners from a picture is not supported by the evidence.

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 what it feels like.

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.

I don't either. At least we have something in common.

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?

Testing obviously. So far, his first test with dogs indicates that there is no lightwave being sent to their eyes or they would recognize their owners in a heartbeat. People are being dishonest.

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.

Exactly, yet they are being used to confirm the very thing that they failed at.

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.

He wanted people to find flaws because he "believed/knew" there weren't any.

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

Most things can.

He actually asked people to test the principles for themselves.

“Are you trying to tell me that nobody in the world who understands what it means that man’s will is not free would be able to cheat under those conditions?”

“Could you?”

“No, I couldn’t.”

“Well stop worrying about the others. You only have to use your personal experience as a guinea pig test, and to know that their nature is no different than yours. We are all God’s children, and the same principle would apply.

You said your dogs recognized you at the gas station.

Yes.

The test was poorly designed. They anticipated you coming. They were waiting for you because you took them in the car. They also knew your gait. Why is this so difficult to understand? Have someone in your family show them a picture of you when you're at work, especially if they anticipate you coming home at a certain time.

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

What is wrong with it?

I just gave you the reasons why.

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.

I hope further experiments will be done to show that values are not contained in the light and the only way we become conditioned is through words.

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.

This aspect of delayed or real time vision is what his claim is about.

There are plenty of animals with eyes that have no apparent concept of beauty.

Of course that's true, but people do, and that's what he was trying to show. Value is not in the light. Conditioning (not social conditioning) can only come from words that are projected onto the real world. The following excerpt (which I already posted) is the basis for his claim. People can take it or leave it.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look — there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. 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.

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.

That is true. Spiders detect light and use it to locate prey. I'm at a loss as to where spiders disprove real-time vision.

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.

It's not about persuasion. It's about seeing if it holds up to scrutiny.

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.

No, you have no obligation whatsoever. In fact, you're completely off the hook.

 

[bilby]

I am not sure where this is a category error.

I explicitly pointed it out:

A [distance] cannot be at a {location}.

Distance is a measurement of how far something is from something else.

Distance is a numerical or qualitative measurement of how far apart objects, points, people, or ideas are12. It complements the concepts of location and direction1

Yes. So a distance cannot be "at a location". A wavelength is a distance. An eye is a location. Therefore the phrase "the wavelength is at the eye" is a category error. It's 'not even wrong'.

I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not sure where this is a category error.

I explicitly pointed it out:

A [distance] cannot be at a {location}.

Distance is a measurement of how far something is from something else.

Distance is a numerical or qualitative measurement of how far apart objects, points, people, or ideas are12. It complements the concepts of location and direction1

Yes. So a distance cannot be "at a location". A wavelength is a distance. An eye is a location. Therefore the phrase "the wavelength is at the eye" is a category error. It's 'not even wrong'.

I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Light is still traveling. It doesn’t stop at a location. It’s like we’re seeing a mirror image of the event.