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

[pood]

Einstein had plenty of prestige and authority. He dreamed up a thought experiment to show that quantum theory must be incomplete because of “hidden variables.” Decades after his death it was possible to experimentally test his thought experiment. Einstein proved to be wrong.

Einstein thought there was a grand unification scheme for reality, and spent his whole life unsuccessfully pursuing one. Now many scientists there probably isn’t such a thing.

Einstein was hard determinist. IMO and the opinion of most philosophers, he was wrong about that, too.

See? Einstein thrice wrong, with no one genuflecting before his “prestige” and “authority.”

 

[peacegirl]

Einstein had plenty of prestige and authority. He dreamed up a thought experiment to show that quantum theory must be incomplete because of “hidden variables.” Decades after his death it was possible to experimentally test his thought experiment. Einstein proved to be wrong.

Einstein thought there was a grand unification scheme for reality, and spent his whole life unsuccessfully pursuing one. Now many scientists there probably isn’t such a thing.

Einstein was hard determinist. IMO and the opinion of most philosophers, he was wrong about that, too.

See? Einstein thrice wrong, with no one genuflecting before his “prestige” and “authority.”

You’re another one who is in way out in left field. You cannot have free will and no free will no matter how you try to slice it up. It matters not whether you discount Einstein on this subject. It does not make you right because it’s the one thing you disagree Einstein on. You’re wrong because the facts show that you’re wrong. Stop appealing to authority to prove or not prove your case!

 

[peacegirl]

Telescope eyepiece: comparative ray tracing

Telescope eyepieces raytraced: from the Hygenian to Ethos and other ultrawidefilds.

www.telescope-optics.net

Yeah, but see, it's not the fact that the light travels and traces a ray and takes a while to get there. As soon as it hits the eye, the brain goes to the god of the universe, cashes it in, and gets rewarded with instant knowledge of the thing in exchange for that photon /s.

Nah, It's instant. As long as the source is sufficiently large and luminous, the brain doesn't need to wait for the ray to hit the eye; God gives out the knowledge on tick, and the brain tells the eye to see the source, long before the ray arrives.

Allegedly.

That's even nuttier. Like, hilariously verifiably wrong. It sounds like any of those nutter butters that claimed near the middle/end of their life that any other manner of dubious enlightenment they had achieved granted them psychic superpowers.

You’ve lost all objectivity Jarhyn. You are not gods gift to knowledge.. You are just an arrogant individual who thinks her knowledge is better than anyone else’s and you, with your prestige that you think you’ve earned,, is filled with holes. Well guess what? You are completely and utterly mistaken but you will refuse to question your own error. That would make you appear like an idiot and you cannot risk that. Stop trying so hard to showcase your brilliance. It’s gone flat and you are making a fool of yourself for anyone who can see this through this charade.

Sounds like someone needs to take their own advice.

I have not attacked you for no reason. You have attacked me and this author. This is not scientology or anything else you throw in. You are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions that the author urged people not to do. You jumped in here without any knowledge of what he's talking about. You are looking like a fool.

I'm just describing what is a commonly observed behavior among cultists: the belief that their dubious enlightenment gives them psychic powers.

This is the opposite of a cult, so observing behavior among cultists: the belief that their dubious enlightenment gives them psychic powers-- DOESN'T APPLY!

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, this whole thread has been enlightening. Not in any metaphysical sense but in in the sense that I now have another complete example of sycophancy in my vocabulary.

If someone actually had some argument like "oh, we found this thing that interacts with this field in this way according to these observations, and this is a violation of local realism that doesn't preserve the arrow of time, please give me my Nobel prize now", that would at least be interesting.

The issue is that people don't seem to realize that our understanding of reality is not so bad that anything with wide agreement is likely to be wrong. There is wide agreement by many observations as to how light functions and interacts with eyes to generate a perception of light using the information that is embedded in the properties of that light to make inference, and to perceive via inference.

We have removed eyes from things, and observed them functioning in real time.

We have removed eyes from humans and those same things and *cut them up* and *put them under microscopes* while they are still mostly fresh and functioning and observed the sameness of their mechanisms and processes.

The care and rigor made in observing it to that level and reverse engineering the mechanism of it means we will never be so wrong as we were before that. It means we know, verifiably, that we pushed towards correctness.

The principal characteristic of the crank is that they boldly proclaim that everyone and all the study that tacitly verifies earlier observation is wrong. As per usual, here, it's not even wrong in an entirely novel way: scientific investigation debunked the idea of instant awareness conferred through exposure.

I can't say I've never "cranked" before but for fuck sakes at least I'm self aware enough to admit it where I did.

 

[peacegirl]

Telescope eyepiece: comparative ray tracing

Telescope eyepieces raytraced: from the Hygenian to Ethos and other ultrawidefilds.

www.telescope-optics.net

Yeah, but see, it's not the fact that the light travels and traces a ray and takes a while to get there. As soon as it hits the eye, the brain goes to the god of the universe, cashes it in, and gets rewarded with instant knowledge of the thing in exchange for that photon /s.

Nah, It's instant. As long as the source is sufficiently large and luminous, the brain doesn't need to wait for the ray to hit the eye; God gives out the knowledge on tick, and the brain tells the eye to see the source, long before the ray arrives.

Allegedly.

That's even nuttier. Like, hilariously verifiably wrong. It sounds like any of those nutter butters that claimed near the middle/end of their life that any other manner of dubious enlightenment they had achieved granted them psychic superpowers.

You’ve lost all objectivity Jarhyn. You are not gods gift to knowledge.. You are just an arrogant individual who thinks her knowledge is better than anyone else’s and you, with your prestige that you think you’ve earned,, is filled with holes. Well guess what? You are completely and utterly mistaken but you will refuse to question your own error. That would make you appear like an idiot and you cannot risk that. Stop trying so hard to showcase your brilliance. It’s gone flat and you are making a fool of yourself for anyone who can see this through this charade.

Stop using ad homs or I will report the whole bloody lot of them.

You don't scare me, Pood. Jaryrn is the aggressor and wrong on top of it. I will strike back at her because she is causing harm, and I won't tolerate it. Report me if this gives you satisfaction. I really don't care.

Once again, you are utterly clueless of how science works. You are a magical thinker, like a creationist. You think science is personal, that it is decided by authority. Well, it isn’t. And in any case, your writer is not an authority on ANYTHING. In fact, he is UTTERLY CLUELESS of the subject matter about which he so pompously pontificates.

You keep saying this when you really don't know. After all this time, you have asked no questions, you have shown no curiosity, and you have made no attempt to truly understand the book. Can't you see that when you are defending your worldview, anger takes over when it is threatened? There is no way you can be objective in your analysis. Not only do you not know for sure whether Lessans was right regarding the eyes, but you have no understanding of his discovery regarding determinism. After all, you believe there is such a thing as soft determinism. You also thought it was a contradiction when he said, "They were compelled, of their own free will." This demonstrates to me you understood nothing.

Any book that states that the eye is not a sense organ and that light is both at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time, is utterly worthless baloney that goes straight to the trash heap.

He never said that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

Pood: And that’s not because of anyone’s “prestige“ or “authority,” but because the claims are demonstrably daft, no matter what the credentials of the writer making them.

Peacegirl: No they are not. Just because you say they are (because you don't see their veracity) doesn't make them so.

 

[peacegirl]

Well, this whole thread has been enlightening. Not in any metaphysical sense but in in the sense that I now have another complete example of sycophancy in my vocabulary.

This is so disgusting Jarhyn. You have no idea what you're saying.

sycophancy (noun)

1. obsequious behavior toward someone important in order to gain advantage:
   "your fawning sycophancy is nauseating" · "he discouraged sycophancy toward royalty"

If someone actually had some argument like "oh, we found this thing that interacts with this field in this way according to these observations, and this is a violation of local realism that doesn't preserve the arrow of time, please give me my Nobel prize now", that would at least be interesting.

He gave a demonstration as to why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. It seems that posting the excerpts where he gave this demonstration have not been read, and I won't post them again.

The issue is that people don't seem to realize that our understanding of reality is not so bad that anything with wide agreement is likely to be wrong. There is wide agreement by many observations as to how light functions and interacts with eyes to generate a perception of light using the information that is embedded in the properties of that light to make inference, and to perceive via inference.

There is nothing in the properties of light that are being contested. The only thing being contested is what the brain is doing. Considering that the brain and eyes are both part of the central nervous system, there is nothing outlandish about his claim that can immediately be ruled out by virtue of his claim being impossible.

We have removed eyes from things, and observed them functioning in real time.

We have removed eyes from humans and those same things and *cut them up* and *put them under microscopes* while they are still mostly fresh and functioning and observed the sameness of their mechanisms and processes.

I am not doubting that, but this doesn't explain how the eyes and brain work together in humans.

The care and rigor made in observing it to that level and reverse engineering the mechanism of it means we will never be so wrong as we were before that. It means we know, verifiably, that we pushed towards correctness.

Pushing toward correctness is what we all try to do, and it may be rare when leaning toward it can be mistaken. It's just like a person found guilty because of circumstantial evidence. Everything lines up perfectly, so this man is given a long prison sentence. Later, the innocence project takes up his case. After 30 years in prison, he is set free because the true killer has been identified. Do you see the analogy?

The principal characteristic of the crank is that they boldly proclaim that everyone and all the study that tacitly verifies earlier observation is wrong. As per usual, here, it's not even wrong in an entirely novel way: scientific investigation debunked the idea of instant awareness conferred through exposure.

I don't know what others have claimed in the past. I only know what his observations were, which had everything to do with words that do not symbolize reality and how this conditioning takes place. Do you think anyone has asked any relevant questions? Nada. They just tell me he had to be wrong. Coming to these forums has been a real wake-up call. I won't be doing this again. I'll try to get in touch with Sam Harris or other determinists who would take the time to read his work in earnest.

I can't say I've never "cranked" before but for fuck sakes at least I'm self aware enough to admit it where I did.

I am not cranking anyone, so I have nothing to admit.

 

[pood]

He never said that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

Of course he did! You said it yourself!

You said upthread that the light HAS TO BE AT THE EYE for us to see.

But you ALSO said that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, even though it would take the light some eight minutes to arrive on earth!

That means the light has to BE, and NOT TO BE, at the eye at the same time — not just a physical impossibility, but a logical impossibility.

 

[peacegirl]

He never said that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

Of course he did! You said it yourself!

You said upthread that the light HAS TO BE AT THE EYE for us to see.

That is true. I did not say that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

But you ALSO said that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, even though it would take the light some eight minutes to arrive on earth!

YES, we would see it instantly because the wavelength of light would be at the eye instantly as we turned our gaze toward it. He was trying to make a point that the object was not reflecting the image (or wavelength), or to paraphrase it, the wavelength of light was not bouncing off of the object and traveling through space where time and distance would be factors. He never said that light wasn't traveling at 186,000 miles a second. If you understood the concept, you would see it's not magic.

That means the light has to BE, and NOT TO BE, at the eye at the same time — not just a physical impossibility, but a logical impossibility.

It means no such thing. Light is always traveling. It's not like the same photons are in two places at once.

 

[bilby]

You’ve lost all objectivity Jarhyn. You are not gods gift to knowledge.. You are just an arrogant individual who thinks her knowledge is better than anyone else’s and you, with your prestige that you think you’ve earned,, is filled with holes. Well guess what? You are completely and utterly mistaken but you will refuse to question your own error. That would make you appear like an idiot and you cannot risk that. Stop trying so hard to showcase your brilliance. It’s gone flat and you are making a fool of yourself for anyone who can see this through this charade.

The irony meter repair shops are all closed for the weekend.

Now what do I do?

 

[bilby]

I have not attacked you for no reason. You have attacked me and this author.

"Disagreed with" ≠ "Attacked".

If your ideas cannot stand scrutiny, they deserve to be attacked. You yourself have not been attacked at all.

BTW, Laughing at someone who is being clearly ridiculous isn't an attack, either.

 

[bilby]

He never said that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

Of course he did! You said it yourself!

You said upthread that the light HAS TO BE AT THE EYE for us to see.

That is true. I did not say that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

But you ALSO said that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, even though it would take the light some eight minutes to arrive on earth!

YES, we would see it instantly because the wavelength of light would be at the eye instantly as we turned our gaze toward it. He was trying to make a point that the object was not reflecting the image (or wavelength), or to paraphrase it, the wavelength of light was not bouncing off of the object and traveling through space where time and distance would be factors. He never said that light wasn't traveling at 186,000 miles a second. If you understood the concept, you would see it's not magic.

You are right about one thing. It's not magic. It's internally contradictory nonsense that cannot possibly be true, and is not even coherent enough to be considered false. We are in "not even wrong" territory here, wherein the position being held demands that we accept that "image" and "wavelength" are synonyms, or at least are in the same category of concepts.

That means the light has to BE, and NOT TO BE, at the eye at the same time — not just a physical impossibility, but a logical impossibility.

It means no such thing. Light is always traveling. It's not like the same photons are in two places at once.

Well, this is awkward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

A photon apparently can be in two places at once. As long as we don't check to see which one it is in.

But a single photon can't be in a specific place, and simultaneously not be in that specific place.

I might be at work, OR I might be at home. But I cannot be at home AND not at home, even if I could be in two places at once.

 

[peacegirl]

You’ve lost all objectivity Jarhyn. You are not gods gift to knowledge.. You are just an arrogant individual who thinks her knowledge is better than anyone else’s and you, with your prestige that you think you’ve earned,, is filled with holes. Well guess what? You are completely and utterly mistaken but you will refuse to question your own error. That would make you appear like an idiot and you cannot risk that. Stop trying so hard to showcase your brilliance. It’s gone flat and you are making a fool of yourself for anyone who can see this through this charade.

The irony meter repair shops are all closed for the weekend.

Now what do I do?

I sent you one so you could see the irony is on YOU.

 

[peacegirl]

I have not attacked you for no reason. You have attacked me and this author.

"Disagreed with" ≠ "Attacked".

If your ideas cannot stand scrutiny, they deserve to be attacked. You yourself have not been attacked at all.

BTW, Laughing at someone who is being clearly ridiculous isn't an attack, either.

It was callous. It was nasty. It was demeaning. It was unhelpful. It was hurtful. And it was wrong IN ALL ASPECTS!

 

[peacegirl]

He never said that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

Of course he did! You said it yourself!

You said upthread that the light HAS TO BE AT THE EYE for us to see.

That is true. I did not say that light is both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time.

But you ALSO said that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, even though it would take the light some eight minutes to arrive on earth!

YES, we would see it instantly because the wavelength of light would be at the eye instantly as we turned our gaze toward it. He was trying to make a point that the object was not reflecting the image (or wavelength), or to paraphrase it, the wavelength of light was not bouncing off of the object and traveling through space where time and distance would be factors. He never said that light wasn't traveling at 186,000 miles a second. If you understood the concept, you would see it's not magic.

You are right about one thing. It's not magic. It's internally contradictory nonsense that cannot possibly be true, and is not even coherent enough to be considered false.

It is NOT contradictory, and it IS coherent. It makes sense, bilby.

We are in "not even wrong" territory here, wherein the position being held demands that we accept that "image" and "wavelength" are synonyms, or at least are in the same category of concepts.

For the purposes of this thread, these terms are synonymous because it's not a technical discussion: image, wavelength, light, photons, information I've used interchangeably. Images are produced from light in science's version of vision. It's a triviality which word I used because you know what I meant. You're just trying to poke holes in Lessans' version of sight any way you can.

or the purposes of this thread are synonymous. Light doesn't carry the image, but it has information due to its wavelength. You should know by now what I meant.

That means the light has to BE, and NOT TO BE, at the eye at the same time — not just a physical impossibility, but a logical impossibility.

It means no such thing. Light is always traveling. It's not like the same photons are in two places at once.

Well, this is awkward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

A photon apparently can be in two places at once. As long as we don't check to see which one it is in.

But a single photon can't be in a specific place, and simultaneously not be in that specific place.

I might be at work, OR I might be at home. But I cannot be at home AND not at home, even if I could be in two places at once.

What's your point? When we are looking at a faraway object, the same photons that strike our retina in the morning are not the same photons that strike our retina in the afternoon.

 

[pood]

You’ve lost all objectivity Jarhyn. You are not gods gift to knowledge.. You are just an arrogant individual who thinks her knowledge is better than anyone else’s and you, with your prestige that you think you’ve earned,, is filled with holes. Well guess what? You are completely and utterly mistaken but you will refuse to question your own error. That would make you appear like an idiot and you cannot risk that. Stop trying so hard to showcase your brilliance. It’s gone flat and you are making a fool of yourself for anyone who can see this through this charade.

The irony meter repair shops are all closed for the weekend.

Now what do I do?

If I were you, I’d spring for a brand-new irony meter from Rational Wiki.

 

[bilby]

What's your point, bilby?

That your assumptions and beliefs are, as usual, wrong.

 

[pood]

I downloaded an Irony Meter app for my computer from the Apple Store, just to meter peacegirl in this thread. What’s nice about the app is that unlike a physical irony meter, it will never explode with the risk of maiming or death to the user. That said, my app has crashed my computer ten times already from ten different peacegirl posts, so I have chosen to deactivate it.

 

[pood]

You don't scare me, Pood. Jaryrn is the aggressor and wrong on top of it. I will strike back at her because she is causing harm, and I won't tolerate it. Report me if this gives you satisfaction. I really don't care.

You do know that the Rational Wiki Irony Meter I recommended to Bilby meters not just irony but hypocrisy and bovine scatology, right?

It is the height of hypocrisy to threaten to report another for an ad hom (which was not an ad hom) when you yourself routinely hurl them about, because you can’t defend your writer’s stupid claims.

And being the “aggressor,” whatever that is supposed to mean in this context, is not committing an ad hom.

 

[DBT]

I have not attacked you for no reason. You have attacked me and this author.

"Disagreed with" ≠ "Attacked".

If your ideas cannot stand scrutiny, they deserve to be attacked. You yourself have not been attacked at all.

BTW, Laughing at someone who is being clearly ridiculous isn't an attack, either.

It was callous. It was nasty. It was demeaning. It was unhelpful. It was hurtful. And it was wrong IN ALL ASPECTS!

It's pointless.

Nobody is going to be convinced in claims like light at the eye/instant vision. It goes against all evidence.

That the author was wrong on this doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong about environment and human conditioning, so if you see change as being important, it would be better to just focus on that aspect and drop light/instant vision, which serves no purpose other than to discredit the observations on human behaviour that he may have had.

 

[peacegirl]

What's your point, bilby?

That your assumptions and beliefs are, as usual, wrong.

I’m sorry you don’t understand how efferent vision is possible. I’m ready to move off this topic.