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

[peacegirl]

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

No, she really didn't.

What I mean by Rand getting some things right is that she pushed the idea that a lot of history is moved forward by a relative handful of people. And there is some truth to that. In one of his book the philosopher Norman Swartz talks about Newton, the first and only person who had the insight of how bodies attract each other, and wonders if Newton had never lived, whether anyone else would have hit on this insight. Maybe, maybe not. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Rand fan, but when I see a minuscule number of people inventing artificial eyes while so much of the rest of humanity supports or prosecutes wars, votes for Donald Trump, etc., I feel depressed.

You shouldn’t feel depressed about war being inevitable if you understood the book even a little bit.

And of course, for peacegirl, artificial sight based on AFFERENT mechanisms isn’t sight at all, because reasons.

Reasons that make sense. Stop it!

What reasons would those be? Maybe you’d like to offer them for the first time.

I gave his reasons to the best of my ability, considering you never looked at this chapter. It may not be enough to your liking because it's not as detailed as you want, but this in itself does not make him wrong. First and foremost, his claim has to be possible, and it most certainly is. From there, it has to be shown that his demonstration is correct. Then and only then can scientists try to understand the exact mechanism as to how the brain does this, using the same parts of the eye that are used in afferent vision. It isn't magic Pood.

 

[peacegirl]

My author never said that light doesn't signal the optic nerve and brain

He said nothing impinges on the optic nerve.

. He just said that nothing but light could be transmitted.

He said that images flew on wings of light. They don’t. Images are made in the brain.

Regardless of how he worded it, you know what he meant. Light is not striking the optic nerve with information that can be transduced into images in the brain. Is that better?

IOW, no image can be created internally.

Images are created internally.
ETA: He said that scientists said images fly on wings of light. Scientists don’t say that.

Again, you should know what he meant by now.

To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference to another, or she may prefer to play with one toy over another, but as far as she is concerned, all she sees are a bunch of objects. By constantly hearing certain sounds in relation to specific objects, she soon knows that apple, orange, doll, dress, sun, moon, dog, cat, couch, chair, etc. mean the very things she sees with her eyes. These bits of substance are a definite part of the real world, and she knows this even before learning the words. She has experienced most of these with her four senses, and even though this cannot be done where the sun and moon are concerned, she still sees that something is there. Remember, however, that nothing from the external world strikes her optic nerve to allow her to see these various objects. She simply sees these things because she looks at them. A dog also sees these objects because he looks at them. He tastes, smells, and hears various things, but since nothing strikes his optic nerve, he must confirm what he is doubtful of with his sense of smell.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh my fucking God. The photons reflect off the wall carrying organized information that the brain assembled information about reality from through the interaction with the eyes. The brain senses the evidence, and from the evidence infers the thing... But it's an inference of the thing based on where it was... We just kind of assume it's still there because stuff generally doesn't appear or disappear that fast.

We assume the sun is there... But if it weren't, we wouldn't stop thinking it was for 7 minutes, because that's how long it takes for the first evidence of inference that it has disappeared to make it's way to us.

 

[peacegirl]

God this is just sad.

Peacegirl, I actually know how the mechanism in the brain is built such that it becomes capable of decoding gradient information and linear boundaries, and how these signal attributions sum to signals attributing other qualities in turn, and how the vocabulary itself for this is developed in turn.

You're pointing at a quantity problem and calling it a quality problem.

Decoding an image of reality is one thing; seeing reality using these inputs is quite another. It makes sense that the visual cortex could work in some rudimentary way. The question remains: is the brain interpreting the signals as a true image of what is seen, or are these inputs nothing more than decoded information from signals that have no real correlation to anything external? The CEO of this organization talks about light perception.

“For people who are completely blind, gaining even a little bit of light perception can make a huge difference,” Janet P. Szlyk, president and CEO of The Chicago Lighthouse, said in the institute’s news release. “The findings from this research will help pave the way for other groundbreaking advancements in blindness research and vision restoration.”

Surgeon completes first successful implantation of wireless visual prosthesis brain implant

While there is currently no cure for blindness, an artificial vision system has undergone its first successful implantation, bringing with it the potential to restore partial vision to people who have lost their sight.

www.ophthalmologytimes.com

My author never said that light doesn't signal the optic nerve and brain. He just said that nothing but light could be transmitted. IOW, no image can be created internally. If it turns out that people could get even a little bit of vision back due to this new technology, I would be the first to cheer them on. Would it mean the author was wrong? I don't think so, but I would need to reevaluate.

The brain creates a subjective, virtual representation of the world and self based on the information it acquires from both the senses and memory function.

The information comes from the external world and memory, but our conscious experience of the world is entirely in our head.

Subjective experiences are in our head, true, and they are often associated with what we see in relation to those experiences, but this does not prove that our brain sees images from the past.

Each language has its own set of words or symbols that are used to identify substance existing in the external world. Therefore, we can say that these symbols describe an accurate object-word relationship. It should be obvious to everyone’s common sense that the sun exists out in space, like the moon, the stars, buildings, people, automobiles, etc. These objects are real, are completely independent of an individual’s perception, and do not exist in a person’s head, as some epistemologists have imagined. We see them not because they impinge upon the optic nerve but because they are there to be seen if one cares to look. The word does not create the dog as it does words like heaven, spirit, soul, etc.; it is this dog that gives us the desire to give it a name, which then identifies it and allows us to differentiate it from other objects. In other words, the word dog makes us conscious that this something is not a cat or a cow, and it allows us to see this difference between existing bits of substance because the word used to describe this particular animal is different from words used to describe other animals, which is why we give it a different name. Consequently, the actual word contains the consciousness of a difference that exists in the external or internal world. Remember, there is absolutely nothing that travels from the dog to the optic nerve, although the bark does strike the ears, and this sound is a slide in itself, which then permits the brain to look at this bit of living substance through the many relations that become associated with the sound. As stimuli enter through the four senses and get combined in various relations, they are then projected onto the screen of substance through the eyes, which see everything in relation to what is on the slide. If a child gets frightened by the barking of a dog, this fear is recorded on the slide and photographed in relation to it, and when a dog is seen the fear is projected.

 

[peacegirl]

Oh my fucking God. The photons reflect off the wall carrying organized information

Already you are restating what is believed to be true, which is the opposite of this account. You aren't saying anything new. If light does not bounce off of objects, it doesn't bounce off of walls either.

that the brain assembled information about reality from through the interaction with the eyes.

You're stating what you believe the brain is doing, which is exactly what he's refuting. You haven't proved him wrong.

The brain senses the evidence,

Senses the evidence? How about seeing the evidence?

and from the evidence infers the thing... But it's an inference of the thing based on where it was...

You mean where it is, not where it was.

We just kind of assume it's still there because stuff generally doesn't appear or disappear that fast.

Again, you're just repeating what you believe is happening, but if the information is not reflected (or bounced) off of the object, which is central to this entire account of vision, then the brain is not interpreting an image. The past disappears because the past doesn't exist. There is no juncture between living in the present and seeing the past.

We assume the sun is there... But if it weren't, we wouldn't stop thinking it was for 7 minutes, because that's how long it takes for the first evidence of inference that it has disappeared to make it's way to us.

That's what is being challenged. You're not saying anything new.

 

[Crumb]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

 

[pood]

Oh my fucking God.

I know, right? What else can one say, in the final analysis?

 

[pood]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

Yes, let’s move on to discussing how we are all reincarnated via change in personal pronouns.

 

[peacegirl]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

Yes, let’s move on to discussing how we are all reincarnated via change in personal pronouns.

You’re so confused Pood, you really have no understanding of his insight into death.

 

[peacegirl]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.

 

[pood]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

Yes, let’s move on to discussing how we are all reincarnated via change in personal pronouns.

You’re so confused Pood, you really have no understanding of his insight into death.

LOL

 

[peacegirl]

Duplicate

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey pood, want to talk about the secrets of life and death with me? Memetic reincarnation theory. I've touched on some of the concepts behind it, but most of mine is homebrew and I'm betting you're well-read enough to have come across it before.

You smell what I'm stepping in? Screw what that crank author thought about it, what you say about throwing words on it?

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

Yes, let’s move on to discussing how we are all reincarnated via change in personal pronouns.

Seriously? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

 

[Crumb]

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.

I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

 

[DBT]

our conscious experience of the world is entirely in our head

I would say a better verb would be "by the action of" rather than "in". Such verbiage to me would imply anything that has that action has that experience, which is much more materialistic and deterministic, true to the nature of process.

I say this because maybe you will argue or agree with this because the topic is boring and stupid.

I just meant 'in the mind,' where the mind is the activity of a brain and it all happens 'in the head,' sight, sound, thoughts, feelings...generally speaking.

 

[DBT]

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.

I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.

 

[peacegirl]

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

Yes, let’s move on to discussing how we are all reincarnated via change in personal pronouns.

You’re so confused Pood, you really have no understanding of his insight into death.

LOL

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

Yes, let’s move on to discussing how we are all reincarnated via change in personal pronouns.

Seriously? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

I am asking the same question. Pood doesn’t even know. He just saw the author use some pronouns and now thinks that this somehow relates but he has no clue.

 

[peacegirl]

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?

I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.

I think we beat determinism to death.

We are just beginning.

Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

I’d like to do this, but it’s too premature. Please don’t listen to Pood. The author has evidence based on three observations. It is not reincarnation, and it has nothing to do with who we are now, but he does show that when we are gone, we are right back to where we were before we were born. I'll post the very beginning of this chapter, but I don't want to get into it because his first discovery is much more urgent. It really can prevent war and conflict. Why would I pass this chapter over so quickly (the discovery is not that man's will is not free; it is what lies behind it) when this knowledge is more timely than ever?

OUR POSTERITY​

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirely new world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which is demonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of human relation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is my favorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well, my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.

“But there is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There are people who have suffered and died to develop this world who will not be around when the fruits of their labor have ripened to maturity. No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can God be a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’t the thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make the man of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for the man of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’t want to get ahead of myself.

Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be born again and again and again. This does not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you are at this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric Johnston refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free, or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be skeptical, but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my discovery after you have studied the relations, not before. I would like to share a conversation I had with my friend regarding my final discovery in the hope of making these difficult principles easier to understand.”

“Boy does that word ‘death’ give me the creeps! I can’t stand the thought that one day I’ll be gone from this earth; I won’t see the sun, the moon, and the stars; I won’t enjoy eating, sleeping, making love. What a horrible thought! And above all, I might not even be here when the Golden Age gets officially launched.”

“Your thinking is typical of the majority of mankind.”

“But a lot of religious people don’t think that way. They believe that when they die, they are going to heaven or some such happy hunting ground and, consequently, have no fear of death whatsoever.”

Yes, I know that. There are all kinds of explanations about the hereafter, this spiritual world of souls, but I am not interested in words, just the flesh. You are in for quite a pleasant surprise but because man’s mind has been so filled with words such as afterlife, soul, spirit, metempsychosis, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which have been used to explain death — although they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever — we were unable to extract the pure unadulterated mathematical relations that existed when these words were removed. Theologians and other philosophers received intuitive incursions that man was truly immortal, but they had no way of communicating or translating their feelings into language that could not be denied simply because they were completely confused with words and beliefs. It will be proven, conclusively, that there is nothing to fear in death, and when all the facts are in you will see that there is justice for those who have gone before us. You will gain a better understanding as you read and reread this chapter.

“This is quite confusing. You just said that I would be born again and again and again, and now you say there will be no connection between me now and me then.”

 

[Jarhyn]

our conscious experience of the world is entirely in our head

I would say a better verb would be "by the action of" rather than "in". Such verbiage to me would imply anything that has that action has that experience, which is much more materialistic and deterministic, true to the nature of process.

I say this because maybe you will argue or agree with this because the topic is boring and stupid.

I just meant 'in the mind,' where the mind is the activity of a brain and it all happens 'in the head,' sight, sound, thoughts, feelings...generally speaking.

I guess my point is that "in" has this feeling almost like it's the "fluid" that is "in" the "pipes" as it were, isolated from the pipes itself. If I were to use such verbiage to try to describe a chess board I would be saying "the chess game is in the board", but it's not, it involves the board and the pieces and even a bit of the players. It's definitely "of" the board and the state of the game... But it's not "in", because that implies it's not tied up with the intrinsic nature of the board, the pieces, etc.

It's a fine line to draw, but the inextricable fact of it from the very structure that implements it is important to me?

And at any rate, it's more interesting an argument.