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

[peacegirl]

I\

I don't see where the difference between where the planet was and where it is now has to do with seeing the past.

Tell us you’re joking. Maybe this is the world’s longest-running piece of satirical performance art. You can’t be serious!

It is not the difference between where the planet “was” and “where it is now.” It is the difference between where the planet appears to be right now, and where it actually is.

There is another explanation. Scroll up.

If we saw in real time, then where Mars appears to be, and where it actually is, would be IDENTICAL.

Not true.

But they are NOT identical. And NASA must factor this difference into their trajectory calculations.

When we look at Mars from the earth, we are seeing it as it was some 12.5 minutes ago. It has moved on since then!

Because where Mars APPEARS TO BE, and WHERE IT ACTUALLY is, are not the same, your writer is simply WRONG. Sorry!

Why doesn't it show up as being of such importance when I google it? There are aberrations but not because of this difference in delayed light.

A beginner's guide to finding stars and planets

Finding Jupiter or the Southern Cross is easy if you know where to look — and that's easy too once you know how the movement of the Earth affects our view of the sky.

www.abc.net.au

Relativity. Timespace.

The attachment that I added in the previous post is more relevant.

It doesn’t support your contention. There are no physical means by which so called light at the eye/sight can be instantaneous. It's impossible.

You keep saying that DBT, but you don't understand why this works. I am not debating something that is impossible, but it feels that way when you think in terms of travel time. Don't your thoughts go something like this? How can an image be seen without light traveling to our eyes? But if there is no travel time or distance involved (sort of like a mirror image on the retina), seeing in real time becomes possible. I hope you consider the author's claim before rejecting it too quickly because he knew what he was talking about.

What I and others have pointed out is supported by physics and biology, how the eye works, its structure and function.

Biology doesn't have an airtight explanation when it comes to the function of the eyes—i.e., images being formed from signals within the brain.

It is airtight.

It is airtight except where it isn't.

That light is radiated or reflected from objects, and that it has a given speed. Which means that light has a travel time between the moment it was emitted or reflected and the moment it is detected and absorbed by the eye.

There is no denying that light hits the retina, and the optic nerve is the connection between the retina and the brain, but it does not give us a complete or accurate picture of how we see.

Why in hell doesn’t it? What’s wrong with it? Oh, I know — your writer doesn’t like it, so it must be wrong.

That's not it, and you know it. I'd like to see you explain what he demonstrated in your own words. You can't do it. You still believe bees in a group can identify their beekeeper's faces without any other cues. Then you gave an example about telling someone they are fat, and this is the conditioning that you believe is unrelated to light and sight. The thing is, a person cannot be conditioned without the brain projecting this value onto substance, which is what causes the conditioning—or conditioning could not occur. You either don't understand his reasoning or you are avoiding the fact that he is right but you cannot admit it. Which one is it, Pood?

The instant vision contention has no such means, and cannot be explained.

Not true. He demonstrated what was going on with the eyes.

He demonstrated nothing.

He was so clear, it makes me think you have a block. No offense; just stating what I think it could be.

Just because he didn't show the exact mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't mean he was wrong.

Sure it does.

No it doesn't, just as the present "perfect" model of sight can be wrong about this ONE function.

Look at the present model. They explained how the eyes work down to every impulse, but if Lessans was right, that would make them wrong in how the eyes function, so what good is a model that is incorrect?

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Please stop!

Which means that it is an assertion, not a viable model of vision.

I explained it.

You and the writer explained nothing.

I think your goal is to repeat the same broken record over and over to try and wear me down. Won't happen.

 

[DBT]

Damn quoting system, typed up a reply and somehow it disappeared.

Did you do a preview?

I don't know what happened, posting on the phone, got distracted and thought I had clicked on 'post reply, ' no preview, then the reply had gone.

 

[pood]

I\

I don't see where the difference between where the planet was and where it is now has to do with seeing the past.

Tell us you’re joking. Maybe this is the world’s longest-running piece of satirical performance art. You can’t be serious!

It is not the difference between where the planet “was” and “where it is now.” It is the difference between where the planet appears to be right now, and where it actually is.

There is another explanation. Scroll up.

Don’t tell me to “scroll up.” There is NO other explanation.

If we saw in real time, then where Mars appears to be, and where it actually is, would be IDENTICAL.

Not true.

LOL, it IS true! How could it possibly be otherwise?

But they are NOT identical. And NASA must factor this difference into their trajectory calculations.

When we look at Mars from the earth, we are seeing it as it was some 12.5 minutes ago. It has moved on since then!

Because where Mars APPEARS TO BE, and WHERE IT ACTUALLY is, are not the same, your writer is simply WRONG. Sorry!

Why doesn't it show up as being of such importance when I google it? There are aberrations but not because of this difference in delayed light.

A beginner's guide to finding stars and planets

Finding Jupiter or the Southern Cross is easy if you know where to look — and that's easy too once you know how the movement of the Earth affects our view of the sky.

www.abc.net.au

Relativity. Timespace.

The attachment that I added in the previous post is more relevant.

It doesn’t support your contention. There are no physical means by which so called light at the eye/sight can be instantaneous. It's impossible.

You keep saying that DBT, but you don't understand why this works. I am not debating something that is impossible, but it feels that way when you think in terms of travel time. Don't your thoughts go something like this? How can an image be seen without light traveling to our eyes? But if there is no travel time or distance involved (sort of like a mirror image on the retina), seeing in real time becomes possible. I hope you consider the author's claim before rejecting it too quickly because he knew what he was talking about.

What I and others have pointed out is supported by physics and biology, how the eye works, its structure and function.

Biology doesn't have an airtight explanation when it comes to the function of the eyes—i.e., images being formed from signals within the brain.

It is airtight.

It is airtight except where it isn't.

Which part is not airtight? You have no idea what you are saying. You believe this rubbish because daddy wrote it and you have no actual argument or evidence. Tell us which part is not airtight, and why, in detail.

That light is radiated or reflected from objects, and that it has a given speed. Which means that light has a travel time between the moment it was emitted or reflected and the moment it is detected and absorbed by the eye.

There is no denying that light hits the retina, and the optic nerve is the connection between the retina and the brain, but it does not give us a complete or accurate picture of how we see.

Why in hell doesn’t it? What’s wrong with it? Oh, I know — your writer doesn’t like it, so it must be wrong.

That's not it, and you know it. I'd like to see you explain what he demonstrated in your own words. You can't do it.

Explain what in my own words? I’ve already done that, many times. It’s YOU who can’t explain any of your writer’s rubbish in your own words, because it’s all wrong and deep down you know that. You just can’t bear to admit it.

You still believe bees in a group can identify their beekeeper's faces without any other cues.

I don’t “believe” anything. That is what the evidence shows.

Then you gave an example about telling someone they are fat, and this is the conditioning that you believe is unrelated to light and sight. The thing is, a person cannot be conditioned without the brain projecting this value onto substance, which is what causes the conditioning—or conditioning could not occur. You either don't understand his reasoning or you are avoiding the fact that he is right but you cannot admit it. Which one is it, Pood?

LOL, I did not say it was unrelated to light or sight, I said it was unrelated to real-time seeing, which is impossible, and I rejected your crackpot writer’s assertion that “values” are somehow “in” light. It takes a special sort of dumbassery to write such utter nonsense.

The instant vision contention has no such means, and cannot be explained.

Not true. He demonstrated what was going on with the eyes.

He demonstrated nothing.

He was so clear, it makes me think you have a block. No offense; just stating what I think it could be.

He was so clear? Could you quote the “clear” part, as opposed to the “I am a crank spewing bullshit” parts that abound in his nonsensical scribblings?

Just because he didn't show the exact mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't mean he was wrong.

Sure it does.

No it doesn't, just as the present "perfect" model of sight can be wrong about this ONE function.

You’re wrong, and tragically for yourself, you’ve been pushing this BS for 25 years to no avail. And it never will be to any avail, because you and your writer are wrong. Too bad.

Look at the present model. They explained how the eyes work down to every impulse, but if Lessans was right, that would make them wrong in how the eyes function, so what good is a model that is incorrect?

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Please stop!

Yes, I will stop. I’m done talking to you.

Which means that it is an assertion, not a viable model of vision.

I explained it.

You and the writer explained nothing.

I think your goal is to repeat the same broken record over and over to try and wear me down. Won't happen.

I have no goal and I don’t give a shit what happens to you. Facts and truth are not a broken record. Your writer was an idiot. Goodbye.

 

[peacegirl]

I\

I don't see where the difference between where the planet was and where it is now has to do with seeing the past.

Tell us you’re joking. Maybe this is the world’s longest-running piece of satirical performance art. You can’t be serious!

It is not the difference between where the planet “was” and “where it is now.” It is the difference between where the planet appears to be right now, and where it actually is.

There is another explanation. Scroll up.

Don’t tell me to “scroll up.” There is NO other explanation.

If we saw in real time, then where Mars appears to be, and where it actually is, would be IDENTICAL.

Not true.

LOL, it IS true! How could it possibly be otherwise?

But they are NOT identical. And NASA must factor this difference into their trajectory calculations.

When we look at Mars from the earth, we are seeing it as it was some 12.5 minutes ago. It has moved on since then!

Because where Mars APPEARS TO BE, and WHERE IT ACTUALLY is, are not the same, your writer is simply WRONG. Sorry!

Why doesn't it show up as being of such importance when I google it? There are aberrations but not because of this difference in delayed light.

A beginner's guide to finding stars and planets

Finding Jupiter or the Southern Cross is easy if you know where to look — and that's easy too once you know how the movement of the Earth affects our view of the sky.

www.abc.net.au

Relativity. Timespace.

The attachment that I added in the previous post is more relevant.

It doesn’t support your contention. There are no physical means by which so called light at the eye/sight can be instantaneous. It's impossible.

You keep saying that DBT, but you don't understand why this works. I am not debating something that is impossible, but it feels that way when you think in terms of travel time. Don't your thoughts go something like this? How can an image be seen without light traveling to our eyes? But if there is no travel time or distance involved (sort of like a mirror image on the retina), seeing in real time becomes possible. I hope you consider the author's claim before rejecting it too quickly because he knew what he was talking about.

What I and others have pointed out is supported by physics and biology, how the eye works, its structure and function.

Biology doesn't have an airtight explanation when it comes to the function of the eyes—i.e., images being formed from signals within the brain.

It is airtight.

It is airtight except where it isn't.

Which part is not airtight? You have no idea what you are saying. You believe this rubbish because daddy wrote it and you have no actual argument or evidence. Tell us which part is not airtight, and why, in detail.

That light is radiated or reflected from objects, and that it has a given speed. Which means that light has a travel time between the moment it was emitted or reflected and the moment it is detected and absorbed by the eye.

There is no denying that light hits the retina, and the optic nerve is the connection between the retina and the brain, but it does not give us a complete or accurate picture of how we see.

Why in hell doesn’t it? What’s wrong with it? Oh, I know — your writer doesn’t like it, so it must be wrong.

That's not it, and you know it. I'd like to see you explain what he demonstrated in your own words. You can't do it.

Explain what in my own words? I’ve already done that, many times. It’s YOU who can’t explain any of your writer’s rubbish in your own words, because it’s all wrong and deep down you know that. You just can’t bear to admit it.

You still believe bees in a group can identify their beekeeper's faces without any other cues.

I don’t “believe” anything. That is what the evidence shows.

Then you gave an example about telling someone they are fat, and this is the conditioning that you believe is unrelated to light and sight. The thing is, a person cannot be conditioned without the brain projecting this value onto substance, which is what causes the conditioning—or conditioning could not occur. You either don't understand his reasoning or you are avoiding the fact that he is right but you cannot admit it. Which one is it, Pood?

LOL, I did not say it was unrelated to light or sight, I said it was unrelated to real-time seeing, which is impossible, and I rejected your crackpot writer’s assertion that “values” are somehow “in” light. It takes a special sort of dumbassery to write such utter nonsense.

The instant vision contention has no such means, and cannot be explained.

Not true. He demonstrated what was going on with the eyes.

He demonstrated nothing.

He was so clear, it makes me think you have a block. No offense; just stating what I think it could be.

He was so clear? Could you quote the “clear” part, as opposed to the “I am a crank spewing bullshit” parts that abound in his nonsensical scribblings?

Just because he didn't show the exact mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't mean he was wrong.

Sure it does.

No it doesn't, just as the present "perfect" model of sight can be wrong about this ONE function.

You’re wrong, and tragically for yourself, you’ve been pushing this BS for 25 years to no avail. And it never will be to any avail, because you and your writer are wrong. Too bad.

Look at the present model. They explained how the eyes work down to every impulse, but if Lessans was right, that would make them wrong in how the eyes function, so what good is a model that is incorrect?

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Please stop!

Yes, I will stop. I’m done talking to you.

Which means that it is an assertion, not a viable model of vision.

I explained it.

You and the writer explained nothing.

I think your goal is to repeat the same broken record over and over to try and wear me down. Won't happen.

I have no goal and I don’t give a shit what happens to you. Facts and truth are not a broken record. Your writer was an idiot. Goodbye.

You’re name calling makes me realize this claim bothers you to the point that steam is coming out of your ears. There’s no hope for you to ever understand how children learn words—and why some words (those that contain personal values that are turned into standards for everyone) are not true symbols of reality—which is exactly how conditioning occurs. But you are so attached to your view of the world, that you take personal offense. Listen to yourself! You’ve gotten vicious!!

You probably thought I’d cave which is why you said I should come back and give IIDB another try. I will not cave because I believe he was right. You can think whatever you want about me but leave this poor man out of it. You didn’t know him and what he was capable of. You have reached such a pitch that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going. You are spewing out anything you can to tarnish his name. Calling him a crackpot is nasty, and more importantly, wrong. He was no crackpot but he knew what he was up against. By the way, even if I talked to people on forums for another 50 years (people who never read the book in its entirety) proves nothing in regard to the accuracy of his claims. They are not think tanks for the sole purpose of careful investigation. Hell, some people refuse to read anything in written form. This puts him at an extreme disadvantage. No one would refute Nietzsche without reading his books with extreme care. The sad truth is that most genuine discoveries are confirmed many years later, so this isn’t unexpected, especially when it challenges scientific thinking.

He knew he was going to be condemned for making this claim and he also was well aware he would be judged harshly. He was willing to take that risk. Why would he even do this if he didn’t think this claim had important implications? This is just another weak attempt on your part to make him look like someone he was not. How underhanded can you get? You play dirty Pood and I think you know it deep down. Goodbye!

 

[DBT]

The claim of instant vision is not just wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. And even if for the sake of argument it is considered, the idea has no relationship to social conditioning or bringing about a transformation in human behaviour. It serves no purpose but to discredit the book.

 

[peacegirl]

The claim of instant vision is not just wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. And even if for the sake of argument it is considered, the idea has no relationship to social conditioning or bringing about a transformation in human behaviour. It serves no purpose but to discredit the book.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's only because you didn't understand his demonstration regarding the brain and why we cannot be conditioned without this projection. I cannot post this chapter again. I do suggest you read post 1,086. I offered some of the chapter but not all. Of course, it would be better to read the entire book to see the reason it serves a very important purpose. I really don't want to discuss the eyes anymore. There's no point. I've been reading the thread regarding Robert Sapolsky's book. I am only on page 3, but so far your responses are much more credible than Pood's or Jaryns. However, I can see the problem in terms of responsibility, which is the elephant in the room, and why compatiblists have tried to save free will in some contorted way to make these two propositions appear compatible even though they are polar opposites, by definition. If you want to hear more of the author's claim that man's will is not free and when the corollary is extended, moral responsibility is increased to such a degree that war and crime are completely eliminated without the illusion of free will entering into it.

 

[DBT]

It has nothing to do with how I feel. I'm just pointing out that the notion of instant vision is demonstrably false. That it, for the given reasons, isn't related to social conditioning or its transformation.

 

[peacegirl]

It has nothing to do with how I feel. I'm just pointing out that the notion of instant vision is demonstrably false.

Seeing in real time is not ruled out, but I don't want this to ruin the most important of his discoveries because people think he can't be right if he's wrong about the eyes.

That it, for the given reasons, isn't related to social conditioning or its transformation.

This is not social conditioning, which occurs in all cultures. This projection (which I tried to explain the meaning of) causes this type of "physical" conditioning that only occurs with the eyes. If his demonstration was wrong, so be it, but no one has proved him wrong, at least not in my estimation. People say the science is settled because of all the testing that has been done, which wraps everything together in a nice, neat bow. Therefore, they conclude it is impossible for him to have been right. Again, he was at a huge disadvantage because he was swimming upstream against a system that pegs him to be a crackpot. There really is no point in continuing the conversation regarding the eyes, not because I don't want to, but because it won't help and is actually causing harm.

As far as determinism goes, it has one definition only. We are either free to have done otherwise or not. How can there be any basis for communication if every Tom, Dick, and Harry define these terms the way they want? His discovery regarding determinism and its implications can be empirically tested, which will prove, once and for all, that man does not have free will (compatibilist or libertarian) and never did, but we couldn't know it until now. One of the problems that I see is with the word choice.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

 

[peacegirl]

DBT, I am not asking you to agree with something you don’t, but even if you cannot figure out how we see in real time, I am asking you not to throw out what you believe to be the bathwater with the baby. His knowledge of determinism and the discovery that lies behind this truth is real and can change our world for the better but there are problems with how determinism is defined, not with determinism itself.

Determinism does not force anything on anyone like Pood annd others seem to think. It is not prescriptive. It does not force a choice against one’s will. I know you know this but you may be unaware of the amazing changes in human conduct that result as a consequence once the extension of no blame is put into practice. I am asking you to kindly not use his claim about the eyes to disregard everything he wrote. That would be truly tragic, not for me but for the world. All I can ask you at this point is to give the author the benefit the doubt.

You are so close to understanding why determinism is the answer to many of the ills plaguing us but the standard definition is preventing the reconciliation of this chasm between these two opposing ideologies. I hope you’ll stick with me because you’re the only one here that is closest to the truth and from what I’ve observed, you seem to be the odd man out.

 

[DBT]

Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.

 

[peacegirl]

Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.

I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."

 

[DBT]

Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.

I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.

 

[peacegirl]

Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.

I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.

That's fine. I really don't want to talk about this anymore, at least not in this thread. It's unfortunate that people would reject his first discovery because they don't believe he was right about the eyes. I'm curious if you understood his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. That would be a start. The problem is that no one is on the same page, literally.

 

[DBT]

Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.

I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.

That's fine. I really don't want to talk about this anymore, at least not in this thread. It's unfortunate that people would reject his first discovery because they don't believe he was right about the eyes. I'm curious if you understood his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. That would be a start. The problem is that no one is on the same page, literally.

I don't think that anyone disputes social conditioning, cultural values, genetics and the role of life experience in the shaping of character, personality and thought.

 

[peacegirl]

Science just doesn't agree with the authors contention on light and vision. It's not how things work and it can't convince anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of physics and biology. These claims only serve to discredit the book.

Sorry, there is no point in rehashing the issue.

I am not asking you to rehash the issue. I am asking you to please let this aspect of his book go for now. I don't want it to get in the way of the knowledge that lies behind determinism. From the author's perspective, I can see where it becomes difficult to accept determinism when this implies no responsibility for one's actions. This infuriates compatibilists and libertarians. This IS the conundrum that has remained unsolved and has caused a no-win dilemma. The author shows how this apparent conflict between these different schools of thought can be reconciled. Based on your response in Sapolsky's thread, having alternate possibilities available does not in any way allow for those possibilities to be realized if one's brainstate says no; therefore, this does not help the case for free will in any way, shape, or form. I believe Einstein said this, but please correct me if I'm wrong: "Free will is a realistic mirage, albeit a persistent one."

To labour the point, it seems to me that you'd be better off dropping the instant vision contention altogether and focus on social conditioning and how practical change for the better can be achieved in a deterministic world.

That's fine. I really don't want to talk about this anymore, at least not in this thread. It's unfortunate that people would reject his first discovery because they don't believe he was right about the eyes. I'm curious if you understood his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. That would be a start. The problem is that no one is on the same page, literally.

I don't think that anyone disputes social conditioning, cultural values, genetics and the role of life experience in the shaping of character, personality and thought.

I don’t either, so let’s leave it at that and move forward if you’re interested. It seems like this topic has been discussed at great length but no one has approached it exactly like this author, as far as I know..