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

[bilby]

there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.

To pick just one element from the fractal wrongness here; Why would there be no travel time if the eyes work "the opposite way"?

That's like saying it takes an hour to drive to Nerang, but if I was going the opposite way, it wouldn't take any time at all. But we observe that it actually takes an hour to drive here from Nerang.

It's not the same thing. Did you not read his demonstration as to what is going on? Probably not.

I read what he said; It wasn't a demonstration, it was a bunch of false claims, tied together with logical fallacies.

 

[pood]

Neil deGrasse Tyson shows a dog using inference (process of elimination) to solve a problem, a problem-solving technique previously thought restricted to humans. In fact lots of animals can probably do this. We are not as special as we think we are.

This is way off track. It doesn't even close to what this conversation is about.

I was addressing Southernhybrid, not you She is the one who introduced dogs into the discussion, after your asinine claim that non-human animals lacked cognition and reason.

I don't care who you were talking to. This is my thread, and I can respond to whomever I want.

Wha? First, you don’t “own” the thread, and second, I can, and did, respond to whomever I want as well. Did I say you couldn’t?

You implied.

As to your latest copypasta, forget it.

You were the one that wanted to see the copy of his versions side by side. I did what you wanted and now you say forget it? I think you're gaslighting me.

Yes, and they directly contradict each other.

No they don't. He just wasn't as clear in his first attempt in 1970 as in 1976 and then 1988. He was very clear what he meant but for some reason, you can't stand that science may have gotten it wrong.

This stuff isn’t even worth talking about. It’s like giving to the time of day to someone who thinks the earth is flat and stands on the back of a gigantic turtle.

This book has never been for you.

It has never been for anyone, has it? In 25 years of doing the message-board rounds, have you ever found a single supporter of the author’s claims?

I've only been to online forums because I was unable to contact those who could be instrumental in helping me. FF was the worst. How mistaken can anyone be to use this as some kind of proof the author has nothing valuable to offer. You're grasping at anything you can to discredit him, but it's not working.

This has no bearing on anything. I've only been with

You resent this author because he defies what you believe is holy grail, untouchable. As Richard Milton wrote with great insight:

Ad hominem, will be reported. So will the insult of calling me a liar.

You have called me a liar indirectly so many times, you just want to shut me up because your ideas are being challenged. You are not beyond reproach.

I really have no idea why you're wasting your time here.

At first it was to help you formulate, for the first time in your life, a clear argument with premises and a conclusion for your two-sided equation. But you don’t want help and are uneducable in any case.

This is why I don't believe you were sincere in your effort. You had an agenda which was to educate me. You did not give a decent summary of the two-sided equation and, more importantly, your belief in free will cancels out any understanding on your part. The only reason this new world can actually take place is because we don't have free will of any kind. If we did, we could hurt people regardless of the conditions that prevail, but that's just not true. IOW, if we had free will, we could choose A (to hurt someone) or B (not to hurt someone) equally. It wouldn't matter if we were justified or not. Nothing would have an impact on our decision to cause harm. Can't you see that this would be impossible because hurting someone under these changed conditions would give us LESS SATISFACTION, which cannot be done when not to strike this blow is the preferable choice? This is a necessary tautological truth and offers absolute proof that free will is a figment of the imagination.

Your modal logic can easily take you to another logical world where you can do otherwise; where your choice to stay is contingent, not necessary. So, prove it. This would be a great empirical test. Never come back and we will know that you were under no compulsion to stay.

You don’t know shit about modal logic or any kind of logic, or about anything else for that matter.

That's just your frustration talking. Logical worlds don't prove you could do anything different than what you have already done, are already doing, or will do in the future. So I gather you're not leaving. This proves you are under a compulsion to stay because not to stay would give you no satisfaction, therefore you have no choice in the matter. Maybe tomorrow you'll be so frustrated that you will choose to leave for real. Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction of greater satisfaction.

The above post is riddled with ad hominems.

 

[pood]

You did not give a decent summary of the two-sided equation …

And you’ve never given a summary of it AT ALL!

 

[pood]

It’s not my obligation to summarize your author’s argument, that is YOUR obligation.

 

[pood]

Neil deGrasse Tyson shows a dog using inference (process of elimination) to solve a problem, a problem-solving technique previously thought restricted to humans. In fact lots of animals can probably do this. We are not as special as we think we are.

This is way off track. It doesn't even close to what this conversation is about.

I was addressing Southernhybrid, not you She is the one who introduced dogs into the discussion, after your asinine claim that non-human animals lacked cognition and reason.

I don't care who you were talking to. This is my thread, and I can respond to whomever I want.

Wha? First, you don’t “own” the thread, and second, I can, and did, respond to whomever I want as well. Did I say you couldn’t?

You implied.

As to your latest copypasta, forget it.

You were the one that wanted to see the copy of his versions side by side. I did what you wanted and now you say forget it? I think you're gaslighting me.

Yes, and they directly contradict each other.

No they don't. He just wasn't as clear in his first attempt in 1970 as in 1976 and then 1988. He was very clear what he meant but for some reason, you can't stand that science may have gotten it wrong.

This stuff isn’t even worth talking about. It’s like giving to the time of day to someone who thinks the earth is flat and stands on the back of a gigantic turtle.

This book has never been for you.

It has never been for anyone, has it? In 25 years of doing the message-board rounds, have you ever found a single supporter of the author’s claims?

I've only been to online forums because I was unable to contact those who could be instrumental in helping me. FF was the worst. How mistaken can anyone be to use this as some kind of proof the author has nothing valuable to offer. You're grasping at anything you can to discredit him, but it's not working.

This has no bearing on anything. I've only been with

You resent this author because he defies what you believe is holy grail, untouchable. As Richard Milton wrote with great insight:

Ad hominem, will be reported. So will the insult of calling me a liar.

You have called me a liar indirectly so many times, you just want to shut me up because your ideas are being challenged. You are not beyond reproach.

I really have no idea why you're wasting your time here.

At first it was to help you formulate, for the first time in your life, a clear argument with premises and a conclusion for your two-sided equation. But you don’t want help and are uneducable in any case.

This is why I don't believe you were sincere in your effort. You had an agenda which was to educate me. You did not give a decent summary of the two-sided equation and, more importantly, your belief in free will cancels out any understanding on your part. The only reason this new world can actually take place is because we don't have free will of any kind. If we did, we could hurt people regardless of the conditions that prevail, but that's just not true. IOW, if we had free will, we could choose A (to hurt someone) or B (not to hurt someone) equally. It wouldn't matter if we were justified or not. Nothing would have an impact on our decision to cause harm. Can't you see that this would be impossible because hurting someone under these changed conditions would give us LESS SATISFACTION, which cannot be done when not to strike this blow is the preferable choice? This is a necessary tautological truth and offers absolute proof that free will is a figment of the imagination.

Your modal logic can easily take you to another logical world where you can do otherwise; where your choice to stay is contingent, not necessary. So, prove it. This would be a great empirical test. Never come back and we will know that you were under no compulsion to stay.

You don’t know shit about modal logic or any kind of logic, or about anything else for that matter.

That's just your frustration talking. Logical worlds don't prove you could do anything different than what you have already done, are already doing, or will do in the future. So I gather you're not leaving. This proves you are under a compulsion to stay because not to stay would give you no satisfaction, therefore you have no choice in the matter. Maybe tomorrow you'll be so frustrated that you will choose to leave for real. Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction of greater satisfaction.

There are six ad homs in the above post. I have bolded them.

 

[bilby]

there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.

To pick just one element from the fractal wrongness here; Why would there be no travel time if the eyes work "the opposite way"?

That's like saying it takes an hour to drive to Nerang, but if I was going the opposite way, it wouldn't take any time at all. But we observe that it actually takes an hour to drive here from Nerang.

No bilby, light traveling to the moon and back would be the same speed and distance each way. We are talking about how the eyes work ONLY. He demonstrated why he believed we see in real time. It makes absolute sense, but the problem is he is he is an unknown, someone who couldn't possibly have made a true discovery. Anybody who went against the grain of the thinking of Galileo's day, was ostracized, or worse. I hope you are not like the Catholic Church who told Galileo to stop discussing his ideas, or else. Throwing out his claims without a thorough study of his work is just as bad. This is what stops progress.

Galileo: His intellectual arguments, mathematical models and telescopic data failed to impress the Catholic authorities, and in February of 1616, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine took him aside and privately warned him to comply with the orders of the Church and stop writing or discussing his ideas—or else.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

That's why it's very important to distinguish between Bozo the clown and Einstein.

OK, let's compare and contrast. Galileo and Einstein and all these others didn't just sit down, stare at their navels, and then say "Eureka! I have a new idea about how reality works!".

They started with a problem. An odd, inconsistent, but universally applicable problem.

Every mariner and astronomer in Galileo's time knew that their model of the universe, with Earth at the centre, and the Moon, Sun, Planets, and fixed stars rotating around it in perfectly circular orbits didn't match what they saw. Even when they added Epicycles, the model gave predictions that just didn't quite match their observations.

Einstein was presented with a similar niggling problem. The Galileo's heliocentric model, with various tweaks from such geniuses as Kepler, gave almost perfect predictions for everything - except the orbit of Mercury.

Galileo had a radical and heretical idea; What if the Earth isn't in the centre? When you build a model with the Sun in the centre, suddenly most of the problem disappears! Despite the heresy, the simple fact that the problem goes away in the new paradigm suggests that it is nevertheless correct.

Einstein too had a radical idea. What if light doesn't travel in straight lines? Or rather, if it did, but the space through which it travels is distorted by the mass of the Sun, so that a straight line wasn't wat we had always imagined it to be? When you build a model in which space curves under the influence of mass, suddenly the problem disappears! Despite the heresy, the simple fact that the problem goes away in the new paradigm suggests that it is nevertheless correct.

So, what is the observed discrepancy between reality and theory, that goes away when we say "What if the eye is not a sense organ?". What problem was there with the existing understanding that eyes sense light, and how does this radical idea make that problem go away?

The problem is not that he's an unknown, an iconoclast, a maverick, a contrarian, or an outsider.

Oh but it does. He was all of these things, but he was never given a fair chance to demonstrate his findings.

Even leaving aside the subject/verb mismatch, it is immediately obvious that this response is not to what I said, but to what you expected I might have said.

I didn't say he wasn't these things; I said that that wasn't the problem.

He was not the typical academic who came from a highly respected university which caused people to be uninterested in what he had to say. There was no way he could have brought his discovery to light in his lifetime. The same thing happened to Gregor Mendel and others. How can you even talk about him in this derogatory way when you don't understand anything about his observations or why he came to these conclusions. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ (explain it to me) or why it matters?

I don't.

Do you understand why man's will is not free, or are you just a run of the mill skeptic?

False dichotomy. Also assuming the consequent. You have yet to convince me that man's will is not free, much less that "why" is a viable question; And facts don't depend on being considered by non-skeptics, nor does skepticism alter reality in any way.

The problem is that he is wrong.

Says bilby who is now the arbiter of truth.

No, says observation of reality, which is the arbiter of truth.

His idea can be, and has been, tested against reality, and found to be false.

No one tested this version of how the brain works in relation to sight, so you're wrong again.

Your ignorance of the work done on optics and vision isn't evidence of its absence. The way eyes work has been studied in excruciating detail over the last few hundred years. Rather like the motions of the planets had just before Galileo came along.

Yet, unlike the motions of the planets, which were failing to match predictions in ways with real world consequences - shipwrecks, dead mariners, lost cargoes - the current model of how eyes work, and how light gets to them, has no such failings. There is no widely agreed problem, in need of a solution, however radical, heretical, or unexpected.

Your man here is solving a "problem" that doesn't exist.

Galileo was abused by the church for his heresies; But he wasn't disproven, and his ideas did become widely accepted - not because he was a heretic, but because he was not wrong.

The Catholics thought they were right based on what they believed to be true using their methods to determine this.

Yes.

It's the same thing here.

No.

Scientists have made up their minds that their evidence is airtight and that what we SEE must be delayed because light travels, but they never took into account that their proof may not be proof at all.

No, they simply remark that their current model currently leads to zero problems, and so needs no revision at this time.

They have no qualms about changing the model if any such problems arise.

And science doesn't do proof. Proof is for mathematics and whisky.

Now anyone who disagrees with this "fact" ( ) is considered to be a crank or a flat earther. This is no different than how the Catholic Church acted toward Galileo, even though the circumstances were different.

It is very different. And the crucial difference is that Galileo had a solution to a real and significant problem with the pre-existing model of reality.

Indeed, his solution was so effective (and even the Catholic Church were not completely un-moved by the effect of poor astronomical models on international commerce, the loss of valuable cargoes, and even the deaths of sailors who may not have had time to confess their sins before drowning), that the church allowed him to teach his ideas, as long as he was careful to say that it was just a mathematical trick, and not a description of God's perfect, Earth-centred, creation.

So, what widely known problem of optics, or sight, or the physics of light, is this radical new model supposed to fix; And can it do so without generating even bigger problems?

Because it's the solving of problems, without making even bigger problems in the process, that is the hallmark of genius.

Persecution for having radical ideas does happen to geniuses, or course; But it also happens to idiots and madmen, so it's not evidence either way.

Good ideas solve real problems. If an idea doesn't address a real problem, or causes more real problems than it solves, then it is not a good idea; It's just an idea. And ideas are valueless.

 

[pood]

there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.

To pick just one element from the fractal wrongness here; Why would there be no travel time if the eyes work "the opposite way"?

That's like saying it takes an hour to drive to Nerang, but if I was going the opposite way, it wouldn't take any time at all. But we observe that it actually takes an hour to drive here from Nerang.

No bilby, light traveling to the moon and back would be the same speed and distance each way. We are talking about how the eyes work ONLY. He demonstrated why he believed we see in real time. It makes absolute sense, but the problem is he is he is an unknown, someone who couldn't possibly have made a true discovery. Anybody who went against the grain of the thinking of Galileo's day, was ostracized, or worse. I hope you are not like the Catholic Church who told Galileo to stop discussing his ideas, or else. Throwing out his claims without a thorough study of his work is just as bad. This is what stops progress.

Galileo: His intellectual arguments, mathematical models and telescopic data failed to impress the Catholic authorities, and in February of 1616, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine took him aside and privately warned him to comply with the orders of the Church and stop writing or discussing his ideas—or else.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

That's why it's very important to distinguish between Bozo the clown and Einstein.

OK, let's compare and contrast. Galileo and Einstein and all these others didn't just sit down, stare at their navels, and then say "Eureka! I have a new idea about how reality works!".

They started with a problem. An odd, inconsistent, but universally applicable problem.

Same thing with the discovery of quantum physics. There were these odd, niggling little problems … and suddenly we got a revolution.

There are no odd, niggling little problems in light and sight. There are new technical details that are being discovered, but none of these discoveries were made because of inconsistencies in the model, but just to add to the body of knowledge already accumulated.

 

[pood]

There was an article I was going to link to peacegirl on how we don’t actually see light, but thought the better of it, because I knew it would fall on deaf ears. But I learned one fascinating little thing in it — that in the 90s, we improved our understanding of how ganglion cells are related to psychological responses to color and circadian rhythms. So while our understanding of light and sight is solid, we are always making new discoveries.

 

[DBT]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

 

[pood]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

 

[DBT]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

 

[pood]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

Whatevahs. You didn’t quote who you were directing it at. Wanna comment on the claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly? Peacegirl is hoping for your support. I don’t think she’ll get it, if you comment.

 

[DBT]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

Whatevahs. You didn’t quote who you were directing it at. Wanna comment on the claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly? Peacegirl is hoping for your support. I don’t think she’ll get it, if you comment.

I didn't quote because it was a general remark and not directed at anyone in particular, where anyone can read it, comment or not comment, agree or disagree.

As determinism is a system where all events are fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, the system permits no exemptions.

So whoever happens to argue for an exemption clause has no case to argue.

 

[Mr. Board Member]

Hi all! Vice President of Internet Infidels & Social Media Manager Edouard Tahmizian here! For an interesting article on determinism and the origin of evil, check out my published article: https://infidels.org/library/modern/edouard-tahmizian-the-origin-of-evil/

Carry on the interesting convo!

Edouard Tahmizian

With reference to hard determinism, I’d say there is a form of it involving a hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent entity.

We can imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Christian fairy tale is real, and that this omni God created the world in six days, the Garden, Adam and Eve, the whole nine yards.

He tells Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, but they do, and God gets pissed and throws them out of the Garden.

But did Adam and Eve have free will?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. If God foreknew that they would eat the apple — but only foreknew! — then, they had free will. It was their choice whether or not to gobble it down.

It’s because foreknowledge can’t force a choice. Adam and Eve could have done whatever they wanted, but whatever they did, God would have foreknown.

So:

If God knows in advance that Adam and Eve will eat the apple, they MUST NECESSARILY eat the apple and have no free will. This is false.

What is true is:

Necessarily (If God knows in advance that A & E will eat the apple, they will [but not MUST] eat it).

Which means that if they eat the apple, God will infallibly foreknow that fact; and if they DON’T eat the apple, God will infallibly foreknow that fact instead.

HOWEVER, if we now assume God MADE the world, AND is omnipotent as well as omniscient, then he must be responsible for A & E eating the apple. This is because he would have infallibly foreknown all the counterfactual worlds in which A & E refused to eat the apple, but declined to make those worlds. Instead, he made the world in which they ate the apple, and his omnipotence gave then no access to counterfactual possibilities. The upshot is that the Christian God is responsible for all evil in the world. Hard determinism makes sense in a Calvinist sense, but not in a naturali

Hi all! Vice President of Internet Infidels & Social Media Manager Edouard Tahmizian here! For an interesting article on determinism and the origin of evil, check out my published article: https://infidels.org/library/modern/edouard-tahmizian-the-origin-of-evil/

Carry on the interesting convo!

Edouard Tahmizian

This is a very interesting article, by the way. I’ve been editing this and other Sec Web essays for a book to mark the 30th anniversary of the Sec Web.

Thanks! By the way, here is a short tune I wrote: https://www.noteflight.com/music/titles/6189c97d-1af5-407f-81ac-3a3088d14d46

Click on the play button on the digital score after clicking on the link and enjoy it!

It's my best work yet. If you want, you can use it for self-promotions as well.

Peace!

 

[pood]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

Whatevahs. You didn’t quote who you were directing it at. Wanna comment on the claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly? Peacegirl is hoping for your support. I don’t think she’ll get it, if you comment.

I didn't quote because it was a general remark and not directed at anyone in particular, where anyone can read it, comment or not comment, agree or disagree.

As determinism is a system where all events are fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, the system permits no exemptions.

So whoever happens to argue for an exemption clause has no case to argue.

OK. But I have argued the case successfully. You are free to reject it. And I mean free in the compatibilist sense.

 

[DBT]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

Whatevahs. You didn’t quote who you were directing it at. Wanna comment on the claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly? Peacegirl is hoping for your support. I don’t think she’ll get it, if you comment.

I didn't quote because it was a general remark and not directed at anyone in particular, where anyone can read it, comment or not comment, agree or disagree.

As determinism is a system where all events are fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, the system permits no exemptions.

So whoever happens to argue for an exemption clause has no case to argue.

OK. But I have argued the case successfully. You are free to reject it. And I mean free in the compatibilist sense.

Believing that you have argued the case successfully is one thing, and your right, but establishing the validity of compatibilism is another matter.

That has not been done. Not by you, not by anyone else.

 

[pood]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

Whatevahs. You didn’t quote who you were directing it at. Wanna comment on the claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly? Peacegirl is hoping for your support. I don’t think she’ll get it, if you comment.

I didn't quote because it was a general remark and not directed at anyone in particular, where anyone can read it, comment or not comment, agree or disagree.

As determinism is a system where all events are fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, the system permits no exemptions.

So whoever happens to argue for an exemption clause has no case to argue.

OK. But I have argued the case successfully. You are free to reject it. And I mean free in the compatibilist sense.

Believing that you have argued the case successfully is one thing, and your right, but establishing the validity of compatibilism is another matter.

That has not been done. Not by you, not by anyone else.

OK. And that is as I said. We agree to disagree.

Care to comment on peacegirl’s claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediatley?

Because that is where the thread has gone now.

 

[DBT]

If determinism is true, there are no loopholes for free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common perception of being able to pick any option in any given moment. That's all.

OK. I’ve already answered this, so we agree to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you.

Whatevahs. You didn’t quote who you were directing it at. Wanna comment on the claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly? Peacegirl is hoping for your support. I don’t think she’ll get it, if you comment.

I didn't quote because it was a general remark and not directed at anyone in particular, where anyone can read it, comment or not comment, agree or disagree.

As determinism is a system where all events are fixed by initial conditions and antecedents, the system permits no exemptions.

So whoever happens to argue for an exemption clause has no case to argue.

OK. But I have argued the case successfully. You are free to reject it. And I mean free in the compatibilist sense.

Believing that you have argued the case successfully is one thing, and your right, but establishing the validity of compatibilism is another matter.

That has not been done. Not by you, not by anyone else.

OK. And that is as I said. We agree to disagree.

Care to comment on peacegirl’s claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediatley?

Because that is where the thread has gone now.

I'll let peacegirl argue for her own position. I haven't followed it closely enough, I don't know what 'God turned on the sun at noon' is supposed to mean, or what she meant by it because I haven't read much beyond the compatibilism issue. Which, for the given reason, I argue against.

 

[peacegirl]

Seeing light reach us where we can see it arriving after 81/2 minutes is not the same as seeing the Sun explode in real time. You would understand the difference if you tried to follow him even a little bit, but you have failed again. You were so excited because you thought you caught him in a contradiction (or worse, you thought I changed the text), but it backfired on you, so what do you have left that you didn’t already lie about?

This isn't an answer to the quesion; It's a set of excuses for not giving an answer. The bolded part is also an Ad Hominem.

I think he is excited about proving me wrong. He believes so strongly in compatibilism that even when I say that the belief in free will (any kind) is actually preventing the very thing all of us want, peace on earth, it doesn't move him. This has been going on for years bilby. You have no idea how he hurt me in his jest on the FF forum. Now he's acting all innocent by backing me against a wall. He keeps accusing me of changing the text. That's an unfair accusation. I changed a couple of words and misspellings, but I did not touch the main concept. He also said that it was a contradiction when the author said: "He was compelled, of his own free will..." This just shows how little he understands.

If you had an answer, it would likely have been quicker and easier to post it than to post this contentless whine about not being trusted and believed without evidence.

I'm not whining at all. He showed very clearly that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction or preference. He couldn't prove it the way you expect when to do this, we have to remove all forms of blame, but this in and of itself doesn't prove him wrong. It's similar to creating a mathematical formula to getting to the moon before we actually send people to the moon -- because the formula is correct. The same thing here: once this knowledge is confirmed accurate, then and only then can we move forward with the transition from a world we now have to this new world where peace is not only possible but inevitable. I think people here are so use to false claims that they believe the chances of this being a genuine discovery is remote. There is a lot of bias here which doesn't mean it can't be overcome, but it's not easy.

This is a skeptic's forum. Nobody can justify expecting to be trusted and believed without evidence around here.

He demonstrated what is actually happening with the eyes when he showed children learning words. He also showed why this matters. I didn't post the entire chapter and it's not in the link of the first three chapters. This is tough because you're not getting the full picture and you're not giving him a real chance to show how this blueprint works and how it has practical application of immense proportions.

 

[peacegirl]

there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.

To pick just one element from the fractal wrongness here; Why would there be no travel time if the eyes work "the opposite way"?

That's like saying it takes an hour to drive to Nerang, but if I was going the opposite way, it wouldn't take any time at all. But we observe that it actually takes an hour to drive here from Nerang.

It's not the same thing. Did you not read his demonstration as to what is going on? Probably not.

I read what he said; It wasn't a demonstration, it was a bunch of false claims, tied together with logical fallacies.

He did demonstrate why man's will is not free. And he did demonstrate what is occurring when we learn words and how we are able to see what doesn't actually exist. I never got that far so it is understandable why you would think there's nothing valuable here. This is not fair to him when he urged people to wait before coming to premature conclusions. That is why I don't like summaries because this is a major discovery that could easily be pooh poohed, not because the discovery was wrong, but because it was not thoroughly studied. I'm stuck with these forums unfortunately until I can reach someone who is well-respected who can give this work the stamp of truth, otherwise I'm not hopeful that this work will ever be brought to light. How sad would that be for all of us.