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

[pood]

Instead of ad homs and insults, what is required of you is to demonstrate how it is possible for light to both be, and not be, at the eye, at the same time. Since this is both physically and logically impossible (violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction), you have your work cut out for you. So, instead of repeatedly ad homing and insulting me and others, just answer the question.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't mean to offend you peacegirl but the bits that I've read from your posts don't make a lot of sense, even if you mean well.. It sort of reminds me of some of the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. They believed that by the year 2000, we would enter the so called lesser peace. That didn't happen, did it? The next belief is that we would experience years of turmoil and then eventually, the entire world would become Baha'is and we would enter "The Most Great Peace", a time when wars would end, racial and gender equality would exist and life would be happy for all. These are just lovely fairy tales and in my not well educated opinion regarding philosophy, the idea that accepting we have no free will is somehow going to lead the world to some happy peaceful state makes about as much sense as the religion of my ex husband that I just mentioned. Sadly, he was obsessed with his religion. I guess it was determined to be that we divorced and I found a better partner who is an atheist.

I sometimes vacillate between hard and soft determinism personally, but to be brutally honest, It's not important to me, which one is correct. I simply think that our behavior is all the result of our genetic and environmental influences and new influences can sometimes change us.

But, the only good thing about believing that we have little or no free will, imo, is that is makes it easier not to be judgmental. One of the first things I was taught when I started studying to be an RN, was not to judge my patients, but to treat them all with the same compassion and quality of care. I did my best to do that for 42 years. It helped me to be more compassionate by not judging my patients, even though some could be mean and/or difficult to deal with. I'll spare you examples.

I'm sure you did a lot of good. And, yes, believing that we have no (not little) free will does make us more compassionate and nonjudgmental, although if someone hurts you, it is a normal reaction to retaliate in some way. Very few people can turn the other cheek, but that's not what this discovery is telling people to do.

And, here's the thing, we evolved from the great apes, and they are often violent warriors with the exception of the matriarchal bonobos. But, even bonobos will be violent in some circumstances. They just usually use sex as a way to avoid conflict. Considering that we have little or no free will and that we evolved to be violent animals in some given circumstances, how on earth is accepting that we have no free will going to lead us to a better world? I didn't read all of your walls of texts as this is a place to discuss things, not a place to read a book that someone likes.

That is exactly why I'm doomed here. No one has read the book in its entirety which puts the author at an extreme disadvantage.

Perhaps I missed your point, but that is the impression I got from what I have read. We can't change who we are as a species. Each one of us, who has good moral values can perhaps do some volunteer work, try to treat others well, avoid conflict, and sometimes even be a positive influence on others. But there have always been wars, violence, hatred etc. and sadly, as long as our species exists, there will be to some extent. Considering how we have a tendency to destroy our own habitat, now at a very fast rate, I do wonder how long our species might even exist, if we continue doing damage to our habitat at the current rate. ( No, I don't want to discuss that here )

The part about god in a recent post, sounds like gibberish to me. I assume you copied that from the author of your book. No?

You mean about God turning on the sun at noon? There is no way you could understand it unless you followed his observations and how he came to the conclusion that we see in real time. This has gotten a lot of people really mad.
During the transition to this new world, there may be people who have no conscience and would murder and rape no matter what the environment was like. But this is not the majority. These people would have to be confined just like they are today, but as a new generation is born, these types of individuals would never turn into killers because the environment that created them would no longer exist.

I'm not judging you, but I think you could accomplish more by volunteering in a school, or some other way where you could be a positive influence on a number of people who need help, instead of trying to convince people here that your favorite book will solve the world's problems. Your'e wasting your time. I'm retired and I have lots of time to waste.

Volunteer work is great, but right now I want to promote this book because it is that important. Thank you though for your suggestion.

But the physic properties of the world do allow us to see things instantly. As an event happens, light reflects and pressure waves are formed, which is acquired by the senses and processed by the brain, which uses that information to generate the sight and sound, etc, of that event milliseconds later....Libet, Haynes, et al.

DBT, if you want to count that as the time it takes to process the information in the brain, there is really no conflict. He was only making a claim that light is at the eye instantly when our gaze is looking at an object. The few milliseconds it takes for processing is not what the author was trying to point out. It does not take time for light to get to the eye only because of how the eyes function, not light (if he was right, and I believe he was). No amount of anger on Pood's part is going to change the truth.

Light has a finite speed. The time it takes for light reflecting from an object from a short distance away is infinitesimal, but not instant. The more distant the object, the longer it takes to arrive, where we are seeing how the object looked when the photons were emitted or reflected and we are seeing its past state.

So I'm not sure how this relates to free will or a way to improve the world. I've got a lot going on, but I'll see if I can make time to read the book.

These are two different discoveries. He made three. They come together when the book is read in its entirety. This is what Chuck from FF would say I'm looking for lucre. This is insane!

 

[pood]

This is insane!

If you mean that light can both be, and not be, at the eye at the same time, that is indeed an insane claim.

 

[peacegirl]

Instead of ad homs and insults, what is required of you is to demonstrate how it is possible for light to both be, and not be, at the eye, at the same time.

I will do that when you tell me how we can do otherwise and not do otherwise at the same time.

Since this is both physically and logically impossible (violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction), you have your work cut out for you. So, instead of repeatedly ad homing and insulting me and others, just answer the question.

The work is not cut out for me when anyone (not you) understands the difference between afferent and efferent. You obviously tried to say he didn't know what efferent meant. This was the closest word to what he was trying to get across, so don't try to make him look bad ON PURPOSE in order to satisfy your agenda!

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, what’s happening in this thread, as it has in so many other threads and other venues over the years, is that people present you with detailed arguments refuting the author’s claims, and instead of addressing those arguments, you respond with ad homs and insults.

I have addressed them. They are the ones goofing on me for no reason other than they can't believe the author defied the science that supposedly is not set in stone.

Such responses are sure signs that someone cannot defend their argument, that their argument is bogus. So every time you use this tactic, you are tacitly acknowledging that your author’s claims are void of content.

You are the one that is trying so hard to bring him down. This explains you to a tea.

In his book “Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment” Richard Milton writes: “We are living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which important new discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and rejected for reasons that are not scientific. Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack. Our academic liberty — our freedom of thought — is being threatened by an establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from their own scientific circles.

<snip>

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank. In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom. And empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted derision.

 

[peacegirl]

Instead of ad homs and insults, what is required of you is to demonstrate how it is possible for light to both be, and not be, at the eye, at the same time. Since this is both physically and logically impossible (violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction), you have your work cut out for you. So, instead of repeatedly ad homing and insulting me and others, just answer the question.

I cannot believe you are trying to pin the law of non-contradiction on him, when YOU ARE DOING JUST THAT by trying to say that no free will and free will are COMPATIBLE as if the compatibilist definition is any better than the libertarian. You are way out in left field Pood.

 

[peacegirl]

It may be true that something appears more plausible by the failure to prove it to be false, but in this case, the claim that the eyes are a sense organ may not to be as plausible as once thought because it IS being proven false.

...just not in any way you are able to articulate.

Claims are not evidence.

The claim was backed up by his demonstration. Did you understand any of it?

 

[peacegirl]

The Lone Ranger described the internal structure of the eyes in depth, but there was nothing that proved we see in delayed time. It wasn't even discussed.

False. That was discussed in the article, as well as by me and a shit-ton of others in the thread, including two astrophysicists.

It was not discussed if I remember correctly, and even if it was, it would have repeated the belief (not the fact) that we see in delayed time, so it would not have helped.

 

[peacegirl]

So I'm not sure how this relates to free will or a way to improve the world. I've got a lot going on, but I'll see if I can make time to read the book.

It has no relation to determinism or free will whatsoever.

It doesn't have to do with his first discovery -- that man's will is not free -- but it still is a very important observation because it removes a serious hurt to half the population that is difficult to remove without understanding how the brain and eyes work.

The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, what’s happening in this thread, as it has in so many other threads and other venues over the years, is that people present you with detailed arguments refuting the author’s claims, and instead of addressing those arguments, you respond with ad homs and insults. Such responses are sure signs that someone cannot defend their argument, that their argument is bogus. So every time you use this tactic, you are tacitly acknowledging that your author’s claims are void of content.

What are you even talking about. I posted why man's will is not free and he was SPOT ON. I also posted why his demonstration that prove the eyes are not a sense organ was also SPOT ON. Just because he was not an astrophysicist or cosmologist does not mean he was wrong. He observed how the eyes work from an entirely different angle. Sometimes it takes someone outside of the field to see something that could not be seen any other way.

 

[peacegirl]

DBT, if you want to count that as the time it takes to process the information in the brain, there is really no conflict. He was only making a claim that light is at the eye instantly when our gaze is looking at an object. The few milliseconds it takes for processing is not what the author was trying to point out. It does not take time for light to get to the eye only because of how the eyes function, not light (if he was right, and I believe he was). No amount of anger on Pood's part is going to change the truth.

Ad hominem, in addition to being false. The anger is entirely your own. You are consumed with anger over having your author’s claims proven false again and again.

That's just it. He has not been proven wrong. There has never been a careful and thorough review of this work where there is no bias.

The claim that the light is at our eyes instantly when our gaze is looking at an object is false. If God turned on the sun at noon, it would take eight and a half minutes for the light to reach our eyes, which means that we always see the sun as it looked some eight and a half minutes in the past. I’m sorry if this fact makes you furious.

It doesn't make me furious. It is just unfortunate that you can't see why the eyes and brain, working 180 degrees in the opposite direction of what was originally thought, would allow for real time vision. You just don't see it because you are only focusing on light, which is not being contested.

 

[peacegirl]

This is getting dumber by the minute.

Guess who’s to blame for that?

It takes two to tango, remember? I can only do so much if you're not willing to meet me halfway.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, I'm curious about the light and eyes claim but don't have time to search.... could that be quoted again?

The author claims that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors, or anything else, for eight and a half minutes. All we would see is this big bright ball in the sky until the light arrived and we could see everything else.

That is absolutely true. He used this as an example to show people what they would see if the eyes were efferent, not afferent, and the Sun's light was not here yet because it just exploded.

Then, after the photons arrive, they hang around to “smile on” those who wake uo in the morning. so we can see from that point on without any more light arriving from the sun. Also, light is made of molecules, says the author.

As I said, he was not in the field. He used the wrong word; so what Pood? It doesn't mean his concept was wrong. He used metaphors. Again, so what? He didn't say "hang around", you did. As long as you attribute words that he never used and try to make it appear he didn't have the ability or insight that would be required to make a discovery of this magnitude, I will continue to use ad homs against you.

 

[peacegirl]

There is a way to eliminate war and crime once the truth of determinism is confirmed by science.

Then we are shit out of luck, because confirming things is not one of the capabilities of the scientific method.

There are ways to confirm things or scientists wouldn't be trying to do just that.

Why do you think that "scientists" are trying to do that? Have you asked them?

Science is a technique for ruling ideas out. It doesn't confirm anything, except "Yes, I really was wrong".

It does both. By ruling something out, it confirms the other.

No, it most certainly does not.

If we hypothesize that something is red, and it is subsequuently proven that it cannot be red, that does not confirm the hypothesis that it is green.
.
Reality is not a series of dichotomies.

I don't know where this applies here. If free will is ruled out, it does confirm the other. They are opposites. If one is false, the other must be true. If one is true, the other must be false. Examples: If I am dead, I am not alive. If I am alive, I am not dead. If I don't see in delayed time, I see in real time. If I see in delayed time, I don't see in real time.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, I'm curious about the light and eyes claim but don't have time to search.... could that be quoted again?

The author claims that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors, or anything else, for eight and a half minutes. All we would see is this big bright ball in the sky until the light arrived and we could see everything else. Then, after the photons arrive, they hang around to “smile on” those who wake uo in the morning. so we can see from that point on without any more light arriving from the sun. Also, light is made of molecules, says the author.

It can't be that.

If you mean that it can’t be that the author claimed these things, he did. If you mean it can’t be that these claims are true, you are correct.

I got the impression that it was more a case of mockery than representation. If that's not the case, the claim doesn't make sense.

It is indeed the claim, and it indeed does not make sense. Also, the author claims that the eye is not a sense organ.

If so, how does it relate to the free will debate in relation to determinism and changing the world for the better?

It’s all part of a gigantic whole that must be accepted in its entirety or rejected entirely. If you do reject it, it’s because the claims make you furious since they challenge your precious world view, or you simply didn’t understand the claims, because if you did understand them, you would automatically agree with them (unless they infuriated you because they challenged your precious world view, of course).

Actually, if this knowledge is true (which I believe it is), it does have to do with what is understood. If it is not understood, it will easily be rejected.

As peacegirl has said many times in other venues, if the author was wrong about anything, he would have said so; since he didn’t say so, he must be right.

Maybe you interpreted it that way, but, once again, you are giving a wrong impression. The author would not have spent half his adult life refining what he knew to be true, not because he said it, but because he actually found something of value.

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists]. When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend.

The implications are vast. In “the new world,” as the author styles it, after everyone has accepted the author’s “undeniable” claims (such as that the eye is not a sense organ, for example), it will be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share the same bed,

Boy, do you know how to twist things. When words that condition us (and more importantly, because they don't symbolize reality) are no longer used, people will find each other much more quickly and be happy with their choice. Of course, they can search for people who have the same interests, but this won't be as important as finding someone who can satisfy them sexually, which is really what being in love is. Love will grow deeper after marriage, not before. We all know this, so don't act surprised Pood. That is why he said what he did, which you then used for lulz, of course. That's your MO.

Boys and girls never gave much thought to the consequences of their actions because they were driven by a natural sex drive, which is their birthright, and when somebody got hurt the answer was, "What was I supposed to do marry the girl because we had sex? She knew what she was doing, and I didn't commit myself." Her father replies -- "You'd better marry her, or I'll kill you." By knowing unconsciously that he would be blamed for his gallivanting he was always allowed to shift his responsibility, but he had no better choice because the pressure for a sexual relation was striking the first blow since marriage was out of the question at that young age. By removing all the blame the pressure is also removed because he can have a sexual relation immediately and there is no possibility for unrequited love to develop, no chance for any girl to be swept off her feet and lose her virginity out of wedlock, no chance for a double-standard to make some girls bad and others good, no chance for a boy and girl to hurt each other in any way where sex is concerned because all the factors truly responsible are prevented from arising. Moreover, once all the words are removed that now judge some people as inferior physiognomic productions of the human race, everybody becomes perfectly equal in value except to the person making a choice. One face is not better looking than another - just different - although we will always find certain differences we like better. Couples will strongly desire to retain the physical appearance that first attracted their life partner. Since these marriages will take place when boys and girls are very young, and since all psychological impediments to eating will be removed from birth, very few will be carrying excess weight. However, some boys and girls are naturally heavy and there will be no reason for them to worry in the new world because to certain people this is a physical attraction. It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heals for his beloved which takes place after, not before, the sexual union? Once they consummate their love with a complete sexual relation, they will be married. They will have no choice in the matter of marriage as it will be their only source of sexual satisfaction, which I shall sum up by using mathematical phraseology.

If you understood why it would be "mathematically impossible" to have one bed, you wouldn't sneer at him. Let me teach you what he meant again: We cannot move in the direction that would contribute to the destruction of our marriage (unless, in this world, we were doing it to get out of it), which is why forcing our partner to stay in bed with us (an unspoken rule of marriage) even if our spouse was uncomfortable, would make our relationship worse, not better. Because of this, we would be compelled to have another bed available. He was just extending the law that man's will is not free to show how it would play out. I already posted an article that says having two beds or even sleeping in two separate bedrooms can improve marriage. He was just ahead of his time.

and all forms of “homo-sexuality,” as the author. styles it, will pass by the wayside in due course. Also, there are three types of “homo-sexuals.” Then, too, it turns out that people will fall in love with each other’s sex organs, not with the person, in the “new world.” There are any other fascinating consequences, too many to list in a short post.

Why do you keep bringing the same thing up over and over? I already explained he said nothing wrong or hurtful. Some people are gay because of the environment. I know women who became gay after a bad marriage. It is also said that people can be born in the wrong body. No one is telling anyone what to do, so why are you harping on this?

“I can’t see how any boy or girl marrying under these conditions could ever desire to leave the other for another lover since it would be mathematically impossible (he’s got me saying it) for them to ever fall out of love. But how is it possible to ever get such a world started? This is going to be your stumbling block.”

“Don’t worry about it. It is humorous to observe that in our present world, a husband and wife blame each other for any unhappiness in their marriage because they are unaware of who or what really struck the first blow. By revealing what it means that man’s will is not free, which releases the corollary or basic principle (magic elixir, if you will) that no person is to blame, every individual becomes conscious that he alone is responsible for any hurt done to himself by his marital partner, just as long as she knows there will be no blame and that advance blame strikes the first blow. You are beginning to see the infinite wisdom that governs this universe of human relations through invariable laws when you realize there is no law that can compel a man to live with and support a woman, if he makes up his mind that anything else is better; but of what value is having this law when he, of his own free will, can never desire to leave under the changed conditions? The services of a rabbi and priest during a marriage ceremony don’t come to an end because these include the inculcation of a couple’s obligations to each other, which is a form of advance blame, but only because the boy and girl, at this stage of man’s development, are getting married in a superior manner, which renders this service obsolete. However, it is important for boys and girls to know what is and is not a hurt. Think further about this immense wisdom (these invariable laws of God). At the very moment it is revealed what love actually is… nothing other than a strong desire for sexual satisfaction (as if we really didn’t know), we are prevented from having more than one sexual partner all through life, while being allowed to fall in love with any number of people who could satisfy this passion, just by making us aware of what it means that our eyes are not a sense organ and that man’s will is not free. This entire knowledge compels a couple, when they realize that no more favors will ever be asked, to ask: ‘Honey, is there anything I can do for you?’ And the other, not wishing to take advantage of such a generous offer because to do so would not be an advantage since this would not reveal their love, replies, in 99% of the cases, ‘No thank you,’ which means that this question never needs to be asked. If either one has something that cannot be done alone (excluding sex), they would simply request the assistance of the other, who would never object because no advantage was being taken. This would be the one percent.”

“This whole thing is simply fantastic, incredible!”

“I agree, Charlie, but what about the marriages that are already here? And what about homosexuals?”

“In a relatively short period of time, only the new marriages will be in existence. As for homosexuals, they are free to find a partner without blame. This is their business. However, all homosexuals that came into existence as a result of environmental conditions, not inherited or glandular, will be compelled to fall by the wayside — in due time.”

 

[peacegirl]

 

[bilby]

It may be true that something appears more plausible by the failure to prove it to be false, but in this case, the claim that the eyes are a sense organ may not to be as plausible as once thought because it IS being proven false.

...just not in any way you are able to articulate.

Claims are not evidence.

The claim was backed up by his demonstration. Did you understand any of it?

I shall add "demonstration" to the list of words you apparently don't use the same way as the majority of the English speaking world.

He presented some anecdotes that he apparently, and strangely, appeared to imagine constituted support for his claims.

Anecdotes demonstrate nothing.

 

[peacegirl]

It may be true that something appears more plausible by the failure to prove it to be false, but in this case, the claim that the eyes are a sense organ may not to be as plausible as once thought because it IS being proven false.

...just not in any way you are able to articulate.

Claims are not evidence.

The claim was backed up by his demonstration. Did you understand any of it?

I shall add "demonstration" to the list of words you apparently don't use the same way as the majority of the English speaking world.

He presented some anecdotes that he apparently, and strangely, appeared to imagine constituted support for his claims.

Anecdotes demonstrate nothing.

You don't know what you're talking about. He did not offer anecdotes. And btw, anecdotes do give information that may prove beneficial even if they aren't as robust as double-blind studies.

 

[DBT]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

 

[peacegirl]

How do you change human nature? How are we to revolutionize our wants and needs, food, shelter, meaning, how we make a living, business, class, profit. and countless other drivers? We come together in a crisis, showing care and generosity, but what about here and now?

We don’t change human nature. We use the knowledge of our nature (that man’s will is not free) by extending the corollary of no blame to the environment, which causes a change in human conduct.