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

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

 

[bilby]

Second – and heretical to philosophic orthodoxy – tautologies can actually teach us something new about the world. Lots of things, in fact.

No, they can't. By definition, they add nothing new. Your entire epistemology is fundamentally broken.

You have no grasp whatsoever of the meaning of 'truth', and instead have abdicated reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

And having chosen as your object of faith a recent book of low popularity, rather than (as most non-thinkers do) an old and highly popular book, you have brought upon yourself ridicule from both the minority of skeptical thinkers, and the majority of faithful non-thinkers.

And you respond to this ridicule as all faithful non-thinkers do - it proves that your belief is true, because in your broken epistemology it is an axiom of your faith that persecution is evidence of truth.

I suspect that you are worried that you could be wrong, and so invite ridicule as a defensive strategy - you need to be defending your ideas against perceived persecution, because without that ability to externalize the conflict, you would be forced to recognize the existence of an internal conflict between what you believe, and what you observe.

"They hate me because I am right" drowns out that niggling question "Does this make any sense, though?".

It's not even new. Religions have been doing it for longer than recorded history.

You are far from alone. Almost everyone who has ever lived has chosen to abdicate reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

But this discussion board is for the minority who choose not to do that. So it makes an excellent place to come, if you need a dose of ridicule and shaming in order to shore up your faith.

 

[bilby]

The wavelength is at the eye when we are gazing at the object

The what is doing what to the which?

Wavelength is a measure of the distance between one wave peak and the next.

A distance can't be "at the eye".

This claim is not even wrong; It's more by way of being surrealist art, than an attempt to describe something that could exist in reality.

The only charitable position I can take here is to assume that you mistakenly wrote "wavelength" when you intended a completely different word.

Could you please try again, using a word that at least is in the category "things that could possibly be at an eye"?

but it's not carried through space and time to reach the eyes for processing.

It should also be a word in the category "things that could possibly be carried through space and time to reach the eyes".

Thanks in advance.

 

[pood]

The wavelength is at the eye when we are gazing at the object

The what is doing what to the which?

Wavelength is a measure of the distance between one wave peak and the next.

A distance can't be "at the eye".

This claim is not even wrong; It's more by way of being surrealist art, than an attempt to describe something that could exist in reality.

The only charitable position I can take here is to assume that you mistakenly wrote "wavelength" when you intended a completely different word.

Could you please try again, using a word that at least is in the category "things that could possibly be at an eye"?

but it's not carried through space and time to reach the eyes for processing.

It should also be a word in the category "things that could possibly be carried through space and time to reach the eyes".

Thanks in advance.

Nope, “wavelength is at the eye” is something she repeatedly stated at FF.

 

[Crumb]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

 

[pood]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

Yes, it’s nonsense from the start.

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

He never said that. WTF!!!

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

Yes, it’s nonsense from the start.

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

You can find Clark’s argument here.

I have not read the whole thing, but it appears he is arguing against a strawman. His idea that atheists widely believe in a "positive nothingness" after death seems absurd.

Yes, it’s nonsense from the start.

I don’t know what Clark wrote. I doubt if he has written the same thing as Lessans regarding what happens when we die, but you never know.

This has nothing to do with reincarnation because there is no connection between the person who dies and the person who is born. Please stop acting like you understand any of his discoveries because you don’t.

 

[peacegirl]

Second – and heretical to philosophic orthodoxy – tautologies can actually teach us something new about the world. Lots of things, in fact.

No, they can't. By definition, they add nothing new. Your entire epistemology is fundamentally broken.

Wrong! https://steve-patterson.com/tautologies-must-not-be-dismissed/

You have no grasp whatsoever of the meaning of 'truth', and instead have abdicated reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

It depends what’s written in the book. This book is all about astute observation and sound reasoning. You’ve never shown one ounce of curiosity. You’re just a cynic.

And having chosen as your object of faith a recent book of low popularity, rather than (as most non-thinkers do) an old and highly popular book, you have brought upon yourself ridicule from both the minority of skeptical thinkers, and the majority of faithful non-thinkers.

These claims are either true or they’re not. I’m not depending on either group to for anything. I can tell you haven’t read a thing I’ve written. Being skeptical is fine but to this degree is not allowing you to keep an open mind. What a waste!

And you respond to this ridicule as all faithful non-thinkers do - it proves that your belief is true, because in your broken epistemology it is an axiom of your faith that persecution is evidence of truth.

I don’t hold that axiom. Your analysis of me is all wrong.

I suspect that you are worried that you could be wrong, and so invite ridicule as a defensive strategy - you need to be defending your ideas against perceived persecution, because without that ability to externalize the conflict, you would be forced to recognize the existence of an internal conflict between what you believe, and what you observe.

No bilby. Your analysis of me is pure psychobabble!

"They hate me because I am right" drowns out that niggling question "Does this make any sense, though?".

No niggling question. They hate me because they don’t like the claims, not because I’m right.

It's not even new. Religions have been doing it for longer than recorded history.

You are far from alone. Almost everyone who has ever lived has chosen to abdicate reason in favour of believing some stuff that is written in a book.

This is not about abdicating reason just because it’s in a book. And just because it’s written doesn’t make it wrong. What a strange thing to believe.

But this discussion board is for the minority who choose not to do that. So it makes an excellent place to come, if you need a dose of ridicule and shaming in order to shore up your faith.

Thats not my motive for being here. This is not fun for me and I’m trying to find other avenues to get this knowledge brought to light. This is just a stopgap for the time being.

 

[DBT]

We aren't 'different people' from day to day, but we are in a different state from moment to moment, day to day, year to year....where the changes accrue and at middle age we bear little resemblance to our five year old self, where at eighty we bear little resemblance to our middle age self, both in body and mind

 

[peacegirl]

Here’s the third “discovery” — we are reincarnated again and again via shift of personal pronoun, or indexical perspective.

Wait, what is this? How have I never heard this one? Is the idea that we are completely different people from moment to moment?

You must have missed the discussion at FF on the third “discovery.” At first she kept it hidden but somehow or other it popped up. The author said something to the effect that Jews should quit carping about the Holocaust because all those genocide victims are living fine and dandy right now, only as someone else.

I dipped out of those threads at times. It was just too much. I missed this bit. It just sounds like regular reincarnation to me. Apparently without a hierarchy, but maybe she just hasn't posted that bit yet.

peacegirl: Can you explain the difference between reincarnation and what you pasted from chapter 10 above? It sounds the same to me.

I'm sorry Crumb, I am not going down that rabbit hole. All I can tell you is this is not reincarnation. It has nothing to do with souls from a previous person being reincarnated into another person.

The wavelength is at the eye when we are gazing at the object

The what is doing what to the which?

Wavelength is a measure of the distance between one wave peak and the next.

A distance can't be "at the eye".

This claim is not even wrong; It's more by way of being surrealist art, than an attempt to describe something that could exist in reality.

The only charitable position I can take here is to assume that you mistakenly wrote "wavelength" when you intended a completely different word.

Could you please try again, using a word that at least is in the category "things that could possibly be at an eye"?

but it's not carried through space and time to reach the eyes for processing.

It should also be a word in the category "things that could possibly be carried through space and time to reach the eyes".

Thanks in advance.

The image is seen due to the light that is at the eye, according to efferent vision. There's no travel time, which is what he meant when he said that the image is not being carried through space/time to reach the eye. I don't see anything wrong using the word "wavelength." Nothing changes. We are still using the visible wavelength to see said object. The difference is that we are not detecting the light; we are seeing the object directly via the light.

The visible light spectrum is the segment of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can view. More simply, this range of wavelengths is called visible light. Typically, the human eye can detect wavelengths from 380 to 700 nanometers.

Visible Light - NASA Science

What is the visible light spectrum? The visible light spectrum is the segment of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can view. More simply, this range of wavelengths is called visible light. Typically, the human eye can detect wavelengths from 380 to 700 nanometers. WAVELENGTHS OF...

science.nasa.gov

 

[peacegirl]

duplicate

 

[Crumb]

The image is seen due to the light that is at the eye, according to efferent vision. There's no travel time, which is what he meant when he said that the image is not being carried through space/time to reach the eye. I don't see anything wrong using the word "wavelength." Nothing changes. We are still using the visible wavelength to see said object. The difference is that we are not detecting the light; we are seeing the object directly via the light.

This contradicts physics.

 

[peacegirl]

The image is seen due to the light that is at the eye, according to efferent vision. There's no travel time, which is what he meant when he said that the image is not being carried through space/time to reach the eye. I don't see anything wrong using the word "wavelength." Nothing changes. We are still using the visible wavelength to see said object. The difference is that we are not detecting the light; we are seeing the object directly via the light.

This contradicts physics.

No it doesn't. People are thinking in terms of light which travels; therefore, they conclude that we can't see an image if it hasn't reached our eyes yet. They did not understand why it's possible to see the actual object if the eyes and brain work differently than once thought. It's not like traveling in a car that takes a certain amount of time to reach a destination. Because it has been taken for granted that we see the past, Lessans is now looked at like a heretic and is highly ridiculed. He probably would have been burned at the stake in an earlier century. It's really hard to overcome fixed ideas, even if they're wrong. Do you understand why he came to the conclusion he came to? Did you read what I posted?

 

[DBT]

You enter a dark room where you see nothing until the light is turned on, reflects from all the objects in the room, acquired by the eyes and the information conveyed to the visual context, processed and presented as sight, you see what is in the room.

 

[peacegirl]

You enter a dark room where you see nothing until the light is turned on, reflects from all the objects in the room, acquired by the eyes and the information conveyed to the visual context, processed and presented as sight, you see what is in the room.

This is true. The information is conveyed to the visual cortex if the light is at the eye when the light is turned on, but this does not answer the question as to whether we see in delayed or real time.

 

[Crumb]

No it doesn't.

You can keep saying this. But science literally predicts that we see objects by detecting the light has traveled from the object to our eyes. Since you disagree with that, you disagree with science. I'm not sure why this is a point of contention.

People are thinking in terms of light which travels; therefore, they conclude that we can't see an image if it hasn't reached our eyes yet. They did not understand why it's possible to see the actual object if the eyes and brain work differently than once thought.

People think this because we have overwhelming evidence for how light and sight work. These things are not assumed. they were learned.

It's not like traveling in a car that takes a certain amount of time to reach a destination.

Like anything light travels at a finite speed. This is exactly how it works. If you disagree that light has to travel to deliver information than you are disagreeing with the findings of science. If you can demonstrate this with an experiment you would revolutionize science. But there is no experiment.

Because it has been taken for granted that we see the past, Lessans is now looked at like a heretic and is highly ridiculed.

It has NOT been taken for granted that we see the past. It has been DISCOVERED that we do. Then verified repeatedly and continually with experiments and technology that use this fact every single day.

He probably would have been burned at the stake in an earlier century. It's really hard to overcome fixed ideas, even if they're wrong. Do you understand why he came to the conclusion he came to? Did you read what I posted?

No, I have no idea why he would come to such a ridiculous conclusion. You have posted no evidence that light or the eyes behave any differently than we already understand. Your father's little stories are only convincing to you.

 

[DBT]

You enter a dark room where you see nothing until the light is turned on, reflects from all the objects in the room, acquired by the eyes and the information conveyed to the visual context, processed and presented as sight, you see what is in the room.

This is true. The information is conveyed to the visual cortex if the light is at the eye when the light is turned on, but this does not answer the question as to whether we see in delayed or real time.

The speed of light is finite, as is the processing of the information the brain acquires from its senses prior to the conscious experience of seeing, hearing pressure waves, etc, being formed.

You watch someone chopping wood in the distance, you see the axe rise and fall, but the sound comes later because light is faster than pressure waves through the air.

 

[peacegirl]

You enter a dark room where you see nothing until the light is turned on, reflects from all the objects in the room, acquired by the eyes and the information conveyed to the visual context, processed and presented as sight, you see what is in the room.

This is true. The information is conveyed to the visual cortex if the light is at the eye when the light is turned on, but this does not answer the question as to whether we see in delayed or real time.

The speed of light is finite, as is the processing of the information the brain acquires from its senses prior to the conscious experience of seeing, hearing pressure waves, etc, being formed.

You watch someone chopping wood in the distance, you see the axe rise and fall, but the sound comes later because light is faster than pressure waves through the air.

The speed of light reaching the eyes in delayed time is the theory being contested. The information that the brain acquires remains the same whether we see in real time or not.