• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

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.

Depends on what is meant by 'delayed time.' Time is not delayed. The speed of light is not delayed, it arrives precisely according to its speed and distance travelled, where a supernova ten light years away may have just exploded, but we don't get to see the event for ten years.
 
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.

Depends on what is meant by 'delayed time.' Time is not delayed. The speed of light is not delayed, it arrives precisely according to its speed and distance travelled, where a supernova ten light years away may have just exploded, but we don't get to see the event for ten years.
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact. 🧐
 
I don't see anything wrong using the word "wavelength."
Then you are unqualified to either use the word at all, or to have any opinion.

Perhsps you should leave discussion of how sight works to those of us who have at least some grasp of what light is, how it propagates, and how it interacts with eyes.

At the very least, you cannot expect to be taken seriously in any situation where you use words to mean something different from what everybody else uses those words to mean.

If you assign words arbitrary meanings that you don't elaborate, and then use those words, all you are doing is sowing confusion.

Wavelength means something. Your ignorance of its meaning doesn't grant you the right to assign it some random meaning of your own, and to then get snitty when other people "refuse" to understand whatever the fuck you are banging on about.
 
The information is conveyed to the visual cortex if the light is at the eye when the light is turned on
This is gibberish. When a light is turned on, the light is at the light source. It then travels (at the speed of light) to the other things in the room, including any eyes that may be present. Some of it will travel to those eyes via bouncing off other objects. That makes it possible to see those objects (and the light source itself).

If no light is in the room - it is "dark" - then no light is "at the eye" that is in the room.
 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
That you have no idea what hypotheses you are promoting, or indeed that you have no idea what you are talking about, comes as less of a surprise to me than you seem to imagine it should.
 
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.

Depends on what is meant by 'delayed time.' Time is not delayed. The speed of light is not delayed, it arrives precisely according to its speed and distance travelled, where a supernova ten light years away may have just exploded, but we don't get to see the event for ten years.
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact. 🧐

It can be tested. Laser beams reflected from instruments left on the moon giving exact measurements of the speed of light and the distance to the moon, etc.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the premise of the book is right, how would this relate to determinism, transforming human behaviour and changing the world for the better?
 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
That you have no idea what hypotheses you are promoting, or indeed that you have no idea what you are talking about, comes as less of a surprise to me than you seem to imagine it should.
I’m promoting the claim that man has four senses and a pair of eyes. Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting? I have not changed my position and I actually have not kept anyone in suspense. I actually gave part of the chapter that explained it very succinctly. Did you read it?
They weren’t a hypotheses.
 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
That you have no idea what hypotheses you are promoting, or indeed that you have no idea what you are talking about, comes as less of a surprise to me than you seem to imagine it should.
I’m promoting the claim that man has four senses and a pair of eyes. Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?

If you knew that you were promoting total nonsense, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, you don’t.
I have not changed my position and I actually have not kept anyone in suspense. I actually gave part of the chapter that explained it very succinctly.

It is not succinct, it is turgid, self-congratulatory twaddle. It is “an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea,” to borrow William Gibbs McAdoo’s description of Warren Harding’s speeches. To say that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone is totally wrong. But even if it were true, to conclude that therefore the eye is not a sense organ is a non sequitur the size of the Milky Way. To further conclude that we see in real time when every single thing we know about light, the eye, physics, chemistry and biology shows this claim to be false is the kind of brazen chutzpah that would have made him a good cult leader if he ever could have found the right cultists. Right now you are the single solitary member of his failed cult.
Did you read it?

People have read it You continue to labor under the delusion that if people just read it, they will — nay, they must — agree with it.

Wrong.
 
I don't see anything wrong using the word "wavelength."
Then you are unqualified to either use the word at all, or to have any opinion.

Perhsps you should leave discussion of how sight works to those of us who have at least some grasp of what light is, how it propagates, and how it interacts with eyes.

At the very least, you cannot expect to be taken seriously in any situation where you use words to mean something different from what everybody else uses those words to mean.

If you assign words arbitrary meanings that you don't elaborate, and then use those words, all you are doing is sowing confusion.

Wavelength means something. Your ignorance of its meaning doesn't grant you the right to assign it some random meaning of your own, and to then get snitty when other people "refuse" to understand whatever the fuck you are banging on about.
This is coming from someone who believes that books have no value. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
That you have no idea what hypotheses you are promoting, or indeed that you have no idea what you are talking about, comes as less of a surprise to me than you seem to imagine it should.
I’m promoting the claim that man has four senses and a pair of eyes. Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting? I have not changed my position and I actually have not kept anyone in suspense. I actually gave part of the chapter that explained it very succinctly. Did you read it?
They weren’t a hypotheses.
Call it whatever you want. He didn't hypothesize, okay? He observed. If you can negate his observations, then science would have gotten it right. I don't believe these "facts" are actually facts. Lessans believed his observations proved them wrong. If he was wrong, then it will only add further proof that science got it right, but you have done nothing to disprove his claim. In fact, you don't even know what compelled him to make this claim because you don't believe in books. :shock:
 
Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?
I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Then I can't have a conversation with you. You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.
 
Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?
I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Then I can't have a conversation with you. You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.

NOBODY understands his “explanation,” particularly because he does not have one; he simply pompously declares he is right without a shred of evidence, and then crowns himself a genius and basks in the adulation of his imaginary interlocutors in an obsequious and fictional festival of fawning.
 
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.

Depends on what is meant by 'delayed time.' Time is not delayed. The speed of light is not delayed, it arrives precisely according to its speed and distance travelled, where a supernova ten light years away may have just exploded, but we don't get to see the event for ten years.
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact. 🧐

It can be tested. Laser beams reflected from instruments left on the moon giving exact measurements of the speed of light and the distance to the moon, etc.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the premise of the book is right, how would this relate to determinism, transforming human behaviour and changing the world for the better?
It's not that simple to test because we live in a free will environment. It could be tested by creating a society on a smaller scale using the principles. People are jumping the gun and concluding that this kind of world is impossible because the past shows us that there has never been permanent peace. But just because the past has been filled with war and murder does not mean it has to continue in the same way. Here are the first three chapters that I gave early in this thread. If you're interested in reading more, I'll gift the book to you, but you need the kindle app. There is no way to understand how this new world can come about without understanding the full blueprint where all the pieces are tied together.

 
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.

A lot of people put a lot of work into proving all the other hypotheses to be false, and your hare-brained rehashing of long disproven theories is a futile waste of time.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
That you have no idea what hypotheses you are promoting, or indeed that you have no idea what you are talking about, comes as less of a surprise to me than you seem to imagine it should.
I’m promoting the claim that man has four senses and a pair of eyes. Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?

If you knew that you were promoting total nonsense, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, you don’t.
I have not changed my position and I actually have not kept anyone in suspense. I actually gave part of the chapter that explained it very succinctly.

It is not succinct, it is turgid, self-congratulatory twaddle. It is “an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea,” to borrow William Gibbs McAdoo’s description of Warren Harding’s speeches. To say that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone is totally wrong. But even if it were true, to conclude that therefore the eye is not a sense organ is a non sequitur the size of the Milky Way. To further conclude that we see in real time when every single thing we know about light, the eye, physics, chemistry and biology shows this claim to be false is the kind of brazen chutzpah that would have made him a good cult leader if he ever could have found the right cultists. Right now you are the single solitary member of his failed cult.
This is nuts Pood and you know it. How can this be compared to a cult when all authority and control is being removed. No person is looked up to like some kind of god who demands obedience, and no one is being brainwashed. You don't know what you're talking about AGAIN!
Did you read it?

People have read it You continue to labor under the delusion that if people just read it, they will — nay, they must — agree with it.
That's not what he said. He said if you don't agree with the principles, then there's something you don't understand because it contains within itself proof of its veracity. By the same token, if you don't understand that one plus one is two, not eleven, then there's something you don't understand because it contains within itself proof of its veracity.
 
Last edited:
Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting?
I am not.

I am observing that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Then I can't have a conversation with you. You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.

NOBODY understands his “explanation,” particularly because he does not have one; he simply pompously declares he is right without a shred of evidence, and then crowns himself a genius and basks in the adulation of his imaginary interlocutors in an obsequious and fictional festival of fawning.
What's sad here is that if these discoveries were proven true (in our lifetime), and we were now entering a new world of no war, hatred, crime, rape, or any exploitation of one person to another, you would still say:

NOBODY understands his “explanation,” particularly because he does not have one; he simply pompously declares he is right without a shred of evidence, and then crowns himself a genius and basks in the adulation of his imaginary interlocutors in an obsequious and fictional festival of fawning. :sad:
 
Last edited:
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.

Depends on what is meant by 'delayed time.' Time is not delayed. The speed of light is not delayed, it arrives precisely according to its speed and distance travelled, where a supernova ten light years away may have just exploded, but we don't get to see the event for ten years.
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact. 🧐

It can be tested. Laser beams reflected from instruments left on the moon giving exact measurements of the speed of light and the distance to the moon, etc.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the premise of the book is right, how would this relate to determinism, transforming human behaviour and changing the world for the better?
It's not that simple to test because we live in a free will environment. It could be tested by creating a society on a smaller scale using the principles.

I don't get it. Am I missing something? Are you saying that the world is not deterministic and that we have free will?
 
Back
Top Bottom