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

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

 

[DBT]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through. Pood gave a horrible summary and now he's very angry and doing what he did in FF all because he says dogs can recognize people from a picture and that we see in delayed time and I say we see in real time. He's really really pissed. I tried to give some excerpts as to why man's will is not free and, when extended, can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Most people believe in free will or worse, compatibilism, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame that I'm up against so much. Nothing has changed since the author passed away in 1991. I really wish I could contact well-known determinists who could carefully study this book. That's the only way this knowledge is going to be brought to light.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

It's okay. If ever you have time, and you want to read the book, I will offer it to you ONLY because we are in basic agreement that man's will is not free. Chapter Two just extends this knowledge to show how a world of no blame can actually increase responsibility, not decrease it. Our world is suffering, and this discovery was made in 1959. I hope it won't take another hundred years for it to be recognized for its contribution to world peace, especially when weapons of mass destruction are getting more and more dangerous.

 

[bilby]

If ever you have time, and you want to read the book, ...

Our world is suffering, and this discovery was made in 1959. I hope it won't take another hundred years for it to be recognized for its contribution to world peace, especially when weapons of mass destruction are getting more and more dangerous.

I don't want to piss on your bonfire, but a bunch of other guys, with another book that will inevitably lead to world peace (just as soon as everyone reads and understands it), have been waiting a couple of thousand years, during which weapons have developed beyond all recognition.

It may just be that merely writing a book isn't actually helpful at all.

Just possibly, if we want answers that are true, rather than merely desirable, we need to look at reality, rather than just picking the right book, and looking at that.

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through. Pood gave a horrible summary and now he's very angry and doing what he did in FF all because he says dogs can recognize people from a picture and that we see in delayed time and I say we see in real time. He's really really pissed. I tried to give some excerpts as to why man's will is not free and, when extended, can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Most people believe in free will or worse, compatibilism, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame that I'm up against so much. Nothing has changed since the author passed away in 1991. I really wish I could contact well-known determinists who could carefully study this book. That's the only way this knowledge is going to be brought to light.

Ad hom. Reporting all. Also false. I’m not pissed at all. I find you an object of hilarity. You remember how me, ChuckF, and Maturin had a lot of fun with your nonsense?

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

LOL. Give a summary? People tried for 13 years to get her to do that at FF. She never did it, because she is unable to do so.You got 13 years to spare? I did give a summary and she called it “horrible” even though it is exactly correct.

 

[pood]

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through.

 

[pood]

You guys are pikers. This thread is only 69 pages long?? At FF, we had a three-page party for pages 1,999, 2,000, and 2,001, organized by my Aunt Flo. Unfortunately, ChuckF’s audio reading from The Authentic Text is no longer available, but it was side-splitting. Don’t forget to click the link on page 2,001 that takes you to the post where peacegirl likens homosexuality to war, poverty and crime. It’s a real hoot.

The Big Party.

Also, take a gander at FF’s wonderful emojis.

 

[Politesse]

the post where peacegirl likens homosexuality to war, poverty and crime

Well, some are born into poverty and crime, some achieve poverty and crime, and some have poverty and crime thrust upon us...

It's the straights who start all the wars, though, we just fight and win them. Literally the oldest story in Western lit.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through. Pood gave a horrible summary and now he's very angry and doing what he did in FF all because he says dogs can recognize people from a picture and that we see in delayed time and I say we see in real time. He's really really pissed. I tried to give some excerpts as to why man's will is not free and, when extended, can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Most people believe in free will or worse, compatibilism, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame that I'm up against so much. Nothing has changed since the author passed away in 1991. I really wish I could contact well-known determinists who could carefully study this book. That's the only way this knowledge is going to be brought to light.

Ad hom. Reporting all. Also false. I’m not pissed at all. I find you an object of hilarity. You remember how me, ChuckF, and Maturin had a lot of fun with your nonsense?

I hope the moderators stop you or this thread is toast.

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through. Pood gave a horrible summary and now he's very angry and doing what he did in FF all because he says dogs can recognize people from a picture and that we see in delayed time and I say we see in real time. He's really really pissed. I tried to give some excerpts as to why man's will is not free and, when extended, can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Most people believe in free will or worse, compatibilism, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame that I'm up against so much. Nothing has changed since the author passed away in 1991. I really wish I could contact well-known determinists who could carefully study this book. That's the only way this knowledge is going to be brought to light.

Ad hom. Reporting all. Also false. I’m not pissed at all. I find you an object of hilarity. You remember how me, ChuckF, and Maturin had a lot of fun with your nonsense?

I hope the moderators stop you or this thread is toast.

Stop me from what? Telling people what’s in the book? Because you sure aren’t.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

I offered the book to you. You didn’t take the offer. Oh well.

I started it and got as far as the no blame principle, but as I have a lot going on, why not for the sake of discussion give a summary?

DBT, you have no idea what I've been through. Pood gave a horrible summary and now he's very angry and doing what he did in FF all because he says dogs can recognize people from a picture and that we see in delayed time and I say we see in real time. He's really really pissed. I tried to give some excerpts as to why man's will is not free and, when extended, can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Most people believe in free will or worse, compatibilism, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame that I'm up against so much. Nothing has changed since the author passed away in 1991. I really wish I could contact well-known determinists who could carefully study this book. That's the only way this knowledge is going to be brought to light.

Ad hom. Reporting all. Also false. I’m not pissed at all. I find you an object of hilarity. You remember how me, ChuckF, and Maturin had a lot of fun with your nonsense?

I hope the moderators stop you or this thread is toast.

Stop me from what? Telling people what’s in the book? Because you sure aren’t.

You’re wrong. I gave the entire first part where he explained why man’s will is not free and part of chapter four that demonstrates how we identify objects through words. You’re ruining it for everyone.

 

[pood]

You’re wrong. I gave the entire first part where he explained why man’s will is not free and part of chapter four that demonstrates how we identify objects through words. You’re ruining it for everyone.

 

[pood]

We name objects with words. We do not “identify” then with words.

 

[peacegirl]

We name objects with words. We do not “identify” then with words.

We name objects using words for identification, when we see a difference in substance (you know, the things that exist) or we would not be able to communicate what we are referring to.

 

[peacegirl]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible. People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators. He has gotten so confused that when the author said, "They are compelled, of their own free will... he actually thinks this is a contradiction. No wonder his summary stunk. He's grasping at anything he can to ruin me because he hates the author's claims even though it can prevent war. He doesn't care. He is a compatibilist, and he hates that he could not have done otherwise and that it's a modal fallacy. He hates everything about this book, but his analysis is all wrong. He has taken so much out of context, it actually makes me sick that people could actually take him seriously. Where did he ever compare homosexuality with war other than in his twisted brain? I've been with this work for many years and I don't know what he's even talking about. Doesn't anyone see the harm he's causing? If I don't continue here, if anyone wants to read the book the way it was meant to be read, and give a fair and balanced review, that would be cool. I don't have the desire to be on the defensive all the time if this is how it's going to play out. Lies and rumors die hard.

 

[DBT]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible. People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators. He has gotten so confused that when the author said, "They are compelled, of their own free will... he actually thinks this is a contradiction. No wonder his summary stunk. He's grasping at anything he can to ruin me because he hates the author's claims even though it can prevent war. He doesn't care. He is a compatibilist, and he hates that he could not have done otherwise and that it's a modal fallacy. He hates everything about this book, but his analysis is all wrong. He has taken so much out of context, it actually makes me sick that people could actually take him seriously. Where did he ever compare homosexuality with war other than in his twisted brain? I've been with this work for many years and I don't know what he's even talking about. Doesn't anyone see the harm he's causing? If I don't continue here, if anyone wants to read the book the way it was meant to be read, and give a fair and balanced review, that would be cool. I don't have the desire to be on the defensive all the time if this is how it's going to play out. Lies and rumors die hard.

The eyes essentially work as light detectors, light sensitive cells, lenses, cornea, retina, rods, cones, pupil, iris optic nerve, etc, work to convert the acquired information from light into electrical impulses which are conveyed to the visual cortex. That being the evolved function of eyes as sense organs.

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

That's not true DBT. How the brain processes light is not what is being disputed. All that is being disputed is how the eyes work, which allows us to see the object in real time, not delayed. As long as the object is bright enough, large enough (even with a telescope), and within our field of view, then we would see the object as it is, not as it was because the light would be at the eye instantly. People are having a hard time understanding how this is possible because they keep thinking in terms of travel time. But it actually works reverse when the eyes are efferent, not afferent. The brain processes the information conveyed by the light, but this is not what scientists are referring to when they say we see in delayed time. People are not taking this thread seriously because the author was unknown and because it's very easy to make fun of things that appear impossible.

Absolute bullshit. People aren’t taking the thread seriously because what the author claims is total nonsense.

People follow whoever is the loudest. Pood is so upset about this claim that he is coming back with the same type of sarcasm and vengeance that he did at FF. Can you believe he would complain to the moderators about me when the harm he has done to me can't even compare to any harm I've done to him. To say that he's pissed is true, and he can't handle it, so he has to run like a crybaby to the moderators.

Actually I haven’t. Your stupid little ad homs and insults aren’t even worth reporting or worrying about. But here you are whining about the mods not “saving” you when at unmodded FF you complained there weren’t any mods!

 

[DBT]

If the argument of the book is based on determinism, that the world is deterministic, instantaneous vision, seeing the sun as it is now rather than 8 minutes ago, makes no sense. It contradicts determinism and the laws of physics. It's just not how the universe works.