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

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

Peacegirl

I am not attacking you personally, I am po8ning out the issues with what you are saying on optics. It is what go0ess on with the forum, debate and critique over what is said. No need to take personally.

An impulse has a specific definition, impulses are not created in the brain, it is ore of a continuous process. Your use of the word impulse sounds like pre 20th century philosophy and metaphysics.

Take a simple circular thin lens and point it at an object that is lit up. Put a piece of paper at the focal plane and you will see an image of the object on the paper, inverted. That is essentially a camera.

In optics there are two general categories, geometric optics and physical optics.

In geocentric optics rays are traced from points on an object through the lens and the focal plane. The process is computerized.

In physical optics Maxwell's equations are solved.

In geometric optics image formation is easy for a thin lens. Rays are traced from points on the object to the lens which are bent,refracted, and pass through the focal plane.

The image exists at all points between the object and the lens. The image exists as interference patterns of light waves.


The meaning of intensity can be a little murky.


The Huygens–Fresnel principle (named after Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens and French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel) states that every point on a wavefront is itself the source of spherical wavelets, and the secondary wavelets emanating from different points mutually interfere.[1] The sum of these spherical wavelets forms a new wavefront. As such, the Huygens-Fresnel principle is a method of analysis applied to problems of luminous wave propagation both in the far-field limit and in near-field diffraction as well as reflection


There are older basic optics texts in pdf, I will find one for you if you want.

Optics For Dummies. Dummies is a misnomer, the 'for dummies' books are well written for the non technical reader.

None of this is in dispute. Please don't conflate optics or how light works with what he is demonstrating regarding the eyes.

Steve, all of this was explained to her, repeatedly, at FF, including by one biologist and two astrophysicists. It was explained repeatedly across more than 2,000 pages. You might want to save yourself the trouble. And yes, according to her, everyone who disagrees with her is attacking her personally, and “ruining it” for everyone else. We pointed out to her, for example, that if we see in real time because of “how the eyes and the brain work,” whatever that is supposed to mean, then what about cameras? A camera doesn’t have a brain. So if God turned on the sun at noon and we saw it immediately, without having to wait 8 minutes for the light to arrive, and then took a picture of the sun, would the camera take a photo of the sun in real time, or would it have to wait eight minutes for the light to arrive? You should have seen what knots that put her into! First she adopted one position — that the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. But then, when we pointed out to her that if this was true, what we see, and what cameras take pictures of, would never be the same, but in fact they are — she took exactly the opposite position! That cameras take pictures without having to wait for light to arrive at the lens.

You cannot educate someone like this, someone who, moreover, contends that those who disagree with her secretly know that she and the author are correct, but are “furious” at having their “world view” challenged.
There is a point at which critique becomes abusive.
This has been going on for years. It's like being married to an abuser. Thank the Lord I'm not married to one of them. :(
I have no clue as to why you draw me into your battle, I have no axe to grind with peacegirl.
I appreciate it. Pood wants everyone to dismiss me as if I have nothing of any value to offer.
She has no science background, so what. She follows some quirky offbeat author, so what.
He wasn't quirky Steve. He was an independent thinker. Quirky sounds weird or someone not to be taken seriously. :(
I have had my moments for sure over the years.
I am glad you can identify because, at the very least, you understand where I'm coming from. Sometimes being treated unfairly and knowing what it feels like to be misunderstood gives a person a special kind of compassion where none would exist, so thank you.
 
Last edited:
Peacegirl

I understand and relate. One man's independent thinker is another's quirky. Such is life.

Back in the 70s there was a range of groups. The Divine Light Mission, Ekankar which is still around, Theosophy and more. And of course Scientology.

Back in the 70s in my Hartford Ct neighborhood there was an ashram of Amer can Sikh converts. Men wore beards, turbans, and did it cut hair, and had the Sikh ceremonial daggers. For a few weeks I got up early and did their morning yoga with them. Turned out it was a cut rejected by real Sikhs.

I was in Portland Or in the 80s when the Indian guru The Bagwan took his cult to an Antelope Or ranch. His followers walked around Portland dressed in purple with pictures of the guru around their necks.

On the durum there is someone who based on his author preaches the world is becomming Jewish and that will save the world.

So to me you are one of many. If it works for you in life then good for you.

Philosophically western liberal democracy is about freedom of thought,speech, and choice of one's beliefs. That being said when one speaks of one's beliefs one is open to the mutual free speech of others. Hence this forum.

We tear into Christians here because they are intrusive in the world and can be bad actors in the name of belief.

When you bring in forced compliance as I think you did then my alarm bells go off. I suspect if I dug into it your author has veiled Marxism in there somewhere .
 
Peacegirl

I understand and relate. One man's independent thinker is another's quirky. Such is life.

Back in the 70s there was a range of groups. The Divine Light Mission, Ekankar which is still around, Theosophy and more. And of course Scientology.

Back in the 70s in my Hartford Ct neighborhood there was an ashram of Amer can Sikh converts. Men wore beards, turbans, and did it cut hair, and had the Sikh ceremonial daggers. For a few weeks I got up early and did their morning yoga with them. Turned out it was a cut rejected by real Sikhs.

I was in Portland Or in the 80s when the Indian guru The Bagwan took his cult to an Antelope Or ranch. His followers walked around Portland dressed in purple with pictures of the guru around their necks.

On the durum there is someone who based on his author preaches the world is becomming Jewish and that will save the world.

So to me you are one of many. If it works for you in life then good for you.

Philosophically western liberal democracy is about freedom of thought,speech, and choice of one's beliefs. That being said when one speaks of one's beliefs one is open to the mutual free speech of others. Hence this forum.

We tear into Christians here because they are intrusive in the world and can be bad actors in the name of belief.

When you bring in forced compliance as I think you did then my alarm bells go off. I suspect if I dug into it your author has veiled Marxism in there somewhere .
No Steve, Pood lied. There is no mention of military compliance or force of any kind. In fact, it is the relinquishment of all authority and control by government or by any other entity. None of these cults has anything to do with this discovery. It is not the same. Of course, free speech is what this book is about. Not only free speech but free actions and free beliefs. In this new world, people are free to do whatever they want but they won't want to hurt anyone or gain at anyone's expense. That is the only boundary that is drawn. In order to understand why this knowledge is so important it must be read and understood. I don't think anyone read the excerpts I posted. I really did try. How in the world can I talk to anyone about a book they haven't read? Bilby thinks it's not necessary. Then why did he give me something to read regarding the eyes? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Thanks to Pood's invitation, I came here knowing it was moderated, but I didn't realize how hard it would be due to people jumping to premature conclusions. I even gave people the first three chapters. Did they read it? No.
 
Peacegirl

I understand and relate. One man's independent thinker is another's quirky. Such is life.

Back in the 70s there was a range of groups. The Divine Light Mission, Ekankar which is still around, Theosophy and more. And of course Scientology.

Back in the 70s in my Hartford Ct neighborhood there was an ashram of Amer can Sikh converts. Men wore beards, turbans, and did it cut hair, and had the Sikh ceremonial daggers. For a few weeks I got up early and did their morning yoga with them. Turned out it was a cut rejected by real Sikhs.

I was in Portland Or in the 80s when the Indian guru The Bagwan took his cult to an Antelope Or ranch. His followers walked around Portland dressed in purple with pictures of the guru around their necks.

On the durum there is someone who based on his author preaches the world is becomming Jewish and that will save the world.

So to me you are one of many. If it works for you in life then good for you.

Philosophically western liberal democracy is about freedom of thought,speech, and choice of one's beliefs. That being said when one speaks of one's beliefs one is open to the mutual free speech of others. Hence this forum.

We tear into Christians here because they are intrusive in the world and can be bad actors in the name of belief.

When you bring in forced compliance as I think you did then my alarm bells go off. I suspect if I dug into it your author has veiled Marxism in there somewhere .
No Steve, Pood lied. There is no mention of military compliance or force of any kind. In fact, it is the relinquishment of all authority and control by government or by any other entity. None of these cults has anything to do with this discovery. It is not the same. Of course, free speech is what this book is about. Not only free speech but free actions and free beliefs. In this new world, people are free to do whatever they want but they won't want to hurt anyone or gain at anyone's expense. That is the only boundary that is drawn. In order to understand why this knowledge is so important it must be read and understood. I don't think anyone read the excerpts I posted. I really did try. How in the world can I talk to anyone about a book they haven't read? Bilby thinks it's not necessary. Then why did he give me something to read regarding the eyes? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Thanks to Pood's invitation, I came here knowing it was moderated, but I didn't realize how hard it would be due to people jumping to premature conclusions. I even gave people the first three chapters. Did they read it? No.
I did not “invite” you here. Bilby did not say that reading books is unnecessary. I did not lie about anything (another rules violation by you). The original version you mutilated did talk about using force to keep people in line. Many people have read the excerpts you posted at innumerable boards. They all told you same thing: It’s wrong.
 
Steve, this knowledge has nothing to do with a cult or following some kind of guru. This may help give you peace of mind:

Communism, and the dream of socialism, came into existence out of mathematical necessity as a reaction to injustice, but once the injustice is removed, communism and the dream of socialism have no further value. It was assumed that Marx had all the answers, but in this new world, nobody will tell anybody what to do, although each person will be mathematically prevented from desiring to hurt others.

“Isn’t it true that a world in which everybody gets an equal income is more just? How can it be just when this limits man’s freedom, destroys initiative, and stifles incentive?”

A just world is one in which an individual is allowed to move in any direction he sees is better for himself without others judging what is right for him. This was impossible before because man often found it desirable to hurt others to accomplish his ends. Socialism, communism, and capitalism dictate laws that must be obeyed or else, which was necessary up until the discovery that man’s will is not free; but now you are completely free by the will of God to do anything you want to do without fear of being blamed, criticized, condemned, or punished in any way, which limits your freedom to do only what hurts no individual.
 
Peacegirl

I understand and relate. One man's independent thinker is another's quirky. Such is life.

Back in the 70s there was a range of groups. The Divine Light Mission, Ekankar which is still around, Theosophy and more. And of course Scientology.

Back in the 70s in my Hartford Ct neighborhood there was an ashram of Amer can Sikh converts. Men wore beards, turbans, and did it cut hair, and had the Sikh ceremonial daggers. For a few weeks I got up early and did their morning yoga with them. Turned out it was a cut rejected by real Sikhs.

I was in Portland Or in the 80s when the Indian guru The Bagwan took his cult to an Antelope Or ranch. His followers walked around Portland dressed in purple with pictures of the guru around their necks.

On the durum there is someone who based on his author preaches the world is becomming Jewish and that will save the world.

So to me you are one of many. If it works for you in life then good for you.

Philosophically western liberal democracy is about freedom of thought,speech, and choice of one's beliefs. That being said when one speaks of one's beliefs one is open to the mutual free speech of others. Hence this forum.

We tear into Christians here because they are intrusive in the world and can be bad actors in the name of belief.

When you bring in forced compliance as I think you did then my alarm bells go off. I suspect if I dug into it your author has veiled Marxism in there somewhere .
No Steve, Pood lied. There is no mention of military compliance or force of any kind. In fact, it is the relinquishment of all authority and control by government or by any other entity. None of these cults has anything to do with this discovery. It is not the same. Of course, free speech is what this book is about. Not only free speech but free actions and free beliefs. In this new world, people are free to do whatever they want but they won't want to hurt anyone or gain at anyone's expense. That is the only boundary that is drawn. In order to understand why this knowledge is so important it must be read and understood. I don't think anyone read the excerpts I posted. I really did try. How in the world can I talk to anyone about a book they haven't read? Bilby thinks it's not necessary. Then why did he give me something to read regarding the eyes? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Thanks to Pood's invitation, I came here knowing it was moderated, but I didn't realize how hard it would be due to people jumping to premature conclusions. I even gave people the first three chapters. Did they read it? No.
I did not “invite” you here.
I don't know what your definition of "invite" is, but you told me to come here because there was a new administration and to try again, which I did appreciate. You even helped me with my first post. Thank you. Unfortunately, everything went downhill after that. :(
Bilby did not say that reading books is unnecessary.
Yes he did, maybe not in those exact words.
I did not lie about anything (another rules violation by you).
You lied Pood. So tell me: Where in the book does he mention military force by keeping people in line? The only thing that was mentioned during the transition to the new world is that there must be an international law that will punish anyone who strikes a first blow. A first blow in this case involves increasing prices rather than selling in volume. This has nothing to do with being a citizen where no force, military or otherwise, will ever be used. It's a new world, a new landscape where instead of threats of blame and punishment, there will be no threats of blame and punishment, so where is any kind of military force used?

Ahhh, I think I know where you got this from. Someone years ago didn't like what I was sharing about the book but acted like he did. Then he went behind my back and posted a horrible review before they changed the rule where you have to purchase the book before putting a review up. He didn't purchase the book, and he didn't know what he was talking about. Unfortunately, that review is still there, and I can't get Amazon to take it down. I have to get better reviews, but since this is a very small niche, I'm kind of stuck between as rock and a hard place because the person doing the review has to understand the topic. I hope to reach philosophers who are well-versed in this subject matter (even if I have to pay them to read it without bias) who will give this book a fair and balanced review because I can guarantee that if they understand what he wrote, it will be stellar review, not based on the writing style per se (someone probably could have done a better job), but because of its significance in bettering our world.

TAXES AND FINANCING THE GUARANTEE

Since raising prices and striking for higher wages are first blows which we cannot desire to strike after becoming citizens and receiving our guarantee; and since this blow, no matter where it originates in our present world is the source of inflation, we must enact an international law during the transition that will punish severely any noncitizens who choose to violate it. As a further consequence of the guarantee, labor unions will be displaced because they can only strike to gain at the expense of the taxpayers who have also guaranteed to help them in their moment of need. But remember, if this law annoys them all they have to do is become citizens and they will be completely free to strike this blow to their heart’s content. This also means that businesspeople will be prevented from raising prices for the same reason, which places a ceiling on everything that has a price when the transition begins, including labor. This does not mean that people will be denied an opportunity to improve their standard of living, but they will be forced to do this at nobody’s expense. In other words, it does not stop an employer from giving out bonuses and increases in salary, but it does prevent his employees from forcing this on him. Employees have the right to ask for a raise or any kind of favor, but their employer has the right-of-way to refuse; and if they should threaten to quit as a result of this refusal, that is their business, for which they would never be blamed no matter how much this might hurt him. Remember, an employer can give a raise in salary or a bonus if he wants to, but he cannot use what he gives voluntarily (what might put him below his standard of living) as a justification to get financial help. And how is it possible for employees to quit under the changed conditions when they would only make matters worse for themselves? At this juncture, let me clarify something I stated earlier. Putting a ceiling on everything that has a price doesn’t prevent you from paying more for something than the price called for if you want to. But it does prevent the person selling what already has a price when the transition begins from digging into your pocket when you don’t want this to be done. If something has no set price, then it is negotiable. In our present world, there is justification to raise prices and strike for higher wages, but in the new world this justification is removed not only by the guarantee, but by the fact that your expenses to operate your business and meet your standard of living will never be increased. This means that to raise prices and strike for higher wages must, under the changed conditions, become first blows. As you can see, this puts an end to inflation. Let me show you how this will be accomplished in our next step.


The original version you mutilated did talk about using force to keep people in line.
OMG, where Pood? Why are you doing this? I have all of his originals. I never changed anything except certain words or spelling errors, but not the concept. You're way out of line now; you're spreading libel and it's defamatory.
Many people have read the excerpts you posted at innumerable boards. They all told you same thing: It’s wrong.
He never used the term "military" the way you are insinuating:

Once the United Nations is convinced that all of you have passed the examination and received your card, a day and time will be set for the great launching of this new world, a holiday declared, and you will excitedly await the countdown. When zero is reached, everything locked will be unlocked, burglar alarms disconnected and floor walkers dismissed, detectives, private eyes, and security guards will be displaced. At the launching of the Golden Age, every possibility of committing a crime will vanish the very moment everything that stands in the way of such an act is removed. Consequently, the military and police forces will retire while their weapons are destroyed, all prisons will be demolished, and prisoners, regardless of their crime, will be released with their ticket (card) to freedom and a basic standard of living guaranteed, and no one need have the slightest fear that a crime will be committed, especially when all the other forms of tacit blame are also removed. Therefore, everything that tries in some way to prevent the desire of another from being satisfied or tries in some way to prevent stealing what belongs to another will be removed because this will mathematically prevent the desire to hurt someone as a consequence of this tacit blame. At the same time the cops get displaced with a guarantee that their income will never stop or decrease, so do the robbers. If someone engaged in unlawful practices was earning an income of $25,000 or $250,000 per year, and because of this transition loses his profession, the bank robbers, the hired killers, etc., will be treated with the same consideration as anyone else who gets displaced, simply because no one is to blame. We are going to make it very easy for every potential thief to steal and cheat all he wants but there will be no possibility he will ever commit another crime under the new conditions, although nothing will be stopping him. Think about this very carefully. Is it possible for a potential criminal to use a gun for a holdup when nothing is going to stand in his way of taking anything he wants, without force?
 
Last edited:
Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.
 
Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.
DBT, that’s not true because the information is already there. Thats what real time seeing is. As I already stated, there is nothing different when it comes to light. Light travels but when you say the image is reflected from the object which sounds like the only logical way to see it, this is exactly what is being challenged. The author stated that the image or information is not being reflected and can only be at the eye or telescope when the object is being viewed directly, not as it travels through space/time. If the image or wavelength traveled to our eyes, the claim would make no sense and would go against physics. I know this is upsetting a lot of people but that is not my intention. I just want scientists to take another look.
 
Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.
DBT, that’s not true because the information is already ther what real time seeing is. As I already stated, there is nothing different when it comes to light. Light travels but when you say the image is reflected from the object which sounds like the only logical way to see it, this is exactly what is being challenged. The author stated that the image or information is not being reflected and can only be at the eye or telescope when the object is being viewed directly, not as it travels through space/time. If the image or wavelength traveled to our eyes, the claim would make no sense and would go against physics. I know this is upsetting a lot of people but that is not my intention. I just want scientists to take another look.


It is true. Not because I say so, but demonstrated through scientific research and testing, speed of light, distance, travel time, etc, calculated to the millisecond.

As pointed out, you can test it yourself, project an image of the sun onto piece of cardboard to see sunspots, use a solar filter to directly view the same image, take a photo....where all images relate to each other.

Physicists don't have it wrong.

You are undermining your own case for determinism and change by using false premises.
 
peacegirl

You are posting what we call pseudo science. There used to be people passing through the forum making clams and saying since is wrong and does not 'get it'.

To get the attention of the scientific community you would need to write a paper presenting your theories expressed mathematically. It has ton be testable.

If you go arud trying to get people to read a book no one will give you any attention.

In a sense the information is always 'there', light is reflecting off an object whether we look at it or not. But that dies not conflict with science.

Turn the light off in a room and there is a delay between when light stops being emitted and when you perceive the light being off. It happens so fast we can call it real time.


In technology real time means a short delay in repose to stimulus. The system reacts ton events as they happen.

As to individual rights of choice it was not communists, modern rights trace back to The Enlightenment.

The American Revolution was about getting out from under a monarchy and being able to live as you please. Self determination.

We all live in a community. No one has absolute choice of what to do. There are collective community rights and individual rights.
 
Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.
DBT, that’s not true because the information is already ther what real time seeing is. As I already stated, there is nothing different when it comes to light. Light travels but when you say the image is reflected from the object which sounds like the only logical way to see it, this is exactly what is being challenged. The author stated that the image or information is not being reflected and can only be at the eye or telescope when the object is being viewed directly, not as it travels through space/time. If the image or wavelength traveled to our eyes, the claim would make no sense and would go against physics. I know this is upsetting a lot of people but that is not my intention. I just want scientists to take another look.


It is true. Not because I say so, but demonstrated through scientific research and testing, speed of light, distance, travel time, etc, calculated to the millisecond.

As pointed out, you can test it yourself, project an image of the sun onto piece of cardboard to see sunspots, use a solar filter to directly view the same image, take a photo....where all images relate to each other.
I’m not sure where this negates his claim. It actually supports it!
Physicists don't have it wrong.
That’s not proof. It’s just an assertion.
You are undermining your own case for determinism and change by using false premises.
I’m sorry if you feel it undermines the truth regarding determinism.

1731292452592.png
 
Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.
DBT, that’s not true because the information is already ther what real time seeing is. As I already stated, there is nothing different when it comes to light. Light travels but when you say the image is reflected from the object which sounds like the only logical way to see it, this is exactly what is being challenged. The author stated that the image or information is not being reflected and can only be at the eye or telescope when the object is being viewed directly, not as it travels through space/time. If the image or wavelength traveled to our eyes, the claim would make no sense and would go against physics. I know this is upsetting a lot of people but that is not my intention. I just want scientists to take another look.


It is true. Not because I say so, but demonstrated through scientific research and testing, speed of light, distance, travel time, etc, calculated to the millisecond.

As pointed out, you can test it yourself, project an image of the sun onto piece of cardboard to see sunspots, use a solar filter to directly view the same image, take a photo....where all images relate to each other.
I’m not sure where this negates his claim. It actually supports it!

If the claim is that we can see the sun as it is before the light reaches us, it doesn't support the books view because light takes a measurably 8 minutes from the sun to reach us. Just as it takes a measurable time to bounce a laser beam off the moon, etc.

If you argue for a deterministic world, you must consider the laws of physics. You can't just claim that we can see something before the light reaches us.


Physicists don't have it wrong.
That’s not proof. It’s just an assertion.

No, it's not only testable but has been tested and found to be sound.
You are undermining your own case for determinism and change by using false premises.
I’m sorry if you feel it undermines the truth regarding determinism.

View attachment 48457

It's not about believing. You can check the evidence for yourself. Relativity, time dilation, speed of light, speed of sound, etc, etc...
 
peacegirl

You are posting what we call pseudo science.
No Steve, it’s not pseudo science. How can you say that when you cannot recount what the core of the discovery is? It’s so odd to me that people make blanket statements that it can’t be right but haven’t asked one relevant question that would show me they actually understood what his observations were that led to making these claims? They didn’t come out of thin air.
There used to be people passing through the forum making clams and saying since is wrong and does not 'get it'.
It matters not what other people have said. It has no relationship to this discovery and cannot be used as a means to judge its accuracy..
To get the attention of the scientific community you would need to write a paper presenting your theories expressed mathematically. It has ton be testable.
He demonstrated how the brain and eyes work. Did you read it?
If you go arud trying to get people to read a book no one will give you any attention.
There’s nothing more I can do. Hopefully it will be forever online and someone with influence will pick it up and carry the ball.
In a sense the information is always 'there', light is reflecting off an object whether we look at it or not. But that dies not conflict with science.
Light is always traveling at an enormously high rate of speed, but it’s not reflecting off of objects. The information is there when we look at the object because the light wave is at the eye but the information does not travel where we would see an event from millions of years ago just arriving.
Turn the light off in a room and there is a delay between when light stops being emitted and when you perceive the light being off. It happens so fast we can call it real time.
That’s the belief. Light travels fast, granted, but to then say an image is reflected off of an object is fallacious.
In technology real time means a short delay in repose to stimulus. The system reacts ton events as they happen.
if sight is efferent, there is no short delay. There’s no delay at all. That’s what it means to see in real time.
As to individual rights of choice it was not communists, modern rights trace back to The Enlightenment.

The American Revolution was about getting out from under a monarchy and being able to live as you please. Self determination.

We all live in a community. No one has absolute choice of what to do. There are collective community rights and individual rights.
We will have all the rights in the world without restriction in the new world. The only thing that will limit those rights is when one is stepping on another person’s rights, which will not occur under the changed conditions.
 
Last edited:
One of my favorite quotes peacegirl.

Lord Kelvin is known for saying, “I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind”.

If you want to get the attention of science expres it scientifically with numbers.

How the brain and nervous system nervous system works comes under neuroscience. Well established theoretically and experimentally.

Are you arguing your guru knew more that neuroscience today?

We know what parts of the brain involve speech and logic.

When was your guru born and when did he die and what was his background.

No right can be absolute in the extreme.

Your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose,as the saying goes
 
peacegirl

You are posting what we call pseudo science.
No Steve, it’s not pseudo science. How can you say that when you cannot recount what the core of the discovery is? It’s so odd to me that people make blanket statements that it can’t be right but haven’t asked one relevant question that would show me they actually understood what his observations were that led to making these claims? They didn’t come out of thin air.
There used to be people passing through the forum making clams and saying since is wrong and does not 'get it'.
It matters not what other people have said. It has no relationship to this discovery and cannot be used as a means to judge its accuracy..
To get the attention of the scientific community you would need to write a paper presenting your theories expressed mathematically. It has ton be testable.
He demonstrated how the brain and eyes work. Did you read it?
If you go arud trying to get people to read a book no one will give you any attention.
There’s nothing more I can do. Hopefully it will be forever online and someone with influence will pick it up and carry the ball.
In a sense the information is always 'there', light is reflecting off an object whether we look at it or not. But that dies not conflict with science.
Light is always traveling at an enormously high rate of speed, but it’s not reflecting off of objects. The information is there when we look at the object because the light wave is at the eye but the information does not travel where we would see an event from millions of years ago just arriving.
Turn the light off in a room and there is a delay between when light stops being emitted and when you perceive the light being off. It happens so fast we can call it real time.
That’s the belief. Light travels fast, granted, but to then say an image is reflected off of an object is fallacious.
In technology real time means a short delay in repose to stimulus. The system reacts ton events as they happen.
if sight is efferent, there is no short delay. There’s no delay at all. That’s what it means to see in real time.
As to individual rights of choice it was not communists, modern rights trace back to The Enlightenment.

The American Revolution was about getting out from under a monarchy and being able to live as you please. Self determination.

We all live in a community. No one has absolute choice of what to do. There are collective community rights and individual rights.
We will have all the rights in the world without restriction in the new world. The only thing that will limit those rights is when one is stepping on another person’s rights, which will not occur under the changed conditions.

That light reflects from objects can be tested by simply going into a dark room and turning the light on.

The objects in the room are not a source of light, they reflect light from the source, the filament bulbs or diodes that generate light.

Moonlight is reflected sunlight, for instance.
 
Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times Paperback – January 1, 2009
by Seymour Lessans (Author)
3.0 3.0 out of 5 stars 2 ratings
See all formats and editions
This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations.

The scientific discovery was made in 1959 by a self-learned man who after many years of intense study observed a universal principle never perceived before. Stumbling upon such an important finding, it was difficult for him to comprehend the magnitude of what he had uncovered. It took him many more years to transcribe his revelation int

300 years before Christ Buddhism developed a psychology of the nature of suffering and how to alleviate it.

Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Hitler wrote that war is a natural state of humans, maybe he was right. The UN ,EU, and NATO were major milestones. The UN is ineffective at preventing conflicts. It was supposed to be a forum to working out disputes.

China and Russia are in a pre WWII mind set. Empire building. Authorterian control.

We humans are what we are as cats and dogs are what they are. Domecated cats and dogs gone feral revert to their genetic instncts and behave ilke their wild cousns. Feral fremale cats band together. Ferral male cats will kill kittens to brng a femal into heat.

The mstake is to idealize us humans as somehing we are not.
 
As mentioned before, neuroscientists are already promoting a different approach to crime and punishment, one that takes human nature and cognition into account when dealing with those who break the law, working towards changing behaviour rather than dealing out punishment with little regard for rehabilitation.
 
Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times Paperback – January 1, 2009
by Seymour Lessans (Author)
3.0 3.0 out of 5 stars 2 ratings
See all formats and editions
This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations.

The scientific discovery was made in 1959 by a self-learned man who after many years of intense study observed a universal principle never perceived before. Stumbling upon such an important finding, it was difficult for him to comprehend the magnitude of what he had uncovered. It took him many more years to transcribe his revelation int

300 years before Christ Buddhism developed a psychology of the nature of suffering and how to alleviate it.

Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Hitler wrote that war is a natural state of humans, maybe he was right. The UN ,EU, and NATO were major milestones. The UN is ineffective at preventing conflicts. It was supposed to be a forum to working out disputes.

China and Russia are in a pre WWII mind set. Empire building. Authorterian control.

We humans are what we are as cats and dogs are what they are. Domecated cats and dogs gone feral revert to their genetic instncts and behave ilke their wild cousns. Feral fremale cats band together. Ferral male cats will kill kittens to brng a femal into heat.

The mstake is to idealize us humans as somehing we are not.
This does not change human nature. Under difficult conditions humans are known to do the most heinous things. But human conduct is malleable and will change according to environmental factors. When the environment removes the hurt that accompanies financial insecurity and other unfair treatment, it becomes impossible to desire striking out at others when there is no justification to do so.
 
peacegirl

You are posting what we call pseudo science.
No Steve, it’s not pseudo science.

Yes, it is.
How can you say that when you cannot recount what the core of the discovery is?

Nobody can recount it, including you, because there is no discovery.
It’s so odd to me that people make blanket statements that it can’t be right but haven’t asked one relevant question that would show me they actually understood what his observations were that led to making these claims?

Why don’t you bold for us those “observations”? Saying dogs ca’t recognize their masters by sight alone is not an observation, it is a nonfactual claim. Saying stuff like “the brain projects words onto an undeniable screen of substance” not only fails to be an observation, it is gobbledygook.
They didn’t come out of thin air.

It did.
There used to be people passing through the forum making clams and saying since is wrong and does not 'get it'.
It matters not what other people have said. It has no relationship to this discovery and cannot be used as a means to judge its accuracy..
To get the attention of the scientific community you would need to write a paper presenting your theories expressed mathematically. It has ton be testable.
He demonstrated how the brain and eyes work. Did you read it?

LOL, no he did not. He had not clue one about how the brain and eyes work.
If you go arud trying to get people to read a book no one will give you any attention.
There’s nothing more I can do. Hopefully it will be forever online and someone with influence will pick it up and carry the ball.

Reality is not decided by “someone with influence.” It is decided by reality.
In a sense the information is always 'there', light is reflecting off an object whether we look at it or not. But that dies not conflict with science.
Light is always traveling at an enormously high rate of speed, but it’s not reflecting off of objects.
Really? :hysterical: Look in the mirror. Turn on a light in a dark room. Look up the crescent moon. What do you think is happening?
The information is there when we look at the object because the light wave is at the eye but the information does not travel where we would see an event from millions of years ago just arriving.

The above makes no sense at all.
Turn the light off in a room and there is a delay between when light stops being emitted and when you perceive the light being off. It happens so fast we can call it real time.
That’s the belief. Light travels fast, granted, but to then say an image is reflected off of an object is fallacious.

Except no one says an image is reflected off an object. Light is reflected by an object.
In technology real time means a short delay in repose to stimulus. The system reacts ton events as they happen.
if sight is efferent, there is no short delay. There’s no delay at all. That’s what it means to see in real time.

Yes, there is. The speed of light is an absolute limit on the transfer of information.
 
Back
Top Bottom