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

[steve_bank]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

 

[bilby]

truth is truth no matter where you go. Trying to get support from people you think are above truth because they have the most amazing credentials is turning out to be an abject failure.

QFT.

The only remaining questions are why you are still trying to do that, and why you consider Mr Lessans' credentials to be "most amazing".

I doubt that any coherent answer to these questions will ever be found.

 

[bilby]

That dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone (without any other cues) is a claim that has been shown over again to be false.

I agree. But suspect that you didn't intend to say this.

 

[pood]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

 

[bilby]

You said that pictures are different than human faces (or something to that effect)

FFS. Be accurate, or be quiet.

If you want to dispute something I said, quote me.

I am not interested in, nor responsible for, your vague recollections of something to the effect of what I might have said.

If you cannot be precise, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, come on. Give me a break. I'm getting a headache.

If you can't or won't think accurately and carefully about things without getting headaches, then perhaps you should just admit that you cannot think things through, and bow out.

 

[pood]

A pace for you Peacegirl is George Nooory's Coast To Coast AM. A nightly radio show that often has offbeat people making scientific claims. You can call in. You may find support in the show's community.

It is international.

You might be able to post an article.

Coast to Coast AM: The Best Paranormal News Show | Coast to Coast AM

Get news about the weird and bizarre on Coast to Coast AM from radio host George Noory every night!

www.coasttocoastam.com

Coast to Coast AM - Coast Insider

Get news about the weird and bizarre on Coast to Coast AM from radio host George Noory every night!

www.coasttocoastam.com

You are not going to get any traction on forums like this.

There are no scientific claims on Coast to Coast.

 

[pood]

Another example of how science and metaphysics intersect can be found in the writings of the great scientist Steven Hawking, who wrote on page one of one his books, “Philosophy is dead.” He then went on to propound something called “model-dependent realism,” which is straightforwardly a metaphysical concept in contradistinction to the philosophical concept of scientific realism, and also adduced that there is a branch of reality in which the moon is made of Roquefort cheese, a thoroughly untestable idea. Hawking wrote an entire philosophical tract, apparently without realizing he was doing so.

 

[pood]

I’ve started at least a couple of threads on the intersection of science and philosophy. To suggest that philosophy is useless or of no value to science or other disciplines would, if widely accepted, greatly impoverish human thought.

 

[bilby]

I’ve started at least a couple of threads on the intersection of science and philosophy. To suggest that philosophy is useless or of no value to science or other disciplines would, if widely accepted, greatly impoverish human thought.

Well, you say that; But can you prove it?

 

[peacegirl]

You said that pictures are different than human faces (or something to that effect)

FFS. Be accurate, or be quiet.

I'm not searching for your post. You could easily find it in the conversations that you've had.

If you want to dispute something I said, quote me.

I am not searching for your post. I remembered that you said something to this effect: pictures are representations of the real thing, so if a dog cannot recognize his human partner from a picture, it doesn't mean anything. I disagree. Dogs should be able to identify with a show of recognition (wagging tail, circling, jumping up and down, whimpering, barking) if the light waves are bouncing off their human partner (whether in a picture or the real thing) and traveling toward their eyes, especially if they haven't seen their human partner in a while.

I am not interested in, nor responsible for, your vague recollections of something to the effect of what I might have said.

Then forget it.

If you cannot be precise, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, come on. Give me a break. I'm getting a headache.

If you can't or won't think accurately and carefully about things without getting headaches, then perhaps you should just admit that you cannot think things through, and bow out.

No way. I'm not bowing out. I am being precise and one other thing: please STOP being condescending. Thank you.

 

[peacegirl]

A pace for you Peacegirl is George Nooory's Coast To Coast AM. A nightly radio show that often has offbeat people making scientific claims. You can call in. You may find support in the show's community.

It is international.

I know that radio show. I found it one night when we had a hurricane, and I lost power. No station worked on my radio but Coast to Coast. There is a guy who always makes predictions. I forget his name. He's quite interesting to listen to.

You might be able to post an article.

Coast to Coast AM: The Best Paranormal News Show | Coast to Coast AM

Get news about the weird and bizarre on Coast to Coast AM from radio host George Noory every night!

www.coasttocoastam.com

Coast to Coast AM - Coast Insider

Get news about the weird and bizarre on Coast to Coast AM from radio host George Noory every night!

www.coasttocoastam.com

You are not going to get any traction on forums like this.

There are no scientific claims on Coast to Coast.

Thanks, but no thanks. My next step is figuring out how to market to the right people (i.e., people who will read the book in its entirety at least twice, as the author urged). I am just passing time right now.

 

[peacegirl]

That dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone (without any other cues) is a claim that has been shown over again to be false.

I agree. But suspect that you didn't intend to say this.

You are right. I meant to say "that dogs can recognize their masters by sight alone (without any other cues) is a claim that has been shown to be false. Thanks for the correction.

 

[peacegirl]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

 

[bilby]

I am not searching for your post. I remembered that you said something to this effect

I don't trust your memory, and neither should you.

If you can't be bothered to put in the effort to say something accurate, then I strongly recommend you say nothing at all.

Then forget it.

I shall.

No way. I'm not bowing out. I am being precise

No, you are not.

and one other thing: please STOP being condescending. Thank you.

Stop being so damn woolly and pathetic in your attempts to recall what has been said - in an environment where every post is available to quote - and you will find I have far less opportunity to be condescending.

You stop being vague, and I promise I shall stop pointing out your vagueness.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not searching for your post. I remembered that you said something to this effect

I don't trust your memory, and neither should you.

If you can't be bothered to put in the effort to say something accurate, then I strongly recommend you say nothing at all.

Then tell me what you said. You should remember. It came out of your mouth. I'm not going to search all these pages for your comment.

Then forget it.

I shall.

No way. I'm not bowing out. I am being precise

No, you are not.

Again, someone who didn't read a thing tells me I'm not being precise. It's so easy to do. I think you're gaslighting me.

gaslighting
[ˈɡasˌlīdiNG]
noun

1. the practice of psychologically manipulating someone into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning:
   "he said he was the victim of gaslighting" · "gaslighting is an insidious technique of deception and psychological manipulation"

and one other thing: please STOP being condescending. Thank you.

Stop being so damn woolly and pathetic in your attempts to recall what has been said - in an environment where every post is available to quote - and you will find I have far less opportunity to be condescending.

You stop being vague, and I promise I shall stop pointing out your vagueness.

I am not being vague. You are being vague right now by not being specific about where I'm being vague. lol

 

[pood]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

 

[peacegirl]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, astrophysics is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything. It becomes a problem when someone's credentials cancels out anybody who dares to disagree with these intellectual giants. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger -- the biologist -- who I'm sure meant well and had great points but nothing he said negated Lessans' claim of seeing the world as it is, not as it was. Unfortunately, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

 

[pood]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, this one is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything just because they have a credential next to their name. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger who I'm sure meant well. Unfortuntely, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

No, peacegirl, it doesn’t work that way. Bilby already explained this. In science, NOTHING is handed down from an authority figure to be memorized and believed. It is CHECKED. The Lone Ranger CHECKED how eyes work. He DISSECTED EYES, Physicists CHECK how light works. Then students taught these things CHECK THEM in their labs. NOBODY in science believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true.

 

[steve_bank]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

I was an engineer not a scientist, but I was immersed in science and applied it every day. I did some research.

You are not saying anything scientific. You are not saying much of anything except that an obscure author has alternate explanation of how the eye works and his ideas would save the world.

If you get the same reaction wherever you present your ideas maybe you might consider the problem is with you not others?

 

[steve_bank]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

And down your philosophy rabbit hole we go, which is what I intended to show.

You use the term philosophy as if it is an active agent of some sort.

Philosophy is a catch all phrase as is science. A nebulous philosophy owns nothing, it is a category.

If you want to know what is under the philosophy category today look at the courses listed at a university.

Philosophy from the Greek, love of knowledge or wisdom. In ancient times those who sought knowledge were philosophers.

To me in modern times natural science means that part of science that deals with the natural wold, not philosophy.

Natural science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Natural science is one of the branches of science concerned with the description, understanding and prediction of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation.[1] Mechanisms such as peer review and reproducibility of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.

As I said not much different than Peacegirl, both of you are dwelling in the past.