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

[pood]

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

I’d reply that you are dwelling in the past, but actually you are not, because there was never, ever a time that science and philosophy were not joined at the hip, and they remain so firmly welded today.

And, anticipating just this response, I have taken the liberty to start a thread on this very subject, here.

As Einstein had it, yours is an impoverished world view, as he distinguished between the “artisan” and the “specialist” and the true “seeker after truth.”

 

[pood]

And no, Steve, I am nothing like peacegirl, because I know science, and respect science, and I also know its philosophical underpinnings and assumptions, which apparently you do not.

 

[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, 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.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

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.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

 

[pood]

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time.

Peacegirl, there are thousands of ways to prove it, and we showed you a huge list at FF. You ignored it all. Why in the world do you think I am again going to try to spoon-feed you what we already gave you dozens and dozens of times?

 

[pood]

Let me remind you again, peacegirl, of the partial list of disproofs of real-time seeing we have already given you.

 

[DBT]

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.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

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.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

 

[DBT]

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.

When did that happen? Studies? Links, quotes?

 

[pood]

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.

When did that happen? Studies? Links, quotes?

She means it was “shown to be false” by her writer, not science. Science has shown that dogs can do so.

 

[steve_bank]

 

[peacegirl]

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time.

Peacegirl, there are thousands of ways to prove it, and we showed you a huge list at FF. You ignored it all. Why in the world do you think I am again going to try to spoon-feed you what we already gave you dozens and dozens of times?

No, that’s a cop-out! Every single one on that list did not prove that we see in delayed time. So far you’re batting zero!

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time.

Peacegirl, there are thousands of ways to prove it, and we showed you a huge list at FF. You ignored it all. Why in the world do you think I am again going to try to spoon-feed you what we already gave you dozens and dozens of times?

Go for it!

 

[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.

When did that happen? Studies? Links, quotes?

She means it was “shown to be false” by her writer, not science. Science has shown that dogs can do so.

Tou don’t know a thing about my writer, so how can you compare him to anything? You didn’t know him.

 

[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.

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?

What do you mean "an obscure scientist?" That is the problem. He was not obscure to me, maybe to you, but this in itself has absolutely nothing to do with his claim of real time seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

You have not. Nothing was proven at FF. It was all the present-day theory based on light travel, but there was still no absolute proof. The overwhelming evidence that you believe is there doesn't show it either. Just more of the same.

As has been explained to you til the cows come home, “absolute proof” is not part of science. “Proof beyond any reasonable doubt” is. In dozens and dozens of ways at FF, we showed you proof beyond any reasonable doubt that we do not and cannot see in real time, and that the eye is a sense organ. Lessans was wrong.

Nothing they offered proved him wrong.

It's a good thing that science says there is no absolute proof because it allows a space for alternate possibilities. But given that science keeps the door open (which ironically you haven't done),

Yes, I have.

No you haven't.

some things are absolutely true, and some things are absolutely false, like compatibilist free will.

Wrong.

Right.

Where did anyone show an adjustment for seeing in delayed time due to light not arriving yet? Maybe I missed something.

Maybe you MISSED something?

Here is a partial list of all the refutations given to you of real-time seeing at FF:

The moons of Jupiter demonstration of finite light speed and delayed seeing

Could you show this to me again? The conclusion that we don't see the moons of Jupiter because delayed light speed is a theory. It's not proven.

The Fizeau Wheel

Show me where this proves anything

The special and general theories of relativity

You haven't shown me proof. You are just concluding this in your premise.

GPS in your phone

Has nothing to do with anything

The solution to Olber’s paradox

I'm not sure what this proves.

https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...B0BA484F4511BE1D5065B0BA484F4511B&FORM=VAMTRV

How NASA plots navigation to celestial bodies

Show me where the calculation in the navigation to celestial bodies involve delayed light and are pivotal to getting to one's destination.

Delay in radio signals and lasers bounced off the moon

Radar

Gravitational lensing

Show me where real time seeing has anything to do with this concept

A cosmic magnifying glass: What is gravitational lensing?

Here we explore how gravitational lensing is helping scientists see the invisible.

www.space.com

Delayed transmissions in space flight (radio is light, btw)

Hubble deep space photos of the universe as it was in the past, including toward the era of the big bang some 14 billion years ago, at a time when the universe looked very different than it does today

The physical and logical impossibility of light both being at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time

Right, just like it's impossible for our will to be free and not free at the same time.

These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Every single one of them demonstrate that we see in delayed time, and are all in agreement with one another. All would be impossible if Lessans were right. Indeed, if Lessans were right, the solution to Olber’s Paradox demonstrates that none of us would be alive, because the temperature of the earth would be about that of the sun. And btw, if Lessans were right, the GPS in your phone and car would spectacularly fail.

The stars are far enough apart and far enough away from us that we would not burn up just because they are not millions of lightyears away.

Moreover, we discussed all of these IN DETAIL with you at FF. And do you recall what you always said when you were backed into a scientific and logical corner?

“Something else must be going on there.”

Yes, something else is going on here. Your examples, that's what! They are lacking in their ability to prove him wrong. You're just throwing anything you can at the kitchen sink hoping something will stick.

 

[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, 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.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

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.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

The light IS at the eye. You're just thinking in terms of afferent vision, not efferent. You'll never get it if you don't let go of the thinking that light has to travel from the source to get to the eye. It won't make sense otherwise. Did you read his demonstration as to what he believed is going on with the eyes and why he said what he did?

 

[peacegirl]

I was trying to find how they calculate how many seconds for light to travel to the moon. This does not contradict his claim.

What is the Distance to the Moon and How is it Measured? - National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Question: What is the true distance of the moon from the surface of the earth, since VLT @ Paranal...

public.nrao.edu

 

[peacegirl]

I remember a lot was made about Romer and Io but it was more about him figuring out the speed of light. His calculations did not appear to include a delay in light:

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/ole-roemer-speed-of-light

 

[peacegirl]

What does the Fizeau wheel experiment have anything to do with the author's claim that we see in real time?

 

[peacegirl]

I'm still looking for anything that relates to delayed light as it relates to sight.

Ask an Expert: What is Celestial Navigation?

www.unsw.edu.au

 

[steve_bank]

'Real ti9me; is a matter of definition.

In systems real time mans reacting to inputs as ti happens.

When you type a character it appears on your screen, it is a real time system. But there is a deelay between pressing the key and when the charter appears on the screen.

There is also a delay between when the character appears and the light reaches your eyes, and a delay between the light on your retina and when you perceive it.

The combination of computer hardware and the Windows operating system is a real time system

A state can not change instantaneously. There is physics behind it. The faster you try to effect a change the more energy is required, As the time interval goes to zero energy goes to u infinity, an impossible condition.

The faster you accelerate a car the more gas is used, as time goes to zero yo8 need an infinite amount of gasoline.

It apples to electron circuits. The faster you try and cnange the state of a digital circuit the more energy is required.

So, even though we can call our biological system real time, we can never see anything without a delay.

 

[peacegirl]

You mentioned radar that supposedly proves that we see in delayed time. I don't see the proof.