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

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

After all my time on the forum in general I no longer read trough links yours in detail, they all tend to take the same form. A conflation of philosophical ramblings mixed with a bit of science.

Philosophical ramblings? You mean like the Einstein link you posted above?

Anyway, if you read the paper linked above, rest assured it’s all science, no scary philosophy.

This discovery was based on scientific analysis, although the discovery that will is not free was borne out of philosophical thought.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

After all my time on the forum in general I no longer read trough links yours in detail, they all tend to take the same form. A conflation of philosophical ramblings mixed with a bit of science.

I can go back to my meanderings in the 70s.

Here is one for you. General Semantics which I think has a following today, GS claims to know what causes our ills and the cure.

Loading…

ilam3d.wordpress.com

So your author is not unique, but he is obscure compared to more enduing writers.

One of the more successful was L Ron Hubbard who started with his Dianetics and then created Scientology.

Nobody is saying he was unique, but his discovery, as far as I know, has not been observed by anyone as of yet. I could be wrong. Because this knowledge is part of the workings of the world, not something unique to him, others could make the same discovery in theory and he would welcome it. He was a humble man.

Hee Hee .. thanks for ending my week with a belly laugh.

How the world works goes back to the first civilizations. Power, greed, and dominance.

How much is nature and how much is number is open to debate.

We are screeching feces flinging chimps with weapons of mass destruction. When chimps get pissed off they fling feces at each other. We do it with words.

We are genetically close to chimps which is why we study chimp behavior.

That Trump won with a comfortable margin should tell you something about humanity.

There is no philosophy or -ism or -ology that is going to change the course of history.

Today there is an existential battle between authoritarianism and western liberal democracy. The fate of the USA may be determined by the next 4 years of Trump.

 

[pood]

Except where it doesn’t, as with quantum indeterminism.

Referring, of course, to Steve’s physical causality remark.

 

[peacegirl]

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or comp

Peacegirl

We know that is false today. Nothing happens without a cause.

Steve, this just shows me you didn't understand what he wrote. All he was saying is that everything that occurs is in the present. We think in the present. We act in the present. And we live our lives from moment to moment in the present. This doesn't mean what we think and do doesn't have reasons behind them that push us in a particular direction, but you can't use this reasoning to say that we are caused by antecedent events to do what we do without our consent, which I think Pood was objecting to. In that sense, he is right because nothing from the past (no antecedent event) can force us to do what we make up our minds not to do. This is the other side of the equation that is essential to understand for this discovery to make sense. We have the freedom (yes, the freedom) to resist choosing what determinism (the way it's presently defined) would say we must. IOW, determinism cannot dictate what we have to do if we don't want to do it. It's that simple. This was the entire point of the two-sided equation which no one understands. Only looking back can we know that whatever was chosen could not have been otherwise. Lessans was only highlighting that the past is gone and cannot be used to force our present decisions. Our memories allow us, in the present, to mull over our options from the data we have acquired from our everyday experiences. It is a semantic mistake to say that the past caused... and has created a lot of confusion which, if not corrected, will never be able to reconcile these two opposing thought systems although determinism wins, hands down. When Lessans says: They were compelled, of their own free will, this means they were compelled to do what they did BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO. They didn't do it against their will, they wanted to do it because they had no better choice at that moment.

Before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step-by-step manner. This dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years, and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively, not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

Who says otherwise Steve?

Statistically we know if you grow up poor and lack a primary education you have a higher chance of ending up in jail. Environment does matter.

Very true which is what discovery prevents!

I pick up a rock and throw it at a window, with god like powers I have determined the fate of a window in the future. I have changed the course of the universe!!!

You have caused the window to break. If you want to think of it as changing the course of the universe, it’s no different than any choice that is made.

All of our choices have a ripple effect; some having a greater immediate impact than others. This discovery changes the trajectory of what we do by not picking up a rock and throwing it at a window with god like powers. Can't you see that by changing the environment we live in to a degree never before experienced, we can change today which, in turn, will change the tomorrow?

Past, present, and future are arbitrary words.

Not really. We all know what these terms mean.

A philosophical view. Physical reality including our brains are continuous physical processes.

But the past is not the present and the present is not the future, according to the dictionary definition that we all use. If I say this happened in the past, you know exactly what I mean. You don't answer by saying, "I don't know what you're talking about because in philosophy physical reality includig our brains are continuous physical processes.

True

Thoughts are the result of chemical presses in the brain.

True. And???

Past, present, and future are language concepts that we use for communication. Physically causality rules.

But these concepts represent something that we can understand, or we wouldn't be able to make sense of anything. Some concepts don't correspond to anything real such as flying elephants. They are just empty words that have no corresponding reality at all. The meaning of the past can be understood even though it is no longer here.

 

[pood]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Yes, peacegirl, it is EXACTLY because of delayed light. If everyone saw everything instantly as you claim, everyone would agree with what they see. But they don’t, because of delayed seeing.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

Since the theory of relativity is correct, his claims are wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl you are not living in the real world.

The source of conflict and suffering are well known and understood.

Religion, ethnicity, racial identity, economics, land.

The source of the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Arabs vs Persians - Shiite vs Sunni Muslims, goes back centuries. Racial and religious identities.

The Gaza war goes back 2000 years when Israel fell to Rome.

The problem is how to effect change. Successive Ame can governments and Europens have trued to broker peace in the Mid East and it always fails.

Religion is ingrained in the conflicts and none of them will listen to any secular morality or philosophy.

Conflicts in Africa are often tribal related. Group identities.

There is no philosophy that will make a dent in nay of that.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

After all my time on the forum in general I no longer read trough links yours in detail, they all tend to take the same form. A conflation of philosophical ramblings mixed with a bit of science.

I can go back to my meanderings in the 70s.

Here is one for you. General Semantics which I think has a following today, GS claims to know what causes our ills and the cure.

Loading…

ilam3d.wordpress.com

So your author is not unique, but he is obscure compared to more enduing writers.

One of the more successful was L Ron Hubbard who started with his Dianetics and then created Scientology.

Nobody is saying he was unique, but his discovery, as far as I know, has not been observed by anyone as of yet. I could be wrong. Because this knowledge is part of the workings of the world, not something unique to him, others could make the same discovery in theory and he would welcome it. He was a humble man.

Hee Hee .. thanks for ending my week with a belly laugh.

I hope it's a good belly laugh, but not at anyone's expense.

How the world works goes back to the first civilizations. Power, greed, and dominance.

Just because something has always been doesn't mean it has to continue. Our nature is still the same. People will have power grabs, greed, and dominance as long as they feel it's in their best interest. But this changes with the new environment.

How much is nature and how much is number is open to debate.

Nature accounts for a small part in how our behavior is expressed; nurture plays a more dominant role.

We are screeching feces flinging chimps with weapons of mass destruction. When chimps get pissed off they fling feces at each other. We do it with words.

Our world is getting more and more dangerous. It's worth paying attention to what the author is saying.

We are genetically close to chimps which is why we study chimp behavior.

We may be close to chimps in some ways, but we have a greater intellectual capacity to reason and figure things out.

That Trump won with a comfortable margin should tell you something about humanity.

People are scared of what's going on. Inflation is at an all-time high and most people will vote for someone whom they believe will be able to help them survive in this dog-eat-dog world.

There is no philosophy or -ism or -ology that is going to change the course of history.

Says who?

Today there is an existential battle between authoritarianism and western liberal democracy. The fate of the USA may be determined by the next 4 years of Trump.

The USA will live on no matter who becomes president. Hopefully, all of the issues that are most important will be on the forefront of the president's agenda and make America great again, and healthy again.

 

[pood]

The USA will live on no matter who becomes president. Hopefully, all of the issues that are most important will be on the forefront of the president's agenda and make America great again, and healthy again.

Right, you are a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. And your Orange Monster, who is the very antithesis of not hurting others, has put anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s health. Very good, peacegirl. Now you and RFK Jr. may get your fondest wish, the recurrence in a big way not just of Covid but of measles, smallpox and polio, to name but three. Diseases that in the past have killed and maimed countless people but all went away because of … vaccines.

 

[steve_bank]

Belly laugh number 2.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl you are not living in the real world.

The source of conflict and suffering are well known and understood.

That's a start. We have to know the cause of a conflict in order to fix it.

Religion, ethnicity, racial identity, economics, land.

Prejudice exists. Religion is often used as a weapon. Racial identity is a person's birthright. Unfortunately, some races have been given more opportunity than others although this is changing. Working out how to divide land in the Middle East is of extreme importance. Even though the conflict feels impossible to solve, there can be a resolution so that it's a win-win for all people.

The source of the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Arabs vs Persians - Shiite vs Sunni Muslims, goes back centuries. Racial and religious identities.

It all comes down to self-preservation. That's the major source of all of these conflicts as well as cultural dictates which tell people what they can and cannot do. We have all heard of parents killing their own children because they fell in love with someone from another tribe. Sad!

The Gaza war goes back 2000 years when Israel fell to Rome.

It continues because nothing has been resolved. That doesn't mean it can't be, but the distrust between Israel and the surrounding countries forces Israel to keep strict boundaries. Children learn to hate each other. This is not natural; it's how they've been taught. But this can change quickly when this knowledge is understood and applied. Two thousand years in relation to earth's existence isn't that long.

The problem is how to effect change. Successive Ame can governments and Europens have trued to broker peace in the Mid East and it always fails.

Religion is ingrained in the conflicts and none of them will listen to any secular morality or philosophy.

I can't even begin to tell you of all the changes that are going to take place. Religion as an institution is going to die out eventually because it won't be needed. It's hard to even envision how the world will look many years into the future when these changes take place.

Conflicts in Africa are often tribal related. Group identities.

There is no philosophy that will make a dent in nay of that.

I understand all that. This is not about philosophy. This is about securing people with what they need but we haven't developed to the point where we can broker peace because the conflicts haven't been resolved. People want peace, they don't want war and death, but they don't know how to achieve it and neither do the leaders of other governments, even though they're doing their best to help. Unfortunately, if they help one group of people, the other group retaliates. It's a constant attack and counterattack. It's a never-ending cycle of destruction and despair.

 

[bilby]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye. The eye contains pigments which respond to being struck by photons, by initiating a cascade of chemical changes, which result in a nerve impulse. This impulse travels along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the observer's brain, where it is interpreted as an image of the distant object.

In this way, an observer can see an object, despite the object being at a distance, by interpreting the pattern of other objects (photons), which physically travel across that distance.

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

If the question is "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?", we could say "Knights Choice ran faster than any of the other horses". We could say "Knights Choice was rocket propelled". We could even say "Knights Choice teleported to the finish line". All of these are answers, (though some are wrong answers, and some require a lot of fleshing out).

Answering "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?" by saying "Knights Choice was the winner because the winning horse was called Knights Choice" is not a wrong answer. It's not an answer at all.

So, let's try again:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

 

[peacegirl]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Yes, peacegirl, it is EXACTLY because of delayed light. If everyone saw everything instantly as you claim, everyone would agree with what they see. But they don’t, because of delayed seeing.

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye. You will find a way to make it appear that they can do this like in the lever example. You shouldn't have to train a dog to push a lever to show recognition. They obviously need their sense of smell to confirm what it is they see. This conflict hasn't gone away and telling me he's wrong doesn't make it so.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

Since the theory of relativity is correct, his claims are wrong.

If he's wrong, then his observations would be wrong, so explain to me why dogs cannot recognize their master when there are no other cues to help them. In all this time, you can't answer me. You only find stuff online that doesn't even relate to what is being asked.

 

[peacegirl]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye.

Wrong.

The eye contains pigments which respond to being struck by photons, by initiating a cascade of chemical changes, which result in a nerve impulse. This impulse travels along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the observer's brain, where it is interpreted as an image of the distant object.

Correct. This occurs in efferent vision as well other than the light being at the eye instantly with no travel time. The impulse traveling along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, where it is interpreted, is correct.

In this way, an observer can see an object, despite the object being at a distance, by interpreting the pattern of other objects (photons), which physically travel across that distance.

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

If the question is "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?", we could say "Knights Choice ran faster than any of the other horses". We could say "Knights Choice was rocket propelled". We could even say "Knights Choice teleported to the finish line". All of these are answers, (though some are wrong answers, and some require a lot of fleshing out).

Answering "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?" by saying "Knights Choice was the winner because the winning horse was called Knights Choice" is not a wrong answer. It's not an answer at all.

So, let's try again:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Through efferent vision. I'm not going to paste what that means. He explained how the brain and eyes work and why no image or information from the object is traveling through long distances to cause us to see it. Distance is not a factor in efferent vision because light is at the eye instantly when the object is in our field of view. The belief is that the object is reflecting the image which then travels through space/time to get to our eyes. In efferent vision, there is no travel time whatsoever and there is no teleportation. You didn't read the mechanism as to how efferent vision works, so why should I post it again when you said you don't read anything? I'm not going to write this in my own words because there will be gaps and then you will say his observations came out of his arse. No way I'm risking that. You may still disagree but to disagree before you even understand his reasoning is not what you would do if he were a well-known philosopher. It reminds me of a famous musician who was playing his violin at a train station, and no one paid any attention to him. They walked right by with no notice of his beautiful chords. Little did they know he just came back from a concert nearby where he was given honors for being one of the greats of all time.

 

[pood]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

 

[pood]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye.

Wrong.

The eye contains pigments which respond to being struck by photons, by initiating a cascade of chemical changes, which result in a nerve impulse. This impulse travels along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the observer's brain, where it is interpreted as an image of the distant object.

Correct. This occurs in efferent vision as well other than the light being at the eye instantly with no travel time. The impulse traveling along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, where it is interpreted, is correct.

In this way, an observer can see an object, despite the object being at a distance, by interpreting the pattern of other objects (photons), which physically travel across that distance.

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

If the question is "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?", we could say "Knights Choice ran faster than any of the other horses". We could say "Knights Choice was rocket propelled". We could even say "Knights Choice teleported to the finish line". All of these are answers, (though some are wrong answers, and some require a lot of fleshing out).

Answering "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?" by saying "Knights Choice was the winner because the winning horse was called Knights Choice" is not a wrong answer. It's not an answer at all.

So, let's try again:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Through efferent vision. I'm not going to paste what that means. He explained how the brain and eyes work and why no image or information from the object is traveling through long distances to cause us to see it. Distance is not a factor in efferent vision because light is at the eye instantly when the object is in our field of view. The belief is that the object is reflecting the image which then travels through space/time to get to our eyes. In efferent vision, there is no travel time whatsoever and there is no teleportation. You didn't read the mechanism as to how efferent vision works, so why should I post it again when you said you don't read anything? I'm not going to write this in my own words because there will be gaps and then you will say his observations came out of his arse. No way I'm risking that. You may still disagree but to disagree before you even understand his reasoning is not what you would do if he were a well-known philosopher. It reminds me of a famous musician who was playing his violin at a train station, and no one paid any attention to him. They walked right by with no notice of his beautiful chords. Little did they know he just came back from a concert nearby where he was given honors for being one of the greats of all time.

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

 

[DBT]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

It's more than 'a present theory.' It is observed and tested fact. The speed of light has been measured.

A scientific theory is not arbitrary, but a narrative that explains a set of facts.

The narrative may be altered if new information comes along, yet the facts remain: light does in fact have a speed, and what we see is in fact delayed by the distance travelled.

 

[peacegirl]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

 

[peacegirl]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye.

Wrong.

The eye contains pigments which respond to being struck by photons, by initiating a cascade of chemical changes, which result in a nerve impulse. This impulse travels along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the observer's brain, where it is interpreted as an image of the distant object.

Correct. This occurs in efferent vision as well other than the light being at the eye instantly with no travel time. The impulse traveling along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, where it is interpreted, is correct.

In this way, an observer can see an object, despite the object being at a distance, by interpreting the pattern of other objects (photons), which physically travel across that distance.

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

If the question is "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?", we could say "Knights Choice ran faster than any of the other horses". We could say "Knights Choice was rocket propelled". We could even say "Knights Choice teleported to the finish line". All of these are answers, (though some are wrong answers, and some require a lot of fleshing out).

Answering "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?" by saying "Knights Choice was the winner because the winning horse was called Knights Choice" is not a wrong answer. It's not an answer at all.

So, let's try again:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Through efferent vision. I'm not going to paste what that means. He explained how the brain and eyes work and why no image or information from the object is traveling through long distances to cause us to see it. Distance is not a factor in efferent vision because light is at the eye instantly when the object is in our field of view. The belief is that the object is reflecting the image which then travels through space/time to get to our eyes. In efferent vision, there is no travel time whatsoever and there is no teleportation. You didn't read the mechanism as to how efferent vision works, so why should I post it again when you said you don't read anything? I'm not going to write this in my own words because there will be gaps and then you will say his observations came out of his arse. No way I'm risking that. You may still disagree but to disagree before you even understand his reasoning is not what you would do if he were a well-known philosopher. It reminds me of a famous musician who was playing his violin at a train station, and no one paid any attention to him. They walked right by with no notice of his beautiful chords. Little did they know he just came back from a concert nearby where he was given honors for being one of the greats of all time.

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

This is getting nuttier by the minute. You didn't read the book either Pood. You are just winging it and you know it. These examples aren't even related.

Loading…

www.vicphysics.org

 

[peacegirl]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye.

Wrong.

The eye contains pigments which respond to being struck by photons, by initiating a cascade of chemical changes, which result in a nerve impulse. This impulse travels along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the observer's brain, where it is interpreted as an image of the distant object.

Correct. This occurs in efferent vision as well other than the light being at the eye instantly with no travel time. The impulse traveling along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, where it is interpreted, is correct.

In this way, an observer can see an object, despite the object being at a distance, by interpreting the pattern of other objects (photons), which physically travel across that distance.

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

If the question is "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?", we could say "Knights Choice ran faster than any of the other horses". We could say "Knights Choice was rocket propelled". We could even say "Knights Choice teleported to the finish line". All of these are answers, (though some are wrong answers, and some require a lot of fleshing out).

Answering "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?" by saying "Knights Choice was the winner because the winning horse was called Knights Choice" is not a wrong answer. It's not an answer at all.

So, let's try again:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Through efferent vision. I'm not going to paste what that means. He explained how the brain and eyes work and why no image or information from the object is traveling through long distances to cause us to see it. Distance is not a factor in efferent vision because light is at the eye instantly when the object is in our field of view. The belief is that the object is reflecting the image which then travels through space/time to get to our eyes. In efferent vision, there is no travel time whatsoever and there is no teleportation. You didn't read the mechanism as to how efferent vision works, so why should I post it again when you said you don't read anything? I'm not going to write this in my own words because there will be gaps and then you will say his observations came out of his arse. No way I'm risking that. You may still disagree but to disagree before you even understand his reasoning is not what you would do if he were a well-known philosopher. It reminds me of a famous musician who was playing his violin at a train station, and no one paid any attention to him. They walked right by with no notice of his beautiful chords. Little did they know he just came back from a concert nearby where he was given honors for being one of the greats of all time.

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

Yes he did. He said something to the effect that he does not read. Maybe not in those exact words but I'm not going to look for the post. Bilby, would you please clarify what you said so we are not in suspense?

 

[DBT]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye.

Wrong.

The eye contains pigments which respond to being struck by photons, by initiating a cascade of chemical changes, which result in a nerve impulse. This impulse travels along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the observer's brain, where it is interpreted as an image of the distant object.

Correct. This occurs in efferent vision as well other than the light being at the eye instantly with no travel time. The impulse traveling along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, where it is interpreted, is correct.

In this way, an observer can see an object, despite the object being at a distance, by interpreting the pattern of other objects (photons), which physically travel across that distance.

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

If the question is "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?", we could say "Knights Choice ran faster than any of the other horses". We could say "Knights Choice was rocket propelled". We could even say "Knights Choice teleported to the finish line". All of these are answers, (though some are wrong answers, and some require a lot of fleshing out).

Answering "How did Knights Choice win the Melbourne Cup?" by saying "Knights Choice was the winner because the winning horse was called Knights Choice" is not a wrong answer. It's not an answer at all.

So, let's try again:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Through efferent vision. I'm not going to paste what that means. He explained how the brain and eyes work and why no image or information from the object is traveling through long distances to cause us to see it. Distance is not a factor in efferent vision because light is at the eye instantly when the object is in our field of view. The belief is that the object is reflecting the image which then travels through space/time to get to our eyes. In efferent vision, there is no travel time whatsoever and there is no teleportation. You didn't read the mechanism as to how efferent vision works, so why should I post it again when you said you don't read anything? I'm not going to write this in my own words because there will be gaps and then you will say his observations came out of his arse. No way I'm risking that. You may still disagree but to disagree before you even understand his reasoning is not what you would do if he were a well-known philosopher. It reminds me of a famous musician who was playing his violin at a train station, and no one paid any attention to him. They walked right by with no notice of his beautiful chords. Little did they know he just came back from a concert nearby where he was given honors for being one of the greats of all time.

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

This is getting nuttier by the minute. You didn't read the book either Pood. You are just winging it and you know it. These examples aren't even related.

Loading…

www.vicphysics.org

I'm still no wiser on how instantly seeing - light at the eye - stars that are light years away is possible or how it's supposed to work.