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

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

The models are true in that the models are predicative.

The computer you use is designed using models of physics including how light propagates. Maxwell's Equations. Been there done that.

The GPS system is affected by time dilation and time delay of light. Satellites at a different gravitational potential and speed than ground stations. It has to be corrected for or the GPS system would not work.

We have not had a science denier on the forum in a long time. The efficacy of science is manifested in all the technology you use and do not understand.

When you fly on a jet onboard weather RADAR to find storms, voice radio, and GPS. VOR aviation navigation system. Very High Frequency Omni Directional Range.

Nothing in your posts or the book offers a testable predictable model for what you claim.

So, deny away. It is not a violation of the constitution or forum rules.
I'm not saying there is no relativity. But relativity does not necessarily cancel out real time vision. I'm going to read this. It is right up your alley.

 
PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.
Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.
No I don't. But she did the same thread many years ago somewhere else. Maybe ratskep or talkrational.org or Dawkins old forum. It went for a long time
 
The models are true in that the models are predicative.

The computer you use is designed using models of physics including how light propagates. Maxwell's Equations. Been there done that.

The GPS system is affected by time dilation and time delay of light. Satellites at a different gravitational potential and speed than ground stations. It has to be corrected for or the GPS system would not work.

We have not had a science denier on the forum in a long time. The efficacy of science is manifested in all the technology you use and do not understand.

When you fly on a jet onboard weather RADAR to find storms, voice radio, and GPS. VOR aviation navigation system. Very High Frequency Omni Directional Range.

Nothing in your posts or the book offers a testable predictable model for what you claim.

So, deny away. It is not a violation of the constitution or forum rules.
I'm not saying there is no relativity. But relativity does not necessarily cancel out real time vision. I'm going to read this. It is right up your alley.

As you will no define what you mean by real time vision I can not respond, and I am not going to look for it.

The onus is on you the OP creator to unambiguously define terms.

By real time vision s meant a,b,c....

I am watching a rock and it moves. Under real time vision the reflected light changes and delayed by C travels to my eyes and then....

One example is worth a thousand posts.

In my career I managed tb touch on most of technology. So posting links is notgoing to have any effect on me.
 
Last edited:
PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.
Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.

Started in 2014 and was almost identical discussion
 
PeaceGirl, you must have really loved your father. I think that's beautiful. I remember this thread from another message board. Maybe talk rational or Richard Dawkins forum? At the time I read quite a bit of what you offered of his book and iirc you were asking people to buy the book for more. Is that still the case?

Anyway, I have entirely forgotten the contents so I just skimmed the intro and ToC of the book and I have to say that, while the sentiment seems nice and there may even be some valuable insight available in the book, deliverance from evil isn't really something I feel strongly about and anyway evil is in the eye of the beholder.

I remember another person who had a very similar argument using determinism in much the same way. His name was Ontic at Talk Rational, maybe he posts here. If so, you could find something of a kindred spirit there.

Aside from that, in a complexity regime which is what life is, causality is only a coherent concept at very gross levels. Rather emergence and adaptation are the foundations and static equilibrium doesn't happen at all. There is no end state. Or, that's my paradigm and it's very useful to me. Determinism is great in closed systems with few interactions. Outside of that, everything is caused by everything so I can't really go down this road with you. Also, I am already as happy as I want to be and the rest of the world is on their own as far as that goes. They all seem to be a bit crazy to me.

Anyway, thanks for having the link posted.

Peace out
When you get rid of causality you can imagine anything.

Gods. demons, magic spells, and most importantly somethings something form nothing.

Elaborate on what you men by causality being a gross level.
Causality outside of a controlled and mostly closed system has only general applicability in exceedingly limited domains. They just happen to be the domains that involve material stuff, chemistry and physics. In ecology or society, it is a display of ignorance to isolate a cause and claim it is universal. The whole system is the cause and the whole system is the effect and ceteris paribus just means not anything like reality. All things can never be equal once adaptive pattern begin. Nature has no closed systems.

Most people here will likely want to argue about this and you would probably find that my position is far more reasonable than it appears but causality becomes theoretic very quickly in any sociological context which is what is happening here and tends to be easier to make sense of under the framework of emergence. And I probably don't have the time to do a proper thread so you might just have to be mad at me for making an assertion.

Here is a quick Google first hit that gets at the nomenclature issue:
 
.

Anyway, thanks for having the link posted.

Peace out
When you get rid of causality you can imagine anything.

Gods. demons, magic spells, and most importantly somethings something form nothing.

Elaborate on what you men by causality being a gross level.
It's interesting that you went straight to what happens when you get to imagine. But gods demons etc would still be causal, no?

I don't mean that there isn't an arrow of time. I mean that our ideas of causality tend to be reductionistic in the same way as most physics and chemistry is. Dependent and independent variables and causes being describable in less than 14b years worth of writing.

But a short amount of time working with complex adaptive systems as such makes it quite clear that our notions of causality are not as generalizable as we tend to assume. Causality does not begin at the low level and transfer to each higher level of organization the way we think it would. Each level requires it's own causal language. Hence my use of the word gross.
 
PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.
Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.

Started in 2014 and was almost identical discussion
Thread got so long it needed to be split and restarted to ease strain on the database.

 
PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.
Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.
No I don't. But she did the same thread many years ago somewhere else. Maybe ratskep or talkrational.org or Dawkins old forum. It went for a long time
It is her father.

She had the same thread here some fifteen years ago here at iidb. Don’t know how long it went.

She has a thread at the Freethought Forum that began in 2011 and has been active on and off for 13 glorious years, with more than 2,000 pages.

Everywhere it is the same. The two-sided equation. The eye is not a sense organ. In the New World gays will disappear. In the new world boys and goils, as the author calls them, will fall in love with each other’s sex organs. Etc.

Everyone everywhere responds with amazement and incredulity and sets about the task of educating her. Everywhere the result is the same. Failure to educate her.
 
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakensWha the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him.
OK. So, when a child sees the stars, is it the sound, taste, texture, or smell of them that lets him know they are there?
What are you talking about bilby?
I am asking a simple question. When anybody sees the stars for the first time, or indeed, any subsequent time, what informs him that they are there? Which sense is being employed? If none are, how dies he know the stars exist?
When a baby is born, he cannot focus his eyes until there is a desire to see due to the other senses stimulating this desire.
Leaving aside that this is a bald assertion, and that: a) That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence; And b) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it even fails to be a response to my question, which was not about babies at all.
But babies are what explains what is happening. You cannot leave it out because you want to prove him wrong.
This is exactly why READING THE ENTIRE CHAPTER is the only way you will be able to understand his full explanation. Without it, you're just guessing what he means.
Turnabout is fair play; Your response here is clearly not to the actual question I asked, but to a vaguely related question that you had a boilerplate answer for.
Stop being aggressive. You are not the ultimate arbiter of truth bilby. I cannot talk to someone who puts me on trial. I will not be put in this defensive position.
 
PeaceGirl, there are a couple of really relevant topics out there you might be interested in. General Semantics is one, Zen Buddhism is the other.

Your father's work was for a different time. Maybe you could update it.
Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

She did say she was marketing the book.
No I don't. But she did the same thread many years ago somewhere else. Maybe ratskep or talkrational.org or Dawkins old forum. It went for a long time
It is her father.

She had the same thread here some fifteen years ago here at iidb. Don’t know how long it went.

She has a thread at the Freethought Forum that began in 2011 and has been active on and off for 13 glorious years, with more than 2,000 pages.

Everywhere it is the same. The two-sided equation. The eye is not a sense organ. In the New World gays will disappear. In the new world boys and goils, as the author calls them, will fall in love with each other’s sex organs. Etc.

Everyone everywhere responds with amazement and incredulity and sets about the task of educating her. Everywhere the result is the same. Failure to educate her.
Pood, you are so mad at me that you put things online that are absolutely crazy. I hope people see this for what it is.
 
Putting RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s health would be like putting your writer in charge of NASA.
That is correct. Lessans did not come from a physics background which is why you can't imagine someone proving what appears to be absolutely and positively beyond reproach.
 
Pood, you are so mad at me that you put things online that are absolutely crazy. I hope people see this for what it is.

Ad hominem. And all that stuff is in the book, peacegirl. Oh, and, it will be mathematically impossible for a married couple to desire to share the same bed. That is in there, too.
 
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? :confused2:

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.
That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.


It doesn’t matter what it is. We can't see, feel, taste or smell anything before our senses acquire the information and the brain processes it, and that is a sequence of events that takes time.
You keep bringing this up. This is not what he is referring to. We are talking about delayed sight versus real time sight, not processing. There is a difference between these two mechanisms. If it is established finally that we see in real time, no one is going to say that processing the information means there is a processing delay that keeps delayed vision in place.

Processing information is a part of the delay between the event and seeing the event, where light information from the event takes nanoseconds to arrive at eyes and milliseconds for the brain to process and convert into conscious form.
Processing is not what they're talking about when they say we see in delayed time. The light is either bringing the world to us in delayed time, or the world is being revealed to us by light's presence.

He is talking about processing in addition to delayed-time seeing. Yes, the world is being revealed to us by light’s presence, but it takes the light time to get to us to do that, and the greater the distance, the longer it takes. A good demonstration of this is found in Io and Jupiter, which disproves real-time seeing.
Maybe there is an alternate explanation. Have you EVER thought of that?
 
Why are you pulling things out of context again and again? Why? You are trying to hurt the author, that's why. It's disgusting.
 
Why are you pulling things out of context again and again? Why? You are trying to hurt the author, that's why. It's disgusting.

In what context does, “boys and goils will fall in love in love with each other’s sex organs” become less wrong and less disgusting?
 
You didn't read the book either Pood.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone who doesn't agree with the book must not have read the book. This is absolutely false, for any book.

But it widely believed by religionists, of their own favourite book(s).
No one has read the book, bilby, not even Pood. I will bet my right arm that he hasn't read it because he doesn't own it, he never did. All these years he just grabbed excerpts and made fun of the author when it was taken out of context. The author also created some humor as comic relief. But as time went on, the aggression got worse and worse. I'll never go through that again.

You took all the humor out, the best stuff in the book, about the “juicy, juicy C’s,” the ur-Penis etc.

And yes, I have read all of the relevant stuff about light and sight, and it’s wrong, for reasons indicated.
It was not taken out of his 6 books. It was taken out of my compilation because of the people act when they see a dirty word that is not dirty.

You are the most willfully ignorant person I've ever met.

A NOTE TO THE READER​



THE SECRET was the author’s 5th attempt to demonstrate a scientific discovery which has the power to prevent what no one wants; war, crime, and many other evils plaguing mankind. Very few people when first reading Chapter One, which follows, will believe these changes are possible. However, mathematical proof is undeniably established as the text is read chapter by chapter in the order it was written. It is important that you refrain from opening the book at random, which would be equivalent to trying to understand a mathematical equation with the first half missing.

The problem of responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. This longstanding conflict in the free will/determinism debate has caused a rift in philosophical circles which makes this perplexing conundrum appear insolvable. It is important to bear in mind that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is actually going on in reality. This is a crucial point since the reconciliation of these two opposing thought systems (while proving determinism true and free will false) is THE SECRET that opens the door to a world of peace and brotherhood.

Before starting, I would like to clarify a few things. The author used dialogue as a way to make the book as reader friendly as possible, as these concepts may feel foreign at first. Please be aware that he used humor in his writing as a form of comic relief. This does not detract from the seriousness of the subject matter. The word God is used throughout the book which is a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. This is not a religious work. I would also like to clarify his use of terminology. For example, the words ‘mathematical,’ and ‘scientific,’ in this context, only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the book. In the chapter on marriage there is some sexually explicit language. This is an adult book and therefore should not be read by anybody who may be offended.

The author described his discovery as a two-sided equation, although it has nothing to do with numbers per se. Throughout the book he uses the phrase “compelled, of his own free will” which may sound contradictory at first blush. The expression, “of his own free will,” is used in a colloquial sense, which only means that he was not being coerced or forced to do anything against his will. It does not mean his will is free. You will understand this much better as you read the text chapter by chapter. For those familiar with this topic, this knowledge has nothing to do with compatibilism, so please don’t jump to premature conclusions. When the 20th century is mentioned, this was the time the author lived. Sadly, he passed away in 1991 at the age of 72 before he was able to see his discovery brought to light. Although some of the examples are outdated, the discovery itself couldn’t be timelier. The prediction that this new world would become a reality between 1975-1980 was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Unfortunately, there has been no such investigation, and this discovery remains in obscurity.
 
Back
Top Bottom