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

[pood]

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.

lol. Project much?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

You had me right up to the part about math playing a role

 

[pood]

I'm not saying there is no relativity. But relativity does not necessarily cancel out real time vision.

Yes, it does. The whole reason relativity arises is precisely because of delayed seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

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?

Why does this bother you so much Pood? He was just trying to imitate a child. What are you trying to do? If people here are smart, they will see your agenda without any justification. You are hurting the author for no reason other than you want him to be wrong and you want to be right, and you'll do dirty to make this happen.

 

[pood]

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26386594_Relativity_in_the_Global_Positioning_System

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.

She has already defined this. If God turned on the sun at noon we would see it immediately, even though the light from it won’t arrive for some eight minutes.

 

[pood]

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?

Why does this bother you so much Pood? He was just trying to imitate a child. What are you trying to do? If people here are smart, they will see your agenda without any justification. You are hurting the author for no reason other than you want him to be wrong and you want to be right, and you'll do dirty to make this happen.

Ad hominem.

OK, so he was trying to imitate a child. Fine. That is not the issue. The issue is falling in love with each other’s sex organs. Would you care to provide the “context” that makes his claim any less wrong and repulsive?

 

[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?

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.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

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.

No, revealing or uncovering something is different than bringing something.

 

[peacegirl]

That we see the image from delayed light and therefore we see the past is the present-day take on what is happening, but I still say that there are reasons that made Lessans say they got it wrong.

Yet there are multiple lines of evidence to support the speed of light, distance travelled, etc. And I still don't understand how Lassan's point of view on this point relates modifying human behaviour in order to make the world a better place.

It doesn’t.

Yes it does. Did you read post 1086? ...snip

Post 1086 (Which can be read here: https://iidb.org/threads/revolution...-determinism-and-free-will.28694/post-1229786) does not show or describe any connection between seeing objects in real time and any change in human behavior. Also, he spends a ridiculous number of words just explaining what "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" means, As if we don't already know. And then never really seems to get back to the supposed point.

He is explaining why beauty and ugliness are not part of the real world. This is conditioning and he explains what is occurring with the eyes that allow this conditioning to take place. Nor does it make it more accurate when you say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It just changes the screen that the word is projected on. You have no understanding or why it's so important, so be quiet for a change and stop the attacks by taking everything he wrote out of context. It's so ironic. You never cared to read anything in its entirety. You're just one of the trolls from ff and you can't get away from it so easily.

 

[peacegirl]

Ideas as to the mechanism of how something works can look to be completely valid, but the conclusions can be wrong.

Show where they are wrong.

This happens more than you may think. Even in criminal justice, all of the circumstantial evidence looks beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore justifies charging someone with a guilty verdict when in actuality he was innocent. This is not much different.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

So what was his demonstration that explained what he believed was going on? You don't know Pood. Just say it, is it that hard? I DON'T KNOW.

No, I don’t know, because he didn’t given any demonstration! I’ve told you this a million times. Asserting that seeing is efferent (false), that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (false), and that “words are projected onto an undeniable screen of substance” (incomprehensible) are a “demonstration” of exactly nothing.

Bilby explained what a demonstration would be. So, demonstrate.

Um, I will post it again and I'll let bilby, not you, think for himself. You are not the overseer of everyone's thoughts. And words are projected onto a screen. That is what is happening, and of your railing against him making it appear that his words mean nothing is not going to work Pood.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

I've said this so many times, it's nauseating.

Do you mean to say that you think repeating this nonsense will somehow make it true, or somehow get us to accept it?

I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting people to hear him out and then make up their minds. They can think whatever they want but at least give him a fair shake. No one has done that. No one has read the book. I know it was a mistake years ago to try to reach people on forums like this. I just didn't know how it could not only help his cause but hurt it because it takes reading to be able to carefully scrutinize someone's work. No one would dare dispute a well-known philosopher like Sapolsky without reading his book. Damnnnnn it!

And it is making you nauseous that neither is happening?

, not eyes.

This back and forth is getting you nowhere. It doesn't prove you right Pood.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

So what was his demonstration that explained what he believed was going on? You don't know Pood. Just say it, is it that hard? I DON'T KNOW.

This is not comprehensive and it doesn't show why it's important. He did show what he believed was going on. Take it or leave it. Some people will take it and some people will leave it. Consider or don't consider it. Give him a chance or don't give him a chance. The truth will remain.

The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we have never understood our true relationship with the external world, which is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is this injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the human race because of physiognomic differences, and this judgment takes place the moment we call one person beautiful and another one ugly, handsome and homely, good looking and bad looking.

“But I have been taught that sticks and stones will break my bones, but names or words will never hurt me. Isn’t that a true statement?”

Actually, I’m not referring to those names. To be called the N word, kike, dirty Jew, wop, pig, or any name used in an effort to make a person feel inferior is actually not a hurt if this does not lower ourselves in our own eyes because we allow for the source. But when we believe we are inferior productions because of words that have told us so, the expression, ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones…’ is completely erroneous since we have been unconsciously hurt. This unconsciousness has its source in the failure to understand how the eyes function, which is revealed by the fact that they are included as one of the five senses. When someone is judged an inferior production of the human race by others, as well as himself, all because of words that have no relation to reality, although he sees this inferiority as if it is a definite part of the real world, then he is seriously hurt, and God is going to put a permanent end to the use of these words. What makes someone remark, “It’s a darn shame she got killed, she was such a pretty girl,” indicating that the tragedy was greater because of this prettiness. What makes parents give their children cosmetic surgery if not to increase their physiognomic value? As a consequence of the belief that one person is more beautiful or handsome than another, which places a greater value on certain features, many people will go to great lengths to correct their ‘imperfections’ by getting breast implants and eyelid surgery, while others will have nose operations and squeeze their teeth together. These operations are not without risk, yet many people are willing to have these cosmetic procedures because they believe it will improve the quality of their lives, and the doctor who must earn a living justifies his professional advice on the undeniable grounds that they will definitely be more attractive when their teeth are together and their nose straightened. After all, what makes someone good looking, cute, adorable, lovely, gorgeous, beautiful, or handsome if not for the belief that certain features or combination of features contain this value called ‘beauty?’ And isn’t it also true that we see these differences with our very eyes? “We do,” you might reply, “but even if we differ as to who is the most beautiful, the real truth is that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” This comment does not reveal the truth at all; instead, it reveals our confusion still more since this expression does not negate the existence of ugliness but only observes a difference of opinion regarding the type features that constitute what is beautiful and ugly. To prove what I mean, could you possibly call Miss America ugly, or the Wicked Witch beautiful? You might disagree with someone as to which girl in a beauty contest should be judged the winner, but none would be considered ugly. I then asked my friend this question to clarify my point.

“Who do you think is more beautiful, Elizabeth Taylor or your girlfriend?”

“How is it possible to answer your question when beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? This is just a matter of opinion, not a fact, and you said these words were symbolic of reality or gave the appearance of being so.”

Let me rephrase the question, “In your eyes, do you consider your girlfriend as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor?”

“No I don’t.”

“In your eyes, is this an opinion that you are less good looking than Paul Newman, or a fact?”

“He is an extremely handsome man, and I do consider him better looking than myself.”

“Who do you consider better looking, Paul Newman or Robert Redford?”

“I say the latter.”

“Not in my book,” commented my friend. “Newman has it all over him.”

“Are you able to see what the expression, ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’ refers to? There is a difference of opinion as to who is better looking in your eyes, but once you admit to yourself that a certain person is more handsome or beautiful than another, then as far as you’re concerned, this is not an opinion but a fact. Take a look at this picture. It is of a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bowlegs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a harelip, and she lisps and stutters. Now compare her with Elizabeth Taylor and tell me the truth. In your eyes, which one is more beautiful?”

“Are you trying to be funny? Elizabeth Taylor naturally, but this is a fact, she is more beautiful. These differences exist and are a definite part of the real world because I see them with my very eyes.”

“Differences exist, this is true, and you do see them with your very eyes, but the words we have been looking through are not, and because these symbols are a terrible hurt, they must come to an end. You will soon have verified that when we use the expression, ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,’ what we are saying in reality is that beauty is only a word existing in the brain of the beholder. To be classified as homely is the greatest injustice, yet every time we use the whole range of words expressing good looks, we do that very thing. You will soon understand how these words developed and how they fooled even the most analytic minds into believing they were true descriptions of reality. The truth is that nobody is beautiful or ugly, just different. However, the first thing I must do is demonstrate exactly why they are words only, not reality, and why they must become obsolete; otherwise, you will classify this kind of evil as one of those unfortunate things like being born without legs, arms, or eyes.”

“I agree with you so far, but let’s assume for a moment that you actually convince us that these words are not symbolic of reality. Why should we or others stop using them if there is greater satisfaction in continuing with them? Just because you teach us that using certain words, whatever they are, is wrong because they are a hurt won’t necessarily stop their use.”

“No, it won’t, but the basic principle will. God is giving us no choice in this matter, as you will soon begin to understand. Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words. To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference to another, or she may prefer to play with one toy over another, but as far as she is concerned, all she sees are a bunch of objects. By constantly hearing certain sounds in relation to specific objects, she soon knows that apple, orange, doll, dress, sun, moon, dog, cat, couch, chair, etc. mean the very things she sees with her eyes. These bits of substance are a definite part of the real world, and she knows this even before learning the words. She has experienced most of these with her four senses, and even though this cannot be done where the sun and moon are concerned, she still sees that something is there. Remember, however, that nothing from the external world strikes her optic nerve to allow her to see these various objects. She simply sees these things because she looks at them. A dog also sees these objects because he looks at them. He tastes, smells, and hears various things, but since nothing strikes his optic nerve, he must confirm what he is doubtful of with his sense of smell.

“But doesn’t the brain take a picture through the eyes of the differences that exist? I can see them through my eyes, why can’t a dog see them through his?”

Because he knows nothing of differences. He enjoys certain objects better than others. He likes his master and dislikes strangers. He likes to eat certain things, and he is drawn to certain females, but there is no way his brain can perceive differences because this involves words. Let us continue. (Sorry about the bold; I couldn't change the text)

As my granddaughter’s eyes are focused on one of our canine friends, I shall repeat the word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away, I stop. This will be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word, which indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these differences, which no one can deny because they are seen through words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words, only I am speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. She soon learns that these bits of substance are different, and that is why they have different names. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. If a picture of her mother flashed on a screen, she would automatically say mommy. She is able to identify her mother because the word is a picture that was taken when the relation was formed and exists in her mind, through which she looks at the differences that exist in substance. My granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other words, as she learns these names and words, her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized, and when she sees these differences again, she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are related to words, names, or slides that we project for recognition. If we lose certain names or words, we will have amnesia because, when we see these ordinarily familiar differences, we are unable to project the words or names necessary for recognition.

​

By the same reasoning, the word Chinese develops not only a negative of differences but of similarities; consequently, when someone is not acquainted with the differences that exist among this race, he only sees that they resemble each other. But if we lived among this group and separated them by their individual names, we would soon see their differences and not their similarities. Seeing similarities is what takes place when someone does not learn colors properly. He may be called colorblind when in reality he is word blind. Supposing we were to teach a child that blue is green, and green is blue and then place him in surroundings where his identification of colors would be tested. Can you imagine how quickly he would be called colorblind? This child would argue that the green is blue, and the blue is green, while the other children, brought up differently, would reverse the argument. If someone gets confused between certain shades of blue and green, it is only because the relation between colors was never accurately photographed. In many cases, colors are learned in a haphazard manner, and if a blue negative was developed when looking at a subtle shade of green, he would see blue just as you would see something blue through blue glasses even though the object was green. This is equivalent to getting confused between certain types of leaves and trees only because these differences were not accurately photographed in relation to the word. For example, if a particular leaf is given a specific name and another leaf resembling this leaf to a degree but still slightly different is given a different name, then when the relation is accurately photographed, the person learning the words will never mistake one for the other. Once children are made to understand that they are referring to the same bit of substance, regardless of the different names used to identify it, then there can be no argument between them. Of course, if a child can’t see a difference before learning the words, then he is genuinely color blind. Here is another example.​

​

If you were taught one word, orange, which included within that symbol a grapefruit and tangerine, you would hand me any one of the three if I asked for an orange, but when you learn the other two words, which photograph the difference, then you could not hand me a tangerine or grapefruit if I asked for an orange. The reason we have a word for the sun and a word for the moon is because these two bodies are different, and the reason we have a planet named Earth, one named Saturn, Venus, etc. is only because these are not one and the same planet, and we have separated them by calling them different names. However, the reason we do not call the moon a planet is because we learned it does not function like one, therefore it does not fall in the same category. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head. In the course of our children’s development, they learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations, not only because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol itself but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you how this was accomplished.​

​

From the time we were small children, our relatives, parents, friends, and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and dislikes regarding people’s physiognomies. The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over and over again with an enhancing inflection as to someone’s physical appearance took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard repeatedly with a detracting inflection as to someone’s physical characteristics took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went on, a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities contained a lesser value than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed only in our head. It would not be long before we would be conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the other, and as we would get older, you would not be able to convince us that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist because we had witnessed these differences with our very eyes. In other words, when a word contains a judgment of value, a standard of perfection, then we are able to project this value directly onto substance, and then because we see this with our very eyes, it was a simple thing to convince ourselves that beauty was a definite part of the real world. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external values when there are no such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie projector.​

​

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look — there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which makes the projection appear real. By having the words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.​

 

[peacegirl]

The belief in the eyes being a sense organ has allowed innumerable words to come into existence, which has caused people to be judged as an inferior production of the human race. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in a world where all such words were removed, where nobody, including ourselves, would be judged in terms of ugliness, homeliness, prettiness, and so forth? Remember, however, that when these negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from seeing differences that appeal to us more, but instead of saying, “She is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen,” which places other girls in a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say, “She appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen,” which makes it obvious that the value we see exists only for us. The first expression requires that ugly girls exist because certain type features are considered superior, while the second expression only observes that other girls appeal to us less, which makes everybody equal in value except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that describe people as good looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad looking, this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality and respect. However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction, although the change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become happy. And are we given a choice when to continue using these words after we have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which we will never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for believing the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes a sense organ when we know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the truth?

It is true, however, that we are so conditioned by these words that even their removal will not make us like someone more who appeals to us less. But when children are brought up without ever hearing these words, there is no telling to whom they might be attracted without being adversely judged. For example, if two boys decide to approach two girls having never been conditioned with words like beautiful and ugly, they might be attracted, without envy, each to the other, but when their heads are filled with fallacious standards of value that have been concealed in words, it is obvious that they will prefer the one that conforms more closely to this standard of perfection or beauty because this meets with greater approval and less criticism. This approval by others is in no way an external value; in other words, your approval of what I do has a value for me, but unless I want this, it has no value for me at all. If I don’t like the criticism, I will try to conform to a standard that avoids what I don’t like, but this is a relation between myself and what exists outside of me.

“Well, is it a fallacious value when certain differences are admired and respected more by the majority of the world? For example, is it a fallacious value when — pardon the fallacious expression — a beautiful girl attracts a millionaire who desires to marry her because of her beauty? I’d say these values are pretty real regardless of whether we call these differences by one name or another, right? If one thousand males have to choose between two females and the entire thousand pick one in preference to the other, do you mean to say that the differences that attracted them are not a part of the external world?”

“Of course these differences are a part of the external world, just as the difference between the moon and the sun is a part of the external world, and just as the difference between a cat and a rat is externally real, but this has nothing to do with value. In other words, if you choose a cat as a pet because you like felines, this has personal value for you. There are some people who like rodents and would pick the rat as their choice, which has personal value for them. In reality, there is no such thing as an external value. If you are drawn to hire an individual because he meets certain requirements or if he judges for himself that he qualifies (as will happen in the new world), this only means that he is more valuable to you, the employer; and if one thousand people think the same way this doesn’t mean that the differences they prefer have external value although the differences in substance are externally real. Value is nothing other than a word to describe what you personally want or like.”

“Do you mean that one man’s meat is another man’s poison... and doesn’t this go back to the idea that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? I’m still confused as to why this expression isn’t correct when it is expressing someone’s personal taste.”

“There is quite a difference between both expressions because meat and poison are external realities, but, as we have learned, beauty has no external reality whatsoever. I may not like certain types of meat, but I don’t create the meat with a word to symbolize its existence, whereas the word beauty does this by placing a greater value on certain specific differences (that undeniably exist and are a part of the external world), which value only has existence for the internal world, that is, for what I personally like or desire. For example, if I call one shaped nose aquiline and another straight, then I am accurately symbolizing an external difference, but if I say a straight nose is beautiful and an aquiline nose is ugly, then I am projecting through my eyes an internal value that has no external existence onto a screen of differences that are externally undeniable. Consequently, when any words are used that contain an internal value, something that you recognize as having more value for you, which is then projected as a part of the external world, it is then made to appear that this value exists outside of you because you see it with your very eyes. As a result of words, man was actually able to do the impossible. He was able to stratify differences in people into layers of value when it is mathematically impossible for anything of value to exist in the external world. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in an atmosphere where there were no values that were imposed as standards by the unconscious or conscious judgment of others?”

Supposing two girls living on earth, presently called ugly, were placed on a planet where no such word exists, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent them from living a normal life because the males there would never judge them in terms of ugliness, for no such thing exists except as a projection of our realistic imagination. What one man may like when no words such as beautiful and ugly are present to condition him — and there is no criticism for the choice that appeals to him most — might be a girl that has a stocky build, small breasts, and protruding ears. Here on earth, these girls are handicapped from the day of their birth because their particular features have been assigned more or less value as a result of these differences. They are constantly judged, not in any personal or direct manner, but in a way that cannot easily be corrected because they are seen through this kaleidoscope of negatives that transforms them realistically into what they are not. Every other word we use stratifies external differences, which cannot be denied, into fallacious standards and values that appear realistic only because they are confirmed with our eyes (with the direct perception of our sense of sight) and our unconscious syllogistic reasoning, which employ words as realities. The unhappiness resulting from these words is both manifold and manifest in the very fact that people develop a complex of inferiority and are forced to compensate by becoming the life of the party or by making themselves visible in other ways. Not realizing that it was the word itself that was the source of the problem, those that were considered ugly were compelled to go through life feeling less than others in physiognomic value. How many times have you heard someone intending to be nice but with a tone of pity remark, “She isn’t pretty, but she has a nice personality,” which becomes the consolation prize. This girl has to remove herself from the competition and get approval some other way in order to make up for this imaginary lack. Although you look back with smiling incredulity to the days of yore and wonder about the many ignorant beliefs that our ancestors used to imagine were true, is it possible for your professors to believe that they are not any more educated or intelligent than anybody else? As a further consequence of these fallacious differences that do not exist in reality but are only a projection of deceptive relations, they have been led to believe that they are more important than someone else, more valuable in the scheme of things, and from this source a host of evils stem. Have they any conception that these are only words? In reality, no one is more intelligent or educated than anyone else, as you will soon understand. There are many more words that will go by the wayside, such as brilliant, genius, a brain, etc., because they do not accurately describe reality for what it is (and will be discussed in the chapter on education). It is absolutely true that just as long as others judge you as more beautiful or valuable when your physiognomy conforms to an accepted standard, or more educated or valuable when you learn or do certain things, there is ample justification to change yourself to suit them, which is the reason many people have nose operations, squeeze their teeth together, develop a huge vocabulary, walk, talk, and act in definite ways. The individuals who are considered educated, intelligent, or beautiful may not like to be told that they are none of these things, but there is a big difference between the people considered to possess these values and the ones who do not. It is difficult to contemplate the extent to which we have all been influenced by words that judge half of the human race as inferior, and the consequent pain this has caused.

At long last we will be able to know ourselves for who we really are. If any reader starts out with a feeling of superiority or inferiority, I will guarantee that when he understands all the principles — and he will — he will end up feeling exactly equal in value with every person alive…no better or worse. We must remember that mankind has been developing at a mathematical rate and had to go through the necessary stages of development in order to reach this stage of maturity. Man has been consciously unconscious of the reason for doing things because of words, nothing else. Psychologists, theologians, philosophers, as well as all others who read books but do not know the difference between mathematical and logical relations, think that by learning a lot of words in various combinations, they have been studying reality. But when we realize that everything had to develop exactly the way it did, we are comforted in the knowledge that just as these words came into existence for various reasons, they will soon depart. I don’t believe it is possible for me to clarify this more than it is already in the text itself. However, I suggest this chapter be read and listened to several times just in case you haven’t completely understood it. As a result of this knowledge, I have completely stopped using these words. It may be difficult for you to stop because they are used to compliment, flatter, and raise ourselves by downing others. When you refer to someone as bad-looking, it is equivalent to saying, “I am better looking,” and most people use everything they can to elevate their opinion of themselves in this cruel world of words. However, you will soon see that all these words must come to an end out of absolute necessity. Let us now observe what must take place as we extend the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free and his eyes not a sense organ into the world of love.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

 

[peacegirl]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

It’s not a metaphor. The eyes are central to his entire demonstration.

 

[pood]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

See, that’s the thing. It’s not a metaphor. If it were a metaphor, he may have some decent stuff on, as you say, general semantics. If he had something like, for example, “while the eye strictly of course is a sense organ, we make sense of what we see by projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world.” Then when he says, “We project words onto an undeniable screen of substance,” this would make sense as a metaphor, Taken literally, of course, this is all nonsense, but he does have interesting things to say how semantics and conditioning color our view of reality.

 

[peacegirl]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

See, that’s the thing. It’s not a metaphor. If it were a metaphor, he may have some decent stuff on, as you say, general semantics. If he had something like, for example, “while the eye strictly of course is a sense organ, we make sense of what we see by projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world.” Then when he says, “We project words onto an undeniable screen of substance,” this would make sense as a metaphor, Taken literally, of course, this is all nonsense, but he does have interesting things to say how semantics and conditioning color our view of reality.

It’s not nonsense at all. But like I said, take it or leave it. You will twist anything he writes to discredit him. I was just waiting for how long it would take for you to find a way.

 

[pood]

Also, his two-sided equation stuff arguably has some merit and is certainly worth entertaining, if he weren’t so hyperbolic and dogmatic about his claims. For example, one can be a compatibilist, as I am, yet reject retributive justice, as I do. It can certainly be argued that while we always act on our preferences, a lot of our genetics and our upbringing heavily influence our choices, and if we recognized this and stopped blaming people for what they do, forcing them into a defensive crouch of rationalizing their behavior, they might well make choices better for themselves and others. We know the old childhood saw “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” is quite wrong, and moreover, childhood trauma alters gene expression in a way that lasts for a lifetime, leading to inherited intergenerational trauma. Perhaps much of this could be tempered and some of it eliminated in an environment in which blame and shame is greatly reduced. These are points worth entertaining.

 

[pood]

Take out weird metaphor of eyes and you have a decent take on one of the principles of general semantics

See, that’s the thing. It’s not a metaphor. If it were a metaphor, he may have some decent stuff on, as you say, general semantics. If he had something like, for example, “while the eye strictly of course is a sense organ, we make sense of what we see by projecting our semantics and conditioning onto the external world.” Then when he says, “We project words onto an undeniable screen of substance,” this would make sense as a metaphor, Taken literally, of course, this is all nonsense, but he does have interesting things to say how semantics and conditioning color our view of reality.

It’s not nonsense at all. But like I said, take it or leave it. You will twist anything he writes to discredit him. I was just waiting for how long it would take for you to find a way.

Every educated person knows that the eyes are a sense organ, and if they come across a book that claims literally they are not, they will put the book aside. As noted, if author were speaking metaphorically, they may then go on to consider his argument. But they won’t as it now stands.

 

[peacegirl]

Also, his two-sided equation stuff arguably has some merit and is certainly worth entertaining,

Gosh, I can't believe you gave him some credit. It sounds so strange coming from you.

if he weren’t so hyperbolic and dogmatic about his claims.

He was never dogmatic. Is it dogmatic to say that one plus one is two? No.

For example, one can be a compatibilist, as I am, yet reject retributive justice, as I do.

This shows me you don't understand how this knowledge of no free will, therefore no blame, extends. How can we punish people for wrongdoing when they can do no wrong?

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the giving of unasked for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will never be blamed or punished. Consequently, there is no further need to tell others what to do.
>snip<
The great humor and the very reason religion could never approve of this work, in spite of its purpose, is because it would be forced to relinquish what has always been a source of tremendous satisfaction There is something else that annoys religion because it expects the Messiah to look like Christ or some other historical figure, and that he will come to earth not through ordinary channels. Someone who would claim to have solved the problem of evil could easily be mistaken as a false prophet or even ethe antichrist. It may be difficult for the faithful to entertain the idea that the promised Messiah may not come in bodily form but rather as a divine law which has the power to prevent what manmade laws and institutions could never accomplish. To some, this suggestion may be viewed as an unpardonable offense because it appears blasphemous. It may be impossible for those who adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, or any other sacred text, to consider the possibility that peace might come through an unexpected source, although still in accordance with God’s will. Even if I had never made this discovery, it would come to light sooner or later because what is revealed is a definite part of the real world, not a figment of the imagination. Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide. The truth will be very easy to convey once it is understood and acknowledged by scientists because it involves undeniable relations such as two plus two equals four, but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts and dogmatically closed the door to further investigation. However, when theologians fully realize that not only were they teaching something false and that God’s will, the truth, was hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic boom. They will strongly desire to spread word of the new gospel that will soon put an end to all evil, even if this puts them out of business. Although we must enter this new world of our own free will because no force will be used, the comparison of what we now have with what is now possible gives us no choice because our will is not free to move against what we believe is better for ourselves. This will compel us to desire studying for the examination (which will only require the very basic understanding of these principles) so we can become citizens as quickly as possible after the transition has been officially launched.

It can certainly be argued that while we always act on our preferences, a lot of our genetics and our upbringing heavily influence our choices, and if we recognized this and stopped blaming people for what they do, forcing them into a defensive crouch of rationalizing their behavior,

I misunderstood you because I'm so use to your criticism. Knowing in advance they will not be blamed no matter what they do will prevent the desire to do it. Part of this inability to shift what is their responsibility is their ability to rationalize their behavior. When no one questions their behavior, they cannot shift this responsibility, which prevents any thought of hurting others. But again, this will only work if they cannot justify their actions. If they can, then it would not be a first blow, which can be justified. I hope that makes sense.

they might well make choices better for themselves and others. We know the old childhood saw “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” is quite wrong, and moreover, childhood trauma alters gene expression in a way that lasts for a lifetime, leading to inherited intergenerational trauma. Perhaps much of this could be tempered and some of it eliminated in an environment in which blame and shame is greatly reduced. These are points worth entertaining.

Whether behavior comes from inherited intergenerational trauma (nature) or from how they were brought up in their formative years (nurture), when children grow up in a world where they are not hurt, they will not desire to hurt others. The saying, hurting people hurt people, is true. You have no conception of how different children will be brought up in the new world, so you can't compare this world to the new or even envision the happiness that awaits them.