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

[DBT]

If light is simply 'at the eye,' what is the point of the lense, iris, pupil, etc, as means to regulate and focus light?

All of the workings of the eye work as described. Every part of the eye is perfectly created for us to see the world.

So how exactly is light simply 'at the eye' without travel time from its source?

 

[peacegirl]

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 — awakens 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?

Now you're being silly.

No, I am pointing out that the claim "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 — awakens the brain" is silly.

It's obviously light that allows us to see the stars if they are large enough and close enough to be seen.

Yes, that's obvious.

It's also directly contradicting the quoted text. Sight is a response to light, and NOT due to "a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell" after all.

That is only when a baby is born. When a baby is born his other senses work immediately. They can hear sounds, they can feel touch, they can taste, and they can smell, but they cannot see objects that strike their retina. It is theorized that the muscles of the eye aren't developed, but Lessans says that's not the case. Children from Romania that were in orphanages had no sensory stimulation as babies and were often brain damaged and cross-eyed. It probably was not permanent as they were given more stimulation, but it was interesting to read, and it supports his claim.

 

[peacegirl]

If light is simply 'at the eye,' what is the point of the lense, iris, pupil, etc, as means to regulate and focus light?

All of the workings of the eye work as described. Every part of the eye is perfectly created for us to see the world.

So how exactly is light simply 'at the eye' without travel time from its source?

I cannot help you if you keep thinking in terms of afferent vision. The only way to grasp what is happening is to think in terms of efferent vision where distance and time would not be factors. The wavelength would be there, or we wouldn't see the event or object, but it would require no time. That doesn't mean light is not traveling but it doesn't bounce off of objects taking the wavelength (or the information) with it through space/time.

 

[DBT]

A baby not recognising objects in the world around them is not the same as literally not seeing these things.

 

[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.

Well prove to me you read it. It seems to be true because if a person understood it, he would more than likely agree, but that's if he really truly understood it. A lot of people refute the principles, but when I ask them what it is they are refuting, they can't give me an answer.

This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can. (NOTE: IOW, if someone says I don't agree that one plus one is two, it's eleven, you will say there is something he doesn't understand. By the same token, a person can deny anything they don't understand, therefore this line was only meant for people who truly understand the principles.)

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.

The book is of no importance. The only important thing is the ideas, and we are discussing those, as presented here by you.

No part of that discussion can be improved by cryptic references to a text we have allegedly not even seen; If there's information or argument that you have, and that you believe is convincing, then the way to convince us is to present it.

"I have a completely compelling argument, and the only reason you disagree with me is that you don't know it" is a stupid claim to make in any debate. If you have that argument, bring it forth.

This is the problem. It's not really a debate. It's a sharing of information. I don't mind people questioning. That's a good thing, but what I don't like are the insults. It's pretty tame here so far, which I appreciate.

But don't imagine it won't be questioned.

And don't imagine that anyone will accept your arguments if you don't give complete and compelling answers to those questions.

That's the way people tell truth from nonsense.

That's fair although it's so hard when no one (I mean no one) has read the book in its entirety. It's a blueprint which makes it very difficult to see the end result without reading the whole book to see how it extends into all areas of human relation.

 

[peacegirl]

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? 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. 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.

Except we did read it, and went over it with you at FF, including with the biologist The Lone Ranger. The author’s claim about a baby’s eyes is false. Notice once again, moreover, that he never attempts to demonstrate or provide evidence for this claim. He merely asserts it. And it’s false.

That's all you're doing. You're making assertions. What was his claim about a baby's eyes? How do you know he was wrong?He

No, peacegirl, this is entirely projection on your part. It is you who make assertions without evidence or argument to back them up. We counter with evidence and arguments that show the author’s claims to be false. The Lone Ranger already explained to you in detail what is wrong with his a claim about baby’s eyes. I’m not going to waste time giving you what he already gave.

I know he said the ciliary muscle isn't developed in a baby. Lessans countered that. Just because he was a biologist doesn't make him right about all things biology. It all depends on the empirical proof.

 

[bilby]

The eyes don't have nerve endings like the other senses.

Yes, they do.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/rods-and-cones

You can call them what you will but what Lessans was saying is that if a baby had no sensory stimulation, he would never be able to focus the eyes.

Yes, I understand that that's what he said. It would be extraordinary, if true.

What evidence has he for that claim?

You may not think this is true and of course this is hypothetical because we can't actually test this in this way

So, no evidence. OK, well then I don't believe him. Extraordinary claims with no evidence not only can be, but should be dismissed.

but if he is right, then what?

That's putting the cart before the horse. He isn't right, so we need not worry about it.

Are you dismissing him outright?

Yes, but only because the alternative would be to believe whatever crazy shit anyone ever says. Which would be literally insane.

What makes his unevidenced claim any better than anyone else's? Without evidence, why would I choose to believe that a baby could not develop sight without assistance from the other senses, and not also choose to believe that the Moon is made from Stilton cheese, or that the Earth is flat, or any other crazy hunch anyone has ever had?

 

[pood]

What makes his unevidenced claim any better than anyone else's? Without evidence, why would I choose to believe that a baby could not develop sight without assistance from the other senses, and not also choose to believe that the Moon is made from Stilton cheese, …

Well, you know, Steven Hawking wrote a book in which on the first page he said “philosophy is dead,” and a couple hundred pages on said there is a version of reality in which the moon is made of Roquefort cheese. So there is that.

 

[pood]

I know he said the ciliary muscle isn't developed in a baby. Lessans countered that. Just because he was a biologist doesn't make him right about all things biology. It all depends on the empirical proof.

Right, which the Lone Ranger had and you and your author don’t.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

The only book that I changed was my compilation. There's nothing really to update, although I did add some more recent examples using the conflict going on in the Middle East, which is very timely.

Do you know opr a fact that he was her father?

He was my father. I tried to hide it for years knowing people would use it against me. Now the cat is out of the bag.

She did say she was marketing the book.

I haven't marketed the book. I don't have a budget to speak of and this is a small niche. But it's so interesting, people are missing out.
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

I've been on a few forums. I remember talkrational.org but not Dawkins. It's been going on for years. I'm just hoping that when I'm no longer here someone will carry the ball. My kids will, I hope. I already have his books online, which took me a long time to type and format. This was not an easy task.

It sounds like you have been flogging a dead horse for a long time making yourself unhappy.

You blame us on the forum and others for your father's failure to gain acceptance.

From the 19th century to today it has been easy to develop a following. Ekankar is still around. General Semantics came from an 'independent thinker' and persists. Edgar Cayce has a following.


Could it be possible that your father's work just did not interest people?

In mentoring you did your father teach you pragmatic thinking and observation, to observe things as they are not as you want them to be?

Theoretical academics is very competitive. Globally there may be tens of thousands of papers written each year . Authors competing for peer received publication and competing for grant money to pursue an idea.

In the midst of that your promot6ng an old book by an obscure author you claim is perfidious is not likely to get any attention.

If there is a scientific content en you have to have an experiment that can be duplicated others.

I know he said the ciliary muscle isn't developed in a baby. Lessans countered that. Just because he was a biologist doesn't make him right about all things biology. It all depends on the empirical proof.

That is one of the Christian rationalizations when science conflicts with theology and the bible.

 

[DBT]

A lot of well meaning people try to change the world for the better, and their work may be worthwhile, indispensable even, yet here we are in a world in crisis, needless suffering, inequality, war, ecosystems in decline.....

 

[steve_bank]

A lot of well meaning people try to change the world for the better, and their work may be worthwhile, indispensable even, yet here we are in a world in crisis, needless suffering, inequality, war, ecosystems in decline.....

That has been the cycle since the first civilizations.

The experiment in western liberal democracy and rights really only began with the end of WWII.

Peace makers and bridge builders do not fare well.

NLK was assassinated.
Gandhi was assassinated for trying to reconcile Hindu with Muslim.
Leaders Sadat in Egypt and Rabin in Israel were assassinated by their own people for making peace.

 

[peacegirl]

You show her medical documentation of afferent sensory nerves in the eye and she just flat out says No. No reason, just No. It is breathtaking.

He never said light was not at the photoreceptors. He said that they don't have nerve endings that work like the other four. Photoreceptors sense light, but at birth there are no images (or wavelengths) traveling that would interpret an image that the baby could see because the information is not traveling to the eye. All the other senses are in full working order at birth but not sight. That should be a clue.

 

[peacegirl]

"Every conversation is reduced to it's lowest level of understanding" ~ unknown

Occam's razor is the simplest form of conversation but that doesn't mean it's the lowest level of understanding. Are you not understanding why man's will is not free, according to the author, or are you just not understanding why light can be at the eye without time for it to travel? I'm sure it's the latter.

 

[peacegirl]

You show her medical documentation of afferent sensory nerves in the eye and she just flat out says No. No reason, just No. It is breathtaking.

He gave his reasons and he demonstrated it. If you don't agree, then dismiss it. Some people are convinced that one plus one is eleven no matter how hard you try to explain that it's not because they believe that their reasoning is correct.

 

[peacegirl]

You show her medical documentation of afferent sensory nerves in the eye and she just flat out says No. No reason, just No. It is breathtaking.

Because the optic nerve is really a tract, not a nerve, it is surrounded by the three layers of meninges and cerebrospinal fluid. The two optic nerves meet underneath the hypothalamus, just in front of the pituitary stalk, and many of the fibers cross to the opposite side.

It is so cute how peacegirl grabs stuff off the web and tries to repurpose it for her bullshit without understanding what she is saying at all. And she does this stuff without even citing what she is grabbing, or its context. This is what happens when you got nuthin’.

Grabbing things off the internet doesn't mean the information is wrong. People research all the time. Some people have found answers to medicine that will help their cancers. Why is this a double standard? You take things off the internet as well to try and prove your case.

 

[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.

I'm not posting the entire chapter again. I'll post the beginning and if doesn't whet anyone's appetite, there's nothing I can do about it because I'm not going to state this chapter in my own words. It's hard enough to state something that everybody disagrees with so it would be suicidal if I didn't let him do the talking since he was the discoverer, not me. If no one is interested after this small introduction, I am not going to continue and put myself in a vulnerable position.

CHAPTER FOUR

WORDS, NOT REALITY​

​

Your problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly could not call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses — when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change who we are. Whether we call them five senses or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far enough in history you will find that we believed pregnancy was caused by the bite of an enamored snake, which prevented many girls from bathing at certain times but never prevented them from mating. Today we have thousands of lesser Aristotle’s preventing breakthroughs into various hermetically sealed doors. We call them professors and Ph.D.s. Again, this is not a criticism, but they accept what has been taught to them and pass it along from generation to generation, which makes it very difficult for them to listen to any explanation that must contravene their reputation as leading authorities. That is why they reject people, put anyone down who does not have what they are proud of — their formal education. But please remember that they, too, are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it isn’t fair to criticize them for being proud of their scholastic achievements. I refused to let a Ph.D. in math read my book, not because he gave me the wrong answer to a math problem, but because he said my answer must be wrong since he was a Ph.D., and I was not. You might find this problem of interest since it originated with Sir Isaac Newton. If it takes 3 cows two weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass that grows on the two acres in two weeks, and if it takes two cows four weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass grown on the two acres in the four weeks, how many cows would be required to eat 6 acres of grass in 6 weeks and all the grass that grows on the 6 acres in the six weeks? Because it was difficult for this Ph.D. to accept the fact that he could not work out this problem, it gave him greater satisfaction to put me and my answer down. Are you beginning to recognize how difficult it has been for me to bring this knowledge to light when it is utterly impossible for our leading authorities to get greater satisfaction listening to any explanation of new knowledge that must reveal their unconscious ignorance that they never knew the truth, only thought they knew? I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one day, as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to light, “My time will come.” Now let’s continue.
The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch, and smell.

Upon hearing this, my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian tone of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound, as you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses, we are assuming the eyes function like the other four, which they do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So, without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light, we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

“And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open —he could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young, and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

Thank you for more copypasta.

Why does this bother you so much? Could it be because you can't rip it apart like you can when it's explained in my own words? This was written from the author himself. Why would you have a problem with that?

 

[peacegirl]

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone … is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

This is a humdinger. PeaceGirl, are you familiar with the concept of wicked problems? The problem with utopia is that society is complex and adaptive. There is and can never be a perfect state of affairs outside of simply deciding a state of affairs is perfect.

A state of affairs is perfect when seen in total perspective, because will is not free and at this moment it could not be any other way, but that does not mean that we can't pursue peace. He never mentioned the word "utopia". He did call one of his books, The Inception of the Golden Age, which means an age where war and crime are no more. This is not impossible but it's true that one of the conditions of becoming part of this new world is giving up all authority, but what these leaders will get in return will outweigh their desire to be left out. No military force will ever be used.

The most common causes of conflicts in the world include12345:

• Territorial disputes and civil wars in Asia and Africa.
• Economic gain and territorial gain.
• Religious conflicts with deep roots.
• Nationalism, revenge, and revolutionary war.
• Defensive war.
• Corruption, dwindling resources, and climate change.
• Addressing fundamental causes such as economic inequalities and environmental degradation is crucial for sustainable peace.

 

[peacegirl]

You show her medical documentation of afferent sensory nerves in the eye and she just flat out says No. No reason, just No. It is breathtaking.

Because the optic nerve is really a tract, not a nerve, it is surrounded by the three layers of meninges and cerebrospinal fluid. The two optic nerves meet underneath the hypothalamus, just in front of the pituitary stalk, and many of the fibers cross to the opposite side.

Why does this matter again?

Hi Testy, warning! You are entering kookie land at your own risk! lol No one knows why it's important. They haven't read anything, but they sure seem to know more about the author than the author himself. That's the running joke of this thread.

Which author are we talking about?

It is her father, Seymour Lessans. She says that if her father was wrong, he would have said so. Since he never said he was wrong, he must be right.

This is so stupid, I'm belly laughing. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Thanks Pood.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Evil only means hurt in this context. Most people don't want to be hurt, which is someone doing to them what they don't want done to themselves. What may be a hurt to you may not be a hurt to someone else, granted, but most people would agree that having a gun to their head in a robbery is something they would not want.

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.

I don't think you understand his definition of determinism. Anyway, thanks for stopping by.

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.

This is one of the central themes of this book. We all adapt to our environment. This is called self-preservation. The only thing it helps with is less need to adapt to situations that are harmful such as millions of people being killed in war.

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.

No it is not. Determinism only means we are moving in the direction of greater preference. There is nothing closed about it. Each individual's heredity and environment determine not only what the choices that are available to him, but what choices he will desire in his quest for security and happiness.

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

Peace out.