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

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48516

Are you giving up?

No comment on time dilation and GPS?

Aw come on Peacegirl, the fun is just getting started. We are having fun are we not?

No need to sulk.

I'm not sulking. Where did you get that idea?

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Invariable laws don't change. I did update some examples of how this knowledge, when extended, prevents many of the ills that are happening today.

 

[peacegirl]

Omg. Has this thread been going on for like 15 years?!? I remember this from waaaaaaaaaaay back

If you take into account all the threads on free will and determinism in various forms longer that that.

New threads on free will and determinism pop up periodically and the same debates ensue.

This thread has a twist, it includes how the eye works as some kind of proof.

He also made a discovery on death which is extremely comforting as we enter our senior years.

 

[peacegirl]

lightning as we know it in nature is an electrical charge that is not a form of matter.

No, lightning is the effect of an electrical discharge on the air it passes through. The bright flash we see is the air plasma created when the potential difference between the cloud and the ground exceeds the voltage needed to ionise the nitrogen and oxygen molecules; It's very much a form of matter. The plasma is far more conductive than unionized air, so it's fairly common for multiple strikes to follow the same (or part of the same) path over the course of a second or two.

Not that any of this is particularly relevant. But it's worth noting for the record that you are badly wrong about this, too. It's the hallmark of a busted epistemology, that users of it are wrong about a lot of different things.

I'm not debating this so how can I wrong about it? Thank you for the lesson though. As to the hallmark of a busted epistemology, the verdict is still out.

We often notice two or more objects or patterns of behavior that are alike but have slight differences. Therefore, the shade of difference observed in this external substance is real and can be easily identified when given a separate name by means of a new word symbol. For example, many automobile manufacturers work to differentiate and distinguish their models from the standpoint of exterior and interior design. Giving each model a separate name allows the buyer to see the differences that set them apart. But all the words in the world, such as mature, educated, intelligent, etc., are not going to better describe something that is not a part of the real world. It is this difference that either confused epistemology or those who tried to understand what the epistemologists themselves could not.

 

[peacegirl]

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

Yes, they do.

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

No they don't, not like the other four.

Yes, they do. Just like the other four.

Indeed, you can test the hypothesis that sight is much the same as touch, by simply applying gentle pressure to your closed eyes - the pressure is sensed just like pressure on any part of your body, but your brain interprets it as light, because the nerve impulses are coming from retinal cells.

I never heard of light being interpreted from touch due to impulses coming from retinal cells. That's a new one for me, although they do say our senses can get crisscrossed.

Making Sense of the World, Several Senses at a Time

Sensory cross talk helps us navigate the world

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not in denial at all.

So, you deny that you are in denial? Is that what you are saying?

Yes, I'm denying that I'm not in denial because I happen not to be.

 

[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’.

The optic nerve does not have a nerve ending. It's that simple. He was right and you can't stand it.

What do you think the optic nerve does?

It connects the eyes to the brain, but it doesn't work in the same way as the other senses by receiving and transmitting external stimuli.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/optic-nerve#:~:text=Because%20the%20optic%20nerve%20is%20really%20a%20tract%2C,of%20the%20fibers%20cross%20to%20the%20opposite%20side.

The optic nerve transmits information from the eyes to the brain.

There is no doubt about that.

Basically, the eyes detect light which is converted to nerve impulses that convey information from the eyes to the brain for processing.

Also true. Real time vision does not alter these important mechanisms.

 

[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.

Why is it like this, though? Why is he allowed to make up these arbitrary rules, including the rule that nobody else should make up any rules?

Do you understand what he meant by this? Obviously not. There are rules to logic and mathematics. If you change the rules because you don't like that one plus is two and not eleven, well then...you're changing the rules.

The argument from consequences fallacy fails to convince me that I should abdicate my reason in favour of this person's demand that I obey his rules, and discard my own.

Then go on believing that one plus one is eleven. I ain't going to stop you.

His epistemology is broken, and this paragraph is a paraphrase of the Wizard of Oz saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

No bilby. He never expected anyone to listen to him without any proof. But he knew that if he didn't preface his work the way he did, people would say he was wrong, not because he was actually wrong, but because they didn't like that he was telling them that one plus one is not eleven.

You cannot expect to persuade someone of the truth of your claims, if you start with a demand that he accepts your own ideosyncratic rules as truly necessary.

What rules are you talking about? If you don't follow the rules of reasoning, what do you get? I'll let you answer that.

If only you believe every word I say, you will find that you don't disbelieve my claims.

Well, duh.

Now you're being silly.

 

[peacegirl]

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.”

No, they would not; Because professors of biological science at reputable universities are already aware that the idea that there are five senses is a folk myth thst bears zero relationship to the facts.

Maybe not, but I never heard that professors are already aware that man doesn't have five senses. I'd like to hear their reasoning. It would be great if Lessans didn't have to fight so hard to be heard.

If anyone 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,” the reaction would be to wonder why this fool was wasting time debunking something already known to be false.

I'd like to talk to these professors.

It would be received in much the way as if someone stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that the Earth is not in fact flat at all!”

It would have been news to people who believed the earth was flat.

If you expect that all the professors would laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows that the world is flat as a pancake. This is an established fact!”, then you are in for a crushing disappointment. Before one can challenge scientific orthodoxy, it is necessary to know what the scientific orthodoxy is; And folk traditions are a poor guide to the understanding of the world that actual experts have.

Isn't it true that at one time people believed the earth was flat? I don't think that was a poor comparison to how people would react by saying we don't have five senses. Maybe there are "experts" who believe that we don't have five senses for different reasons.

When an argument that is supposed to compel my acceptance at each stage pratfalls at the first clause, I really don't need to waste time on the rest of the chain of broken logic - any more than I need to watch the rest of the Grand National to find out if I am a winner, when the horse I bet on threw its jockey at the first fence.

I don't see where your belief that he is wrong has been shown to be true at the first fence.

 

[bilby]

lightning as we know it in nature is an electrical charge that is not a form of matter.

No, lightning is the effect of an electrical discharge on the air it passes through. The bright flash we see is the air plasma created when the potential difference between the cloud and the ground exceeds the voltage needed to ionise the nitrogen and oxygen molecules; It's very much a form of matter. The plasma is far more conductive than unionized air, so it's fairly common for multiple strikes to follow the same (or part of the same) path over the course of a second or two.

Not that any of this is particularly relevant. But it's worth noting for the record that you are badly wrong about this, too. It's the hallmark of a busted epistemology, that users of it are wrong about a lot of different things.

I'm not debating this so how can I wrong about it?

Er...

By saying something that isn't right:

"lightning as we know it in nature is an electrical charge that is not a form of matter".

This is wrong, regardless of whether or not it is part of a debate. It is wrong because it is not right. You said it; Ergo, you were wrong.

That you din't even understand what "wrong" means is astonishing and bizarre (but at this point, rather less surprising than I am comfortable with).

Thank you for the lesson though. As to the hallmark of a busted epistemology, the verdict is still out.

Well, if you don't understand that saying something untrue is being wrong; And if you imagine that "debate" is necessary in order to achieve that state, then your epistemology is busted beyond repair.

We often notice two or more objects or patterns of behavior that are alike but have slight differences. Therefore, the shade of difference observed in this external substance is real and can be easily identified when given a separate name by means of a new word symbol. For example, many automobile manufacturers work to differentiate and distinguish their models from the standpoint of exterior and interior design. Giving each model a separate name allows the buyer to see the differences that set them apart.

Yes, names work that way.

But all the words in the world, such as mature, educated, intelligent, etc., are not going to better describe something that is not a part of the real world.

What would the point be of even trying to describe anything that is not part of the real world?

You can do it in fiction - Lewis Carrol describes the Jabberwock, part of whose description is his unreality. But in fiction, literally anything goes; You can make up any old shit, and as the author cannot be challenged on its accuracy (only on its entertainment value).

It is this difference that either confused epistemology or those who tried to understand what the epistemologists themselves could not.

That string of words is complete gibberish to me; I have no clue what you are trying to say here. Could you try to rephrase it for me?

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, and is not in a similar category to "those who tried to understand", who are a group of people. The single verb "confused" cannot apply to both while retaning a constant meaning.

 

[bilby]

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

Yes, they do.

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

No they don't, not like the other four.

Yes, they do. Just like the other four.

Indeed, you can test the hypothesis that sight is much the same as touch, by simply applying gentle pressure to your closed eyes - the pressure is sensed just like pressure on any part of your body, but your brain interprets it as light, because the nerve impulses are coming from retinal cells.

I never heard of light being interpreted from touch due to impulses coming from retinal cells. That's a new one for me, although they do say our senses can get crisscrossed.

Making Sense of the World, Several Senses at a Time

Sensory cross talk helps us navigate the world

www.scientificamerican.com

You don't need to have "heard about" it. You can test it for yourself, if you have working eyes, and the ability to touch your closed eyelids.

Observation is always better than theory.

You don't need, and should be extemely wary of, anyone else's claims, when those claims contradict your own observations.

Note, however, that this applies only to observations, and not to interpretations - with interpretation, the important thing is not to be fooled, and the person best able to fool you, is you yourself. Having and rigorously applying a consistent methodology (eg the Scientific Method) is a good way to avoid being fooled.

 

[peacegirl]

The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged.

It has literally been challenged for over three hundred years, and is no longer considered to be true by anyone who has a passing knowledge of biology. Even a century ago, this statement would have been known by any serious student of biology to be flat-out false.

That may be true, but not for the reasons he gave. It needs to be revisited based on his observations. No one has adequately answered his question as to why, if the image is traveling to the eye, can't dogs recognize their master in human form or on a computer, a statue, a picture, a cardboard replica, or anything else, without other cues such as gait, sound, or smell. Don't tell me Pood answered this. In FF they tried to use an experiment with a lever that was poorly designed. Dogs can probably be trained to recognize patterns and get rewarded, but this was not true recognition. Pood even thinks bees can recognize faces.

 

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48516

...and yet, here you are 1,700 posts into the thread, still trying to explain the unexplainable.

"I feel that if a person has problems communicating, the very least that he could do is shut up" - Tom Lehrer

When someone has something of extreme value to offer, they will scream it from the mountaintops!

 

[bilby]

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.

Why is it like this, though? Why is he allowed to make up these arbitrary rules, including the rule that nobody else should make up any rules?

Do you understand what he meant by this? Obviously not. There are rules to logic and mathematics. If you change the rules because you don't like that one plus is two and not eleven, well then...you're changing the rules.

The argument from consequences fallacy fails to convince me that I should abdicate my reason in favour of this person's demand that I obey his rules, and discard my own.

Then go on believing that one plus one is eleven. I ain't going to stop you.

His epistemology is broken, and this paragraph is a paraphrase of the Wizard of Oz saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

No bilby. He never expected anyone to listen to him without any proof. But he knew that if he didn't preface his work the way he did, people would say he was wrong, not because he was actually wrong, but because they didn't like that he was telling them that one plus one is not eleven.

You cannot expect to persuade someone of the truth of your claims, if you start with a demand that he accepts your own ideosyncratic rules as truly necessary.

What rules are you talking about? If you don't follow the rules of reasoning, what do you get? I'll let you answer that.

Thanks. What you get is nonsense like:

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 "rules of reasoning" do not include allowing someone to dictate in advance that you will not test every element of their argument.

He starts from premises that are false; And demands that we abandon the "rules of reasoning" by not rejectiong those false claims, and then doubles down by (falsely) declaring that to do so constitutes "[making] up your own rules as to what is true and false"

If only you believe every word I say, you will find that you don't disbelieve my claims.

Well, duh.

Now you're being silly.

No, I am paraphrasing the quote. He used a lot more words, but that's the essence of what he said.

 

[bilby]

I never heard that professors are already aware that man doesn't have five senses.

That there are many things of which you have never heard may come as a surprise to you, but it really shouldn't.

I'd like to hear their reasoning.

Yes, you probably would, because your entire methodology for deciding what to believe is so hopelessly broken that you are convinced that you can do so by hearing other people's reasoning.

What you should be more interested in, if you want to find out about reality, is seeing the evidence.

I'd like to talk to these professors.

Well, you really should have done that before you told everyone what you expected them to say (and got it laughably wrong).

But there's nothing at all stopping you from going and talking to them now, and correcting your misunderstanding.

 

[pood]

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.

Right, that would be you who believes that.

 

[bilby]

Isn't it true that at one time people believed the earth was flat?

Not really; Most people didn't think about it at all until the Greek geometers got started on it (and for that matter most people didn't think about it after that, either).

There are likely more flat-Earth believers today than at any time in the past.

It's a cliché; Belief that the Earth is flat is the stereotype of belief in nonsense generally.

Going to a university to try to wow the professors with the news that the Earth is not flat, at any time in history, would have met not with disbelief in what you are saying, but rather with astonishment that you thought it was somehow a new or radical idea.

Rather like telling a post-Enlightenment biologist that there are not five senses.

 

[peacegirl]

Indeterminism does not negate causality.

“The reason we can’t predict the outcome of a quantum measurement,” she explains, “is that we are missing information,” that is, hidden variables. Superdeterminism, she notes, gets rid of the measurement problem and nonlocality as well as randomness. Hidden variables determine in advance how physicists carry out the experiments; physicists might think they are choosing one option over another, but they aren’t. Hossenfelder calls free will “logically incoherent nonsense.”

Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will?

Superdeterminism, a radical quantum hypothesis, says our “choices” are illusory

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Politesse]

Going to a university to try to wow the professors with the news that the Earth is not flat, at any time in history, would have met not with disbelief in what you are saying, but rather with astonishment that you thought it was somehow a new or radical idea.

Even if it were not known that the Earth was round, a scientists' reaction would still be skeptical but honest consideration of a new claim, not knee-jerk rejection. A relevant example from recent history might be the revelation of the shape of the earth: not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid slightly bulging at the equator. This was worked out gradually over the last four centuries, and although religious objections circulated, it was only ever an issue of mild controversy among scientists. The math was there. The observations were there. A model was developed. The model was tested. We now have a plurality of empirical confirmations of the model. Most citizens of the globe don't realize there was ever such a conversation, but happily enjoy the technologies that the improved model made possible. This is how the sciences work. Not very dramatic process usually, but a very functional one over the long term.

 

[bilby]

The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged.

It has literally been challenged for over three hundred years, and is no longer considered to be true by anyone who has a passing knowledge of biology. Even a century ago, this statement would have been known by any serious student of biology to be flat-out false.

That may be true, but not for the reasons he gave.

Yup. Lots of things are true, and very few are true for reasons given by Lessans.

It needs to be revisited based on his observations. No one has adequately answered his question as to why, if the image is traveling to the eye, can't dogs recognize their master in human form or on a computer, a statue, a picture, a cardboard replica, or anything else, without other cues such as gait, sound, or smell.

The adequate answer is that the question is flawed, and assumes a false premise.

Dogs CAN recognise their masters by sight alone.

Don't tell me Pood answered this. In FF they tried to use an experiment with a lever that was poorly designed.

I don't care; I have dogs, so I already have access to and experience of hundreds of observations. I need no further experiment.

If you do, you will need to go make observations for yourself. But first you will need to learn to be rigorous and accurate, or you will just fool yourself into confirmation bias.

Dogs can probably be trained to recognize patterns and get rewarded, but this was not true recognition.

That's the No True Scotsman fallacy. See, I told you you needed to learn rigour and accuracy.

Pood even thinks bees can recognize faces.

They appear to be able to, though as I have not kept bees myself, I don't know for sure. Certainly the idea that they can is not at odds with anything I do know about bees, so I have no sound reason to doubt it.