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

[pood]

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.....

Lots of people think they had the solution, but this one can prevent needless suffering, inequality, war, which will open up the ability to stop the environmental destruction. This one really is the gem, not because he was my father but because of extending the principles. Understandably, people are skeptical and will continue to be skeptical until they understand why man's will is not free and why the eyes are not a sense organ. He did describe how we are conditioned to seeing what really isn't imbedded in light. No light is traveling with beauty and ugliness in them, yet this conditioning makes it appear that beauty and ugliness are part of the real world. We become conditioned due to words that lie to us, and there's no escape from this unless the words that are attached to certain features that condition us to seeing with our very eyes that some people are more beautiful or ugly than others, are removed from our dictionaries. Scientists and philosophers don't want to hear an outsider debating the creme de la creme in their particular field. They resent him highly. I'm only asking people to take the time to study the book and not compare it to others who meant well but didn't have the answer. We are in a crisis on many fronts. This should at least give people a pause before they jump to premature conclusions.

No, peacegirl, no one resents him. We and others just point out that the eye is a sense organ, and if God turned on the sun at noon, we would not see it immediately, but would have to wait some eight minutes for the light to arrive at our eyes. That is all.

As to the rest of what you write, I and others point out to you that it is quite interesting and bears strong resemblance to general semantics and the work of Krishnamurti. This is worthwhile stuff. But yes, peacegirl, “no light is traveling with beauty and ugliness in them …” No scientist, literally no one, ever said that it did. Light does not travel with anythng “in” it — it is just light. The “beauty and ugliness” is the conditioning in our heads, from our upbringing.

 

[peacegirl]

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?

He explained it.

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.

Okay, if that's what you believe.

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?

I don't know what you mean by "unevidenced claim." He explained why his claim was correct by demonstrating what occurs with light. Why was his demonstration worse than what delayed vision claims? I don't get it.

Without evidence

He had 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?

No one, of all people this author took 30 years to come to this conclusion would ever make a claim that was inaccurate. It is worthy of investigation. He was objective in his analysis.

 

[pood]

He demonstrated nothing.

 

[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.....

Lots of people think they had the solution, but this one can prevent needless suffering, inequality, war, which will open up the ability to stop the environmental destruction. This one really is the gem, not because he was my father but because of extending the principles. Understandably, people are skeptical and will continue to be skeptical until they understand why man's will is not free and why the eyes are not a sense organ. He did describe how we are conditioned to seeing what really isn't imbedded in light. No light is traveling with beauty and ugliness in them, yet this conditioning makes it appear that beauty and ugliness are part of the real world. We become conditioned due to words that lie to us, and there's no escape from this unless the words that are attached to certain features that condition us to seeing with our very eyes that some people are more beautiful or ugly than others, are removed from our dictionaries. Scientists and philosophers don't want to hear an outsider debating the creme de la creme in their particular field. They resent him highly. I'm only asking people to take the time to study the book and not compare it to others who meant well but didn't have the answer. We are in a crisis on many fronts. This should at least give people a pause before they jump to premature conclusions.

The issue of how we view the world, our attitude and how we respond has nothing to do with the speed of light or how our eyes work, but a host of other factors such as life experience and social conditioning, where what may have been good and moral for an ancient Roman or Aztec is not acceptable in this day and age.


"Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.

The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and ideologies.

Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including nationalism, education, employment, entertainment, popular culture, religion, spirituality and family life. The social structure in which an individual finds him or herself influences and can determine their social actions and responses."

Social conditioning

Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society. The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and...

dbpedia.org

 

[pood]

A simple rewrite:

Some people may think, wrongly, that images ride on wings of light, with beauty and ugliness built into them, for us to see. But it’s not so. Nothing rides on wings of light — it is just light. And while, of course, the eye is a sense organ, in another sense — so to say — it isn’t, because what really makes sense of the world is the brain, but the brain is conditioned — and it is there that value judgments, like beauty and ugliness, are formed.

Then get rid of the stuff about god turning on the sun at noon, and the stuff about dogs and children, and bam, you are good to go. That’s all it takes.

Of course, you won’t to do, because you literally believe your father was infallible and could not be wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

It's very easy to see that dogs cannot identify from a picture is because the image or lightwave is not traveling to their eyes or they would be able to recognize their masters whether in person (without other cues) or as a representation. You can do that experiment in your own home. You don't need a formal experiment using props like they did in the other forum I was at. They actually believed from this experiment that Lessans was disproved. He was not. As far as determinism goes, there could be small segments of the population using these principles to show that it works, but if people recognized the premises as 100% accurate, it can be easily seen that when these principles are applied globally, they will work because human beings cannot move against their nature, which would be to hurt others when not to hurt them is the better choice given the changed environmental conditions --- which takes away any justification to do so. That's the whole point of this discovery. Hurting others when not to hurt them offers greater satisfaction (which is the only direction we can move) is the very reason why this is an invariable law. Laws don't change with time.

Sorry again Papergirl, that is nonsense gibberish.

If you can't even entertain the idea as to why traveling light doesn't immediately create a response in dogs (especially ones that adore their owners and haven't seen them in a while) and doesn't give you pause (not paws lol), this thread is probably not for you. Calling it gibberish is not an answer.

I said a dogs eye works basically the same as a human.

It's very easy to see that dogs cannot identify from a picture is because the image or lightwave is not traveling to their eyes or they would be able to recognize their masters whether in person (without other cues) or as a representation. You can do that experiment in your own home. You don't need a formal experiment using props like they did in the other forum I was at. They actually believed from this experiment that Lessans was disproved. He was not. As far as determinism goes, there could be small segments of the population using these principles to show that it works, but if people recognized the premises as 100% accurate, it can be easily seen that when these principles are applied globally, they will work because human beings cannot move against their nature, which would be to hurt others when not to hurt them is the better choice given the changed environmental conditions --- which takes away any justification to do so. That's the whole point of this discovery. Hurting others when not to hurt them offers greater satisfaction (which is the only direction we can move) is the very reason why this is an invariable law. Laws don't change with time.

Sorry again Papergirl, that is nonsense gibberish.

If you can't even entertain the idea as to why traveling light doesn't immediately create a response in dogs (especially ones that adore their owners and haven't seen them in a while) and doesn't give you pause (not paws lol), this thread is probably not for you. Calling it gibberish is not an answer.

UIhhh..your quote is what you said not me,

I said human or dog there is a delay in arrival of light, a delay through the eye to nerves, a delays along nerves, and a delay in processes of the brain.

You seem to go back and forth between agreeing with that and arguing for an alternative explanation of the eye.

And somehow it all related to determinism and getting rid of evil.

I also said in experiments with dogs you have to be careful not to interpret results as actual choice and not conditioning , the example of Clever Claus the horse.

I watched shows on animal choice and intelligence. Experimenters go to great lengths to keep the animal subjects isolated from experimenters before the experiments.

I watched something about baboons. One of a group got run over by a car. After that whenever a car that looked like the one that ran over the baboon came by the group threw rocks at it.

There is no doubt there is non human intelligence. Learning, perception, and tool making.

There are self awareness tests with chimps. Paint a spot on the face of a chimp and see if the chimp sees it in a mirror and puts a finger to it.

House pet dogs who are continued to the owner's voice and body language are not good subjects for experiments.

 

[pood]

There are self awareness tests with chimps. Paint a spot on the face of a chimp and see if the chimp sees it in a mirror and puts a finger to it.

Ants pass the same mirror test.

House pet dogs who are continued to the owner's voice and body language are not good subjects for experiments.

Dogs don’t pass the mirror test, but it has been found that they do pass a self-awareness through odor test.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

They don't fare well not because this proves peacemakers don't fare well but because some faction is not happy with the solution. If someone wins and another feels they are losing, then it's not going to work no matter how wonderful the intention.

 

[peacegirl]

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

How can a baby recognize objects in the world around him when he cannot focus his eyes after birth? Light is present but nothing is traveling in the light to allow the baby to recognize anything. That's what makes the eyes different from the other senses because their other senses are in full working order at birth.

 

[pood]

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

How can a baby recognize objects in the world around him when he cannot focus his eyes after birth? Light is present but nothing is traveling in the light to allow the baby to recognize anything. That's what makes the eyes different from the other senses because their other senses are in full working order at birth.

No, they aren’t.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not blaming anybody but when they tell me he was wrong without understanding why he made the claims he did, it is very frustrating.

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.

What does Edgar Cayce's general semantics disprove Lessans' claims regarding the eyes?

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

I can't imagine that people would be uninterested in how to prevent the crisis happening in our world unless they were so skeptical that they wouldn't give him a chance.

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?

I grew up with his knowledge. He didn't teach me directly. He showed me through his actions and words.

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.

This is not perfidy. This may be a relatively old book in your eyes, but it is more timely than ever.

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

Yes, but the principles have to be proven true by his demonstration before we can apply this knowledge on a global scale, just like an equation needs to be proven true before we can use it to land men on the moon.

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.

He was either right or not. His claims are science based, not theology, so where does rationalization enter into this. Based on Lessans' observations, a child in the Romanian orphanages became cross-eyed when he didn't receive the necessary stimulation from their other four senses. This is a drastic case, but it does give credence to his view that the brain needs stimulation for the eyes to focus. The standing theory is that their eyes improved when they exercised their eye muscles, but Lessans, from his observations, said it was not from underdeveloped eye muscles but from the inability for the eyes to focus when there was no sensory stimulation. Who was right? Only time will tell.

The initial assessments found children in conditions so wrenching, Nelson said, that researchers had a rule that they wouldn’t cry in front of the children and sometimes had to excuse themselves to step out of the room. Babies under age 1 or 2 spent their days lying on their backs, staring at the blank ceiling over their cribs, leading to a high prevalence of crossed eyes, which went away as they got older, became more active, and exercised their eye muscles. Caregiver ratios were high, with one caregiver to 15 babies, and one caregiver to 20 to 25 toddlers. Conditions tended to be better at urban institutions, but in some rural institutions, Nelson said, children were chained to the beds for years on end.

'Breathtakingly awful' — Harvard Gazette

With 8 million orphans living in institutions worldwide, an ongoing Harvard study highlights the devastating effect institutionalization has on children, providing support for a switch to foster care.

news.harvard.edu

 

[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.

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.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just frustrated.

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?

How can it not interest people if they are desperate to find answers to the world's situation? Even if they are unsure, you don't throw something out just because it sounds ludicrous at first glance.

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.

Please use your language wisely.

per·fid·i·ous
[pərˈfidēəs]
adjective
literary

1. deceitful and untrustworthy:
   "a perfidious lover"

​

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.

You cannot use Christian theology or any other kind of religious doctrine as a comparison to this discovery, so it's not fair to use this analogy against him.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes Peacegirl, you do not understand what your feather's work looks like to us and probably to anyone in science.

I believe what you are trying to prove comes under experimental and cognitive psychology today.

Cognitive psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cognitive psychology is the scientific study of mental processes such as attention, language use, memory, perception, problem solving, creativity, and reasoning.[1] Cognitive psychology originated in the 1960s in a break from behaviorism, which held from the 1920s to 1950s that unobservable mental processes were outside the realm of empirical science. This break came as researchers in linguistics and cybernetics, as well as applied psychology, used models of mental processing to explain human behavior. Work derived from cognitive psychology was integrated into other branches of psychology and various other modern disciplines like cognitive science, linguistics, and economics.

Experimental psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Experimental psychology refers to work done by those who apply experimental methods to psychological study and the underlying processes. Experimental psychologists employ human participants and animal subjects to study a great many topics, including (among others) sensation, perception, memory, cognition, learning, motivation, emotion; developmental processes, social psychology, and the neural substrates of all of these.[1]

 

[pood]

You cannot use Christian theology or any other kind of religious doctrine as a comparison to this discovery, so it's not fair to use this analogy against him.

No one is using any analogy against him. His claims about light and sight are just wrong. See the repair I offered upthread. I give it to you for free. You will reject it, and go down this futile path of yours.

 

[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?

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.

 

[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?

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).

I didn't realize that lightning is considered plasma. My bad, sorry.

Why is lightning considered a plasma?

I was wondering why a lightning bolt is coined as "plasma", or a "spark" from an electrical wire/device is as well, yet flares, molten lava, and burning buildings are not(flares are pyrotechnic,

physics.stackexchange.com

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.

Keep that in mind when you're reading the chapter, if you ever do.

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).

Of course, he can be challenged but the challenge can't just be, "he is wrong because the science is settled."

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?

This was not a string of words and it certainly wasn't gibberish. His sentence structure regarding epistemology was accurate. There was nothing hard to understand in that sentence. The only problem I see is that I gave you an excerpt that would be hard to grasp without understanding his earlier reasoning. It isn't a string of words if you had read the chapter. This is what makes it so difficult. It gives people who are trying to discredit him an edge because it's out of order. Nevertheless, I'll give you this paragraph again and hope that you can get something out of it. If not, you really need to go back and try to understand the basis for his claim regarding the eyes.

I’m not denying that a person goes to school, graduates, and reads many books, but what has this to do with the word education? In reality, the word education is no different than the word beautiful because it creates and then projects a nonexisting value. In other words, when a word like education is used to describe certain differences, as when beautiful is applied to definite physical characteristics, these differences are real and a part of the external world, but the word contains a judgment of value and, consequently, can have no corresponding accuracy. If education was something actually real, then any symbol would suffice to separate it from other external differences, as the word sun distinguishes this bit of substance from the word moon. Again, let me clarify this.

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.

All he meant by "those who tried to understand" were those people who were not epistemologists. He was trying to make clear that it would be very difficult for anyone trying to understand the unreality of certain words if epistemologists couldn't get a handle on it. But how could epistemologists understand this difference in words when this knowledge was never brought to the surface?

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, and is not in a similar category to "those who tried to understand",

Defining epistemology​

Epistemology is a fundamental branch of philosophy, as it is the study of knowledge itself. What is knowledge, how do we attain it, how much of it can we attain, and how can we trust it? How can we be sure that we know anything at all? Epistemology is concerned with all of these questions and more, but the answers are far from straightforward and remain the subject of intense debate.

What is Epistemology? | Definition, Examples & Analysis

www.perlego.com

 

[steve_bank]

Peaceful, the book starts with a declaration of ridding the world of evil, reference to god, and a line form the Lord's Prayer. That says theology.

It is not framed as human behavior or psychology, the word evil is used.

The book bastardizes what he read.

I do make an analogy to theology.

To repeat what we see today is no different tan what has always been. I would argue that western liberal democracy post WWII is major step forward in redcing large scale war, social inequity, and poverty.

Modern medicine and agriculture has allowed populations to grow and we are heading to unstable populations. Hence the large scale migrations. Our southern border.

'Evil' really is a minor factor.

Yir have a very narrow focus on proving your father's book, apparently ignoring the major forces at pay aeroud the world and modern scince.

The old sayings. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and a one trick pony.

 

[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

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.

That's what my father did: observe. Durant tried to prove direct perception was always better than reasoning but he wasn't right in this instance.

Now let us understand why the implications of believing that man’s will is not free turned Durant and many others away. Remember, most people know nothing about the implications of this position; they just accept as true what has been taught to them by leading authorities. If determinism were true, he reasoned, then man doesn’t have a free choice; consequently, he cannot be blamed for what he does. Faced with this apparent impasse, he asked himself, “How can we not blame and punish people for hurting others? If someone hurts us, we must believe that he didn’t have to; that his will was free, in order to blame and punish him for what he did. And how is it possible to turn the other cheek and not fight back from this intentional hurt to us?” He was trying to say in this sentence that philosophies of free will would never stop returning just as long as our nature commands us to fight back when hurt, an eye for an eye. This is undeniable, and he was one hundred percent correct because this relation could be seen just as easily with direct perception as two plus two equals four, and there was no way that this statement could be beaten down with formulas or reasoning, but this is not what he actually said. He, as well as many philosophers, helped the cause of free will by unconsciously using syllogistic reasoning, which is logical, though completely fallacious. He accomplished this by setting up an understandable assumption for a major premise: “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of freedom, it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.” Can you not see how mathematically impossible is his observation? This simple paraphrase will clarify a point: “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of” four equaling two plus two, “it is because” two equals one plus one, and one plus one plus one plus one totals four. But when a person perceives certain undeniable relations, is it necessary to make an equation out of four equaling two plus two, or out of the fact that once free will is proven untrue, it can no longer exist and its philosophies of freedom return? Using this same syllogistic reasoning, he tried to prove freedom of the will by demonstrating, in the same manner, that determinism could never prove it false. In other words, when a major premise is not obviously true, then fallacious reasoning has to result. The purpose of reasoning is to connect mathematical relations, not to prove the validity of inaccurate perceptions.

Durant begins with the assumption that direct perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the truth, which makes a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception. Thus, he reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore…” and here is his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct perception, which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism, the belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write, “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from his inability to accept the implications. Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. Since it is absolutely impossible for free will to ever be proven true (I take for granted this is now understood), nothing in this universe can prove determinism an unreality (and in this context it shall only mean the opposite of free will as death is the opposite of life) simply because this would automatically prove the truth of free will, which has been shown to be an impossibility. Consequently, the belief in free will and all conceptions regarding it can only remain in existence as a plausible theory just as long as no undeniable evidence is produced in contravention. According to his reasoning he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible is his next statement, he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception. Take a look at that last statement very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If free will was finally proven to be that which is nonexistent (and let’s take for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at large, would it be possible, according to Durant’s statement, for ‘philosophies of freedom’ to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination, or, to phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that philosophies of freedom eternally recur, not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher himself, provided it is understood, but because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so fallacious since the word ‘because’ which denotes the perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from saying, “I believe.” “It is my opinion.” “I was taught that man’s will is free,” but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument. One of the most profound insights ever expressed by Socrates was, “Know Thyself,” but though he had a suspicion of its significance, it was only an intuitive feeling, not something he could put his finger on. These two words have never been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to another door that requires its own key, and where the hiding place to this discovery was finally uncovered. However, the problem here is so deep and so involved that even those like your philosopher Spinoza, who understood that man’s will is not free, didn’t even come close to the solution, and others like your William James would be willing to bet their lives that will is free. Why do theologians treat this as if it is an undeniable reality? And what made it so obvious to Durant that man’s will is free? Durant is now deceased, but over 20 years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only contacted that university but many others to no avail.

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.

That is true but this type of debate cannot be tested using the scientific method of starting with a hypothesis. Hopefully, once it is confirmed by science, then we can put into practice (just like the accuracy of an equation where scientists can feel confident to use it to land men on the moon) which will prove its accuracy and practicality on the world stage because it will be shown to work.

 

[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?

These are not arbitrary 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.

They aren't his rules, and this is not an appeal to consequences. He isn't telling you to give up your rules in favor of his. He's only asking that you stick to the rules of reasoning that everyone shares, so you have a basis for communication.

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 wasn't dictating that people leave their brains at the door. But he didn't want people's skepticism or their biases to create misunderstanding.

He starts from premises that are false;

What false premises did he start off with? He hadn't even explained anything. He was just making an analogy to chess. IOW, just as there are rules to the game of chess, there are rules to the game of reasoning. There was nothing wrong with what he said.

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"

He never said to abandon the rules of reasoning. There were no false claims for him to tell you to agree with. That would be the opposite of what he would ever tell people to do. All he meant was to follow the rules of reasoning before saying that 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 7. That's all he meant. He was sure of his discovery and that probably gets people mad.

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.

But that is not at all what he meant bilby. He was never given a chance to have this knowledge thoroughly investigated. Even then, it could still be rejected just like Nageli threw out Mendel's claims but he turned out to be wrong. That is why he said don't make up your own rules as to what is right and wrong. You need to use the rules of the game, the game being the rules of reasoning. This is why he prefaced the book the way he did. He wanted to make sure people understood his claims before saying they disagreed.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Can you point me to any information you can find? According to what people are taught, we have five senses. It would be nice to know that he was not alone.

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.

Obviously.