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

[peacegirl]

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.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry Peacegirl.

After going trough just the first part of the book putting it as tactfully as I can it is the work of an eccentric.

When I read Science And Sanity from General Semantics back in the 70s I thought part of it was pseudo science, but there was a structure and I found useful takeaways.

Your book is an incoherent sequence of chapters.

My guess is he read a lot of things and put in odd things and conclusions form what he read without any interaction with others and no peer review of his book.

Was your father Christian? The impression I get is a revivalist preacher of the day mixing religion and science.

I can see why no one in academic science or philosophy would give the book much credence.

You blew it. I'm not interested in talking to you anymore. No questions, no curiosity, just claims that the world will always be what it is because that's how it always has been, and for anyone to say that we can achieve peace, is a Pollyanna. I can't talk to people like you. No, my father was not Christian. He was Jewish just like Einstein.

 

[steve_bank]

Yo0u are all over the place.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

 

[pood]

As I have noted, and we have previously linked peacegirl to, there are scientific studies demonstrating that dogs can recognize their masters in photographs and on video, and sometimes on computer screens, though they have trouble with smaller devices like cellphones. She ignores it.

 

[peacegirl]

Yo0u are all over the place.

No Im not.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

Okay

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

For the hundredth time, he wasn’t disputing that.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

Right

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

You tell me

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

Again, that’s not even close to what he was claiming

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Dogs can learn from experience but this is really not related because an older dog with lots of experience and love for his master would still need to confirm through smell or sound that what his eyes were seeing, was in fact, his master.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

The context is his sight but you’re getting close because he does not have the kind of language to be able to identify differences in facial features.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

Well, you’re not doing a great job. Scrutinize then but don’t bring in things that are unrelated.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, here is the problem. It is just a fact that the eye is a sense organ, and that we do not see in real time. Yet you keep promoting this work at boards filled with educated, intelligent people who are never going to swallow what the author is selling. They never have, and never will. Uneducated people, on the other hand …

OMFG HAVE I GOT AN IDEA FOR YOU!! EUREKA!! IT HIT ME LIKE A FLASH IN THAT LAST SENTENCE I BROKE OFF TYPING!!!

Peacegirl. This is serious.

You’re a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. Go to MAGA boards. Those people won’t anything about light or sight. They don’t know their ass from their elbows. But you must be sure, before presenting the author’s work, to introduce yourself as a Trump fan and an anti-vaxxer. After that, they will buy anything you say.

Now listen. Follow the logic. Remember when your author sued President Jimmy Carter for declining his request to present his “discoveries” in an Oval Office meeting in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists)?

TRUMP IS NOW GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!!!

You can do this, peacegirl! Work your way in with the MAGA crowd! Request — even if indirectly through your new MAGA contacts who will vouch for the author’s “discoveries” — an Oval Office meeting with Trump in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists). You must be very sure, however, that the “scientists” are hand-picked by RFK Jr. and Marjorie Taylor Greene. When in the presence of Trump, you must flatter the shit out of him constantly, and maybe even give him money.

After that, he will put the stamp of truth on your author’s book! He will promote it along with his Trump Bible!!!

Peacegirl, I am quite serious about this. The public at large will believe just about anything, especially if their Orange Messiah tells them to believe. This is the sure ticket to fame for you and your author — and fortune for you! (Unless Trump steals your cut of the book sales.)

 

[steve_bank]

With animal experiments care has to be taken not to inadvertently condition the animals to respond in a certain way.

Clever Hansd was a sensation. Philosophers and scientists traveled to see it. Somebody got the idea of putting a vi9sual barrier between the horse and the owner. When the horse could not see the owner it no longer responded.

Clever Hans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clever Hans (German: der Kluge Hans; c. 1895 – c. 1916) was a horse that appeared to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks. In 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reactions of his trainer. The horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> In honour of Pfungst's study, this typoe of artifact in research methodology has since been referred to as the Clever Hans effect and has continued to be important to the observer-expectancy effect and later studies in animal cognition.Pfungst was an assistant to German philosopher and psychologist Carl Stumpf, who incorporated the experience with Hans into his further work on animal psychology and his ideas on phenomenology.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

What I was showing is that your idea of real time vision has no merit. Vision and perception are well understood by modern science.

You are arguing in pre modern science metaphysics, and you are saying the eye works differently than what the science models say. And from the book that this different is somehow related to the elimination of evil.

A medieval kind of theology. Bodyparts a source of evil.

A much more effective way to purge evil is to drill a hole in the skull to let the evil spirits get out, as was done in the 19tth century and earlier.

There was Mesmer and his animal magnetism.

Franz Mesmer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1774, Mesmer produced an "artificial tide" in a patient, Francisca Österlin, who suffered from hysteria, by having her swallow a preparation containing iron and then attaching magnets to various parts of her body. She reported feeling streams of a mysterious fluid running through her body and was relieved of her symptoms for several hours. Mesmer did not believe that the magnets had achieved the cure on their own. He felt that he had contributed animal magnetism, which had accumulated in his work, to her. He soon stopped using magnets as a part of his treatment.

There is a long western tradition of 'seers', prophesiers. and mystics.

 

[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?

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?

He demonstrated what was going on and that is why he tried to show why dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture where children can recognize their parents in this way. He goes on to show how we learn words and how we become conditioned. Conditioning takes place when we hear words that have negative inflections and words that have positive inflections. If a word symbolizes something real, then that allows us to communicate through language. We can't call a dog a cow because they are different and therefore they have different names. The brain doesn't know the difference between words that are accurate symbols and those that are not accurate symbols. Because we have been conditioned by words that call some people beautiful and some ugly, we have become conditioned to see these differences with our very eyes. They don't realize it's the projection of the value contained in the word that makes our eyes believe that what we see actually exists. People will tell you they swear they see a beautiful woman or an ugly duckling which has caused the worst kind of injustice and has made those individuals who grew up feeling physiognomically inferior to others, as unworthy of love. It has actually caused self-hatred and feelings of deep inferiority and insecurity. It has led many to depression and some to suicide. This conditioning could not occur if the eyes were sense organs because this value is not contained in the wavelength that is striking our retina. People don't see this beauty or ugliness because it travels to the eye, but, having been conditioned from early on, people will swear that they see this beautiful woman and this ugly duckling. This entrenchment is not easy to overcome because this conditioning begins the minute our children learn whose features deserve these compliments and those that don't. The only way to change this is to understand how it developed and to stop using these words that have caused so much pain to so many people. There is a difference between saying, "this person appeals to me" because it's an individual expression of preference, and this person is beautiful which implies that the person who doesn't get this remark is lower in this stratification. Kids learn this very young and it's very hard to unring the bell. The conditioning has already taken place. By removing these words before this conditioning occurs, it will bring everyone up to a level of equality even though personal taste will always be a factor. But without the words, there will be no more stratification, and you will see that a whole range of faces that use to be on the lower end of the totem pole will now be considered appealing, not just the few at the top. This means that people will not be choosing their partners as a last resort because no one of greater value on the scale of physiognomic perfection (the beautiful people) would want them. You will no longer hear; she's out of your league. This also goes for people who distinguish themselves as being superior due to their intelligence or their education and as a result they feel they are deserving of more respect than the average joe. This is also false. This is explained in more depth in his chapter: The New Meaning of Education.

 

[pood]

This conditioning could not occur if the eyes were sense organs because this value is not contained in the wavelength that is striking our retina.

NOTHING is contained in light striking our eyes. It’s just light. The conditioning and evaluation goes on inside the head.

See my Trump idea. This country is so far gone now this might really work for you.

 

[pood]

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?

He demonstrated what was going on and that is why he tried to show why dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture where children can recognize their parents in this way. He goes on to show how we learn words and how we become conditioned. Conditioning takes place when we hear words that have negative inflections and words that have positive inflections. If a word symbolizes something real, then that allows us to communicate through language. We can't call a dog a cow because they are different and therefore they have different names. The brain doesn't know the difference between words that are accurate symbols and those that are not accurate symbols. Because we have been conditioned by words that call some people beautiful and some ugly, we have become conditioned to see these differences with our very eyes. They don't realize it's the projection of the value contained in the word that makes our eyes believe that what we see actually exists. People will tell you they swear they see a beautiful woman or an ugly duckling which has caused the worst kind of injustice and has made those individuals who grew up feeling physiognomically inferior to others, as unworthy of love. It has actually caused self-hatred and feelings of deep inferiority and insecurity. It has led many to depression and some to suicide. This conditioning could not occur if the eyes were sense organs because this value is not contained in the wavelength that is striking our retina. People don't see this beauty or ugliness because it travels to the eye, but, having been conditioned from early on, people will swear that they see this beautiful woman and this ugly duckling. This entrenchment is not easy to overcome because this conditioning begins the minute our children learn whose features deserve these compliments and those that don't. The only way to change this is to understand how it developed and to stop using these words that have caused so much pain to so many people. There is a difference between saying, "this person appeals to me" because it's an individual expression of preference, and this person is beautiful which implies that the person who doesn't get this remark is lower in this stratification. Kids learn this very young and it's very hard to unring the bell. The conditioning has already taken place. By removing these words before this conditioning occurs, it will bring everyone up to a level of equality even though personal taste will always be a factor. But without the words, there will be no more stratification, and you will see that a whole range of faces that use to be on the lower end of the totem pole will now be considered appealing, not just the few at the top. This means that people will not be choosing their partners as a last resort because no one of greater value on the scale of physiognomic perfection (the beautiful people) would want them. You will no longer hear; she's out of your league. This also goes for people who distinguish themselves as being superior due to their intelligence or their education and as a result they feel they are deserving of more respect than the average joe. This is also false. This is explained in more depth in his chapter: The New Meaning of Education.

Fine, and all of this is roughly consistent with general semantics and with Krishnamurti’s views. But it has nothing to do with light and sight.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I do think it is the kind of thing that when you first really internalize what it means, it shows up as a brand new insight and feels like no one has ever explained it correctly before. Truth as a pathless land kind of thing. I know it did for me anyway.

 

[pood]

I do think it is the kind of thing that when you first really internalize what it means, it shows up as a brand new insight and feels like no one has ever explained it correctly before. Truth as a pathless land kind of thing. I know it did for me anyway.

I believe I discovered Krishnamurti while reading Henry Miller in my 20s. He was a big fan of K. Incidentally, this author has penned humorous raunchy sex stuff that matches and may exceed that of Miller. But in “compiling” this book, peacegirl took all that out. Too bad. If I had been the editor of this work — and I have worked for a long time as a professional editor and writer — I would have put all the sex stuff smack in the first chapter as a hook to leading readers to the two-sided equation and all that. With that great funny sex stuff in their minds, the readers might have been conditioned to give the author the benefit of the doubt about his light and sight claims. Peacegirl might have had a best seller. Still could, if she would present the stuff as recommended and also trim the book length considerably. I believe it is almost 600 pages long.

 

[pood]

Krishnamurti on the mind’s conditioning.

K’s contention here is that all our minds are conditioned, much in the way peacegirl’s author says. When we realize this, and try to break out of our conditioning, we are just trying to recondition ourselves with different conditioning, so the effort is futile. But, he contends, once we realize we can’t break out of our conditioning prison, once we fully and wholly realize this, in a flash of insight — then the prison walls fall, and the mind is unconditioned. He he calls the unconditioned mind, “choiceless perception.” So, I find peacegirl’s author’s own take on conditioning very interesting, just not the light and sight stuff.

 

[bilby]

Peacegirl, here is the problem. It is just a fact that the eye is a sense organ, and that we do not see in real time. Yet you keep promoting this work at boards filled with educated, intelligent people who are never going to swallow what the author is selling. They never have, and never will. Uneducated people, on the other hand …

OMFG HAVE I GOT AN IDEA FOR YOU!! EUREKA!! IT HIT ME LIKE A FLASH IN THAT LAST SENTENCE I BROKE OFF TYPING!!!

Peacegirl. This is serious.

You’re a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. Go to MAGA boards. Those people won’t anything about light or sight. They don’t know their ass from their elbows. But you must be sure, before presenting the author’s work, to introduce yourself as a Trump fan and an anti-vaxxer. After that, they will buy anything you say.

Now listen. Follow the logic. Remember when your author sued President Jimmy Carter for declining his request to present his “discoveries” in an Oval Office meeting in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists)?

TRUMP IS NOW GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!!!

You can do this, peacegirl! Work your way in with the MAGA crowd! Request — even if indirectly through your new MAGA contacts who will vouch for the author’s “discoveries” — an Oval Office meeting with Trump in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists). You must be very sure, however, that the “scientists” are hand-picked by RFK Jr. and Marjorie Taylor Greene. When in the presence of Trump, you must flatter the shit out of him constantly, and maybe even give him money.

After that, he will put the stamp of truth on your author’s book! He will promote it along with his Trump Bible!!!

Peacegirl, I am quite serious about this. The public at large will believe just about anything, especially if their Orange Messiah tells them to believe. This is the sure ticket to fame for you and your author — and fortune for you! (Unless Trump steals your cut of the book sales.)

If, as, and when this actually happens, I shall not hesitate to blame you for it.

 

[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?

He demonstrated what was going on and that is why he tried to show why dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture where children can recognize their parents in this way. He goes on to show how we learn words and how we become conditioned. Conditioning takes place when we hear words that have negative inflections and words that have positive inflections. If a word symbolizes something real, then that allows us to communicate through language. We can't call a dog a cow because they are different and therefore they have different names. The brain doesn't know the difference between words that are accurate symbols and those that are not accurate symbols. Because we have been conditioned by words that call some people beautiful and some ugly, we have become conditioned to see these differences with our very eyes. They don't realize it's the projection of the value contained in the word that makes our eyes believe that what we see actually exists. People will tell you they swear they see a beautiful woman or an ugly duckling which has caused the worst kind of injustice and has made those individuals who grew up feeling physiognomically inferior to others, as unworthy of love. It has actually caused self-hatred and feelings of deep inferiority and insecurity. It has led many to depression and some to suicide. This conditioning could not occur if the eyes were sense organs because this value is not contained in the wavelength that is striking our retina. People don't see this beauty or ugliness because it travels to the eye, but, having been conditioned from early on, people will swear that they see this beautiful woman and this ugly duckling. This entrenchment is not easy to overcome because this conditioning begins the minute our children learn whose features deserve these compliments and those that don't. The only way to change this is to understand how it developed and to stop using these words that have caused so much pain to so many people. There is a difference between saying, "this person appeals to me" because it's an individual expression of preference, and this person is beautiful which implies that the person who doesn't get this remark is lower in this stratification. Kids learn this very young and it's very hard to unring the bell. The conditioning has already taken place. By removing these words before this conditioning occurs, it will bring everyone up to a level of equality even though personal taste will always be a factor. But without the words, there will be no more stratification, and you will see that a whole range of faces that use to be on the lower end of the totem pole will now be considered appealing, not just the few at the top. This means that people will not be choosing their partners as a last resort because no one of greater value on the scale of physiognomic perfection (the beautiful people) would want them. You will no longer hear; she's out of your league. This also goes for people who distinguish themselves as being superior due to their intelligence or their education and as a result they feel they are deserving of more respect than the average joe. This is also false. This is explained in more depth in his chapter: The New Meaning of Education.

Well, that's certainly a lot of words.

Could I suggest the use of more paragraphs, and/or less gibberish?

 

[pood]

Back to dogs’ eyes — we are all over the map — they aren’t as good as human eyes in color perception, as I noted, because they have one less cone than we do, but they are better at night vision because they have more rods (all of which, of course, demonstrates for the billionth time that all eyes are sense organs). However, it is true that their main sense organ is the nose for scent, whereas our main sense organ is they eye (though again, this does not mean they can’t recognize humans by sight alone. They can).

Their sense of smell is mind-blowing. They can smell cancer. They can smell moods. They can smell scents from a mile away that we lost after a couple of feet. They can smell in stereo, whatever that means. When they look out the rolled-down windows of moving cars, as they so often do, they are not sight-seeing as we would, but scent-smelling. Dawkins speculates they smell in color. Some people do, too, or experience color through sounds. It is called synesthesia. Van Gogh may have had it. He took piano lessons and loudly banged on the keys while crying, “Chrome Yellow! Prussian Blue!” etc. His piano teacher thought he was a madman and stopped giving him lessons.

 

[DBT]

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

A newborn baby would not be able to focus without the other senses stimulating him.

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.

Some are born deaf, yet do have sight. Being deaf may have effects on perception, but that doesn't eliminate being able to see.

"What Did We Find?
As we thought, the deaf and hearing babies did behave differently in our experiment. The deaf babies took longer to habituate to the pictures of colorful toys. On average, they looked at the toys for about 70 total seconds during the test. The hearing babies looked at the toys for about 42 total seconds (Figure 2). We think this means the deaf babies took longer to process what they were seeing than the hearing babies."

Does Being Born Deaf Affect How We See?

Have you ever heard someone say that if you are born deaf, you have better vision to make up for it? People often think so, but is that actually true? We know that what babies hear, see, and touch determines how their brains develop. When you are growing, your brain is flexible. This means it...

kids.frontiersin.org

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, here is the problem. It is just a fact that the eye is a sense organ, and that we do not see in real time. Yet you keep promoting this work at boards filled with educated, intelligent people who are never going to swallow what the author is selling. They never have, and never will. Uneducated people, on the other hand …

OMFG HAVE I GOT AN IDEA FOR YOU!! EUREKA!! IT HIT ME LIKE A FLASH IN THAT LAST SENTENCE I BROKE OFF TYPING!!!

Peacegirl. This is serious.

You’re a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. Go to MAGA boards. Those people won’t anything about light or sight. They don’t know their ass from their elbows. But you must be sure, before presenting the author’s work, to introduce yourself as a Trump fan and an anti-vaxxer. After that, they will buy anything you say.

Now listen. Follow the logic. Remember when your author sued President Jimmy Carter for declining his request to present his “discoveries” in an Oval Office meeting in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists)?

TRUMP IS NOW GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!!!

You can do this, peacegirl! Work your way in with the MAGA crowd! Request — even if indirectly through your new MAGA contacts who will vouch for the author’s “discoveries” — an Oval Office meeting with Trump in the presence of twelve scientists (not political scientists). You must be very sure, however, that the “scientists” are hand-picked by RFK Jr. and Marjorie Taylor Greene. When in the presence of Trump, you must flatter the shit out of him constantly, and maybe even give him money.

After that, he will put the stamp of truth on your author’s book! He will promote it along with his Trump Bible!!!

Peacegirl, I am quite serious about this. The public at large will believe just about anything, especially if their Orange Messiah tells them to believe. This is the sure ticket to fame for you and your author — and fortune for you! (Unless Trump steals your cut of the book sales.)

If, as, and when this actually happens, I shall not hesitate to blame you for it.

Some may be wondering, did the author actually sue President Jimmy Carter for refusing to give him an Oval Office audience?

Why yes, yes he did. You may surmise how that turned out.

 

[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.....

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.