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

[pood]

Time is the fourth dimension in general relativity. There is nothing mysterious about this. It simply denotes a direction.

[nitpick]Well, no, not quite. Spatial dimensions denote direction. Time dimensions denote duration.

Time dimensions are not like space dimensions. Velocity (actually the square of the velocity) in four dimensional spacetime is found by adding the (square of the) change in each of the spatial directions together, and then dividing by the (square of the) change in the time dimension.

Time (and "timelike") dimensions are the denominators in these Swarzchild Equations, while Space (and "spacelike") dimensions are the enumerators.

It is this that leads to some of the weirder predictions of Relativity, such as that inside a Black Hole, bodies always move towards the central singularity, but are free to move however they like in the other two spatial dimensions and in the time dimension (in contrast to the 'normal' situation, whereby we can move freely in any spatial dimension, but are constrained to move only 'forwards' in time).[/nitpick]

An excellent nitpick and a good summary of the situation. Especially about black holes.

 

[peacegirl]

Time is the fourth dimension in general relativity. There is nothing mysterious about this. It simply denotes a direction.

[nitpick]Well, no, not quite. Spatial dimensions denote direction. Time dimensions denote duration.

Time dimensions are not like space dimensions. Velocity (actually the square of the velocity) in four dimensional spacetime is found by adding the (square of the) change in each of the spatial directions together, and then dividing by the (square of the) change in the time dimension.

Time (and "timelike") dimensions are the denominators in these Swarzchild Equations, while Space (and "spacelike") dimensions are the enumerators.

It is this that leads to some of the weirder predictions of Relativity, such as that inside a Black Hole, bodies always move towards the central singularity, but are free to move however they like in the other two spatial dimensions and in the time dimension (in contrast to the 'normal' situation, whereby we can move freely in any spatial dimension, but are constrained to move only 'forwards' in time).[/nitpick]

An excellent nitpick and a good summary of the situation. Especially about black holes.

Could you please take this to your thread? I’m trying to separate yours from mine so people don’t have unrelated discussions going on.

 

[bilby]

I am asking people to tentatively accept the author’s premise that the present is all that exists because the past is gone, therefore the past cannot cause anything; it just presents certain antecedents to us that drive us or compel us to move in a particular direction, the only direction we can make given meaningful differences that are under consideration.

I am afraid that's as effective as asking me to tentatively accept the premise that some triangles have four sides - it just ain't so, and if it were so, everything would be radically different from how we observe it to be.

TL;DR: He's wrong. So you are too.

 

[peacegirl]

I am asking people to tentatively accept the author’s premise that the present is all that exists because the past is gone, therefore the past cannot cause anything; it just presents certain antecedents to us that drive us or compel us to move in a particular direction, the only direction we can make given meaningful differences that are under consideration.

I am afraid that's as effective as asking me to tentatively accept the premise that some triangles have four sides - it just ain't so, and if it were so, everything would be radically different from how we observe it to be.

TL;DR: He's wrong. So you are too.

I am asking people to tentatively accept the author’s premise that the present is all that exists because the past is gone, therefore the past cannot cause anything; it just presents certain antecedents to us that drive us or compel us to move in a particular direction, the only direction we can make given meaningful differences that are under consideration.

I am afraid that's as effective as asking me to tentatively accept the premise that some triangles have four sides - it just ain't so, and if it were so, everything would be radically different from how we observe it to be.

TL;DR: He's wrong. So you are too.

The premise that we live in the present is not the same as triangles having four sides. Anyway, this thread is obviously not for you. You still have no idea what the discovery is. You are missing out because it is quite interesting to see how these principles work in real life. They have practical application which is the ultimate empirical proof.

 

[bilby]

The premise that we live in the present is not the same as triangles having four sides.

No, but the premise that there is one present, agreed upon by all observers, is demonstrably false.

You live in the present. I live in the present. But we don't necessarily agree with each other about when the present is.

Your present might be in my future, or my past.

Most people don't accelerate much relative to most other people, so the discrepancy is negligible. But the Apollo astronauts, and our GPS satellites, demonstrate that this isn't always the case.

There is no absolute time. There is no single "present" agreed upon by all observers.

 

[pood]

The premise that we live in the present is not the same as triangles having four sides.

No, but the premise that there is one present, agreed upon by all observers, is demonstrably false.

You live in the present. I live in the present. But we don't necessarily agree with each other about when the present is.

Your present might be in my future, or my past.

Most people don't accelerate much relative to most other people, so the discrepancy is negligible. But the Apollo astronauts, and our GPS satellites, demonstrate that this isn't always the case.

There is no absolute time. There is no single "present" agreed upon by all observers.

Peacegirl does not — or more likely, will not — understand that the theory of relativity is one of many refutations of her writer’s claims about light and sight. Relative simultaneity is a direct consequence of the fact that do not and cannot see without a delay, and from this it follows that there is no universal “now.” The idea of a universal “now” is called presentism, and it cannot survive relativity.

 

[peacegirl]

Libet’s experiments did not disprove free will, as he acknowledged. It’s a whole lotta nothing.

Libet's experiments did not prove that the conscious agent isn't responsible for his decision because it's the conscious agent ONLY who makes it. You can't separate the brain from the agent who gives permission for the action to be executed. The courts don't say, "your brain made the decision, not your conscious self, so you're off the hook of culpability. This in no way means the agent was morally responsible or free to have chosen otherwise.

You can't be conscious of something before the event.

Of course not. But consciousness (e.g., or agency) is a prerequisite of decision-making.

No, it's not. Consciousness is based on prior information processing. It is the processing that determines the form that consciousness takes, thoughts, feelings, etc, and it is underlying processing that 'feeds' conscious experience as information is acquired and integrated into conscious form.

agency: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power: operation

Consciousness is generated not only after the event, but after the senses have acquired the information and the brain has processed it. That's where the milliseconds of delay between the event and a response comes from. Reflex response being the fastest, nerve loops, etc, with prefrontal deliberation the slowest.

Even if it takes a millisecond of delay to reach conscious awareness, it takes a conscious will to make a decision.

Abstract​

The real question that Libet's experiments raise is whether our conscious wills cause the willed actions. What is at issue is the effects rather than the causes of conscious will. The question is whether conscious will is impotent, not whether it is free. If conscious will is impotent, then we cannot control our actions by means of conscious will, and this disability might reduce our freedom of action. Libet's experiments raises or sharpens this new question. By raising a new issue in a new way, Libet's work made (and continues to make) many people rethink their assumptions. The assumptions at stake are both normative and descriptive. The relevant normative assumption is, roughly, that causation by conscious will is necessary for responsibility. The descriptive assumption that Libet questions is, again roughly, that conscious will causes the willed action. This chapter addresses these assumptions in turn. It concludes that Libet's experiments do not undermine responsibility in general, but they do illuminate some particular cases as well as common standards of responsibility.

https://academic.oup.com/book/2344/chapter-abstract/142511162?redirectedFrom=fullte

Wrong, will is not autonomous, nor is will the decision maker.

Nothing can happen consciously before information is acquired, processed, integrated with memory to enable recognition and understanding, at which point the event is represented in conscious form, including conscious will, which is the urge or impulse to act, and not some special veto function that is exempt from the process of cognition.[/url]

I’m just trying to establish that it is the conscious agent that permits the action to take place and therefore he is responsible for making that decision. This has nothing to do with moral responsibility. If someone runs a red light, it is his foot that is pushing on the accelerator to increase the speed. He is giving consent to this action. I’m not saying his decision is a free one.

The 'conscious agent' is the work of the brain. Conscious agency is no autonomous. Vetoing a decision (if there time) is a part and parcel of the process that made the decision in the first instance, just that new information altered the decision making process before it was completed in favour of the first option. Which, if determinism is true, is the course the process must take.
===============================================================
Peacegirl: Conscious agent just means the person is conscious of the decisions he is making unless he is sleepwalking or hypnotized or is in some other altered state of mind without being fully aware of his actions. In either case, it does not mean the agent has autonomy or freedom from antecedents. Agency is a confusing term in my opinion because people interpret it to mean "free" agency and is usually used in a libertarian vernacular. In my use of the term (I can't find a better one to take its place) it just means that the person who houses his brain makes decisions on a conscious level.Imagine being in a court of law and using the excuse that you didn’t run the red light and hit two children, your unconscious brain state did it without your conscious consent. How do you think that would go?

Agency: In psychology, agency signifies the concept of a person's ability to initiate and control their actions, and the feeling they have of being in charge of their actions.

Agency (psychology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

You are probably interested in my commentary to see whether I understand his proof. Pood has put me on trial so many times for this reason that I've lost count. I have always added my commentary, but nothing can take the place of the author's own words.

Not even close. It does not matter whether or not the author has proven anything. It does not matter whether your understanding is the very same as that of the author. What makes what someone says interesting is what follows from what is said. A proof is a saying, but a proof from which nothing follows is necessarily worthless. Your commentary provides an opportunity to see what can follow from what is written. What can follow from thinking in terms of determinism? What remains to be shown is how that compares to what can follow from thinking in other terms which are contrary to and deny determinism.

I hope you can tentatively accept his premise that we are born, grow up, and die in the present, so we can move forward.

I can accept any premise for the sake of argument, for the sake of investigation. But what can possibly follow from that? Most people most often invite (or utilize) assumptions for the sake of argument to (invite a) test for consistency in a presentation. However, inconsistency is seldom as much of a problem as most people imagine it to be, because inconsistency is often readily rectified with modification of expression (and it is that which most often makes assuming for the sake or argument/investigation a worthwhile undertaking). Mere consistency is typically sufficient for apologetics. Apologetics, whether of the religious variety, the science-istic variety, or any other conceivable type is rarely if ever interesting.

With that said, let me move on to one significant shortcoming which often occurs with regards to assuming for the sake of argument. Such an assumption is a perspective. Not all perspectives are equal. Some perspectives are more trans-perspectival than others; some understandings work from only one viewpoint. I look for the more trans-perspectival understandings. The apparent emphasis on the present being all that exists immediately suggests to me a narrow - and likely unnecessary - viewpoint, and that warns of a rigidity which will, in the end, not be justifiable beyond a mere internal consistency.

Perspective commonly relates closely to framing. Framing human actions so that they are to be categorized along the lines of wants, desires and their fulfillment, satisfaction, what have you, jumps out as likely too facile. It is also an after the fact assessment. That assessment reveals little about (and, on the face of it, little interest in) the processes available for producing the alleged satisfaction. On top of that, there is reason to believe that the satisfaction explanation is erroneous. Take, for instance, the Sophie's Choice sort of context:

Sophie’s Choice is the title of a 1979 novel by William Styron ... In the novel, which is set during World War II, the title character must choose between the lives of her two children while imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. She is given an impossible choice: pick one to live while the other is gassed, or else watch both die. For Sophie, there is no best option, and even not making a choice carries a heavy consequence. Either she chooses one of her children to die and lives with the guilt, or she watches both of them die while knowing she could have saved one’s life. The title and situation it represents became an analogy for choices that are similarly difficult for the person making them.

Dissatisfying options (even if not as extreme as Sophie's choice) are not infrequent. To describe them even in terms of preferences is an abuse of language options. Even so, it is possible that most humans are never sufficiently self-aware to be able to function much beyond what might be described most aptly as mere wants-fulfillment. But not all are determined to remain in such a condition.

So, you see that I am interested in your commentary just in case the author did not take account of and engage with such considerations among others possibly. You might be able to take up such issues. It is fine to relate them to select citations (rather than large swaths) from the author.

One other thing:

The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’

Right. That’s compatibilism.

No Pood. You still don't get it ...

See Section 2.1 here:

According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom is nothing more than an agent’s ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way.

 

[peacegirl]

The premise that we live in the present is not the same as triangles having four sides.

No, but the premise that there is one present, agreed upon by all observers, is demonstrably false.

You live in the present. I live in the present. But we don't necessarily agree with each other about when the present is.

Your present might be in my future, or my past.

Most people don't accelerate much relative to most other people, so the discrepancy is negligible. But the Apollo astronauts, and our GPS satellites, demonstrate that this isn't always the case.

There is no absolute time. There is no single "present" agreed upon by all observers.

Peacegirl does not — or more likely, will not — understand that the theory of relativity is one of many refutations of her writer’s claims about light and sight. Relative simultaneity is a direct consequence of the fact that do not and cannot see without a delay, and from this it follows that there is no universal “now.” The idea of a universal “now” is called presentism, and it cannot survive relativity.

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to a projecting function of the brain (which you conveniently ignore), you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility or out of the question.

 

[pood]

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to a projecting function of the brain (which you conveniently ignore), you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility.

Real-time seeing was ruled out hundreds of years ago and has no chance of being right. They eyes are a sense organ.

As to the “projecting function of the brain,” whatever that is actually supposed to be according to the author, it has nothing to do with light or sight. Yes, we all “project” onto others are own biases and conditioning, if that is what he means, but once again, this has nothing to do with light and sight.

 

[peacegirl]

The premise that we live in the present is not the same as triangles having four sides.

No, but the premise that there is one present, agreed upon by all observers, is demonstrably false.

You live in the present. I live in the present. But we don't necessarily agree with each other about when the present is.

Your present might be in my future, or my past.

Most people don't accelerate much relative to most other people, so the discrepancy is negligible. But the Apollo astronauts, and our GPS satellites, demonstrate that this isn't always the case.

There is no absolute time. There is no single "present" agreed upon by all observers.

Peacegirl does not — or more likely, will not — understand that the theory of relativity is one of many refutations of her writer’s claims about light and sight. Relative simultaneity is a direct consequence of the fact that do not and cannot see without a delay, and from this it follows that there is no universal “now.” The idea of a universal “now” is called presentism, and it cannot survive relativity.

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to this projecting ability of the brain, you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility.

The premise that we live in the present is not the same as triangles having four sides.

No, but the premise that there is one present, agreed upon by all observers, is demonstrably false.

You live in the present. I live in the present. But we don't necessarily agree with each other about when the present is.

Your present might be in my future, or my past.

Most people don't accelerate much relative to most other people, so the discrepancy is negligible. But the Apollo astronauts, and our GPS satellites, demonstrate that this isn't always the case.

There is no absolute time. There is no single "present" agreed upon by all observers.

Peacegirl does not — or more likely, will not — understand that the theory of relativity is one of many refutations of her writer’s claims about light and sight. Relative simultaneity is a direct consequence of the fact that do not and cannot see without a delay, and from this it follows that there is no universal “now.” The idea of a universal “now” is called presentism, and it cannot survive relativity.

You cannot prove that there is another NOW than the NOW we all share. You can have tons of opinions about it but proof is another thing altogether. You start with premises that you believe are sacrosanct and therefore any argument to the contrary must be wrong. That's not how science operates.

 

[pood]

You cannot prove that there is another NOW than the NOW we all share. You can have tons of opinions about it but proof is another thing altogether. You start with premises that you believe are sacrosanct and therefore any argument to the contrary must be wrong. That's not how science operates.

Like you know how science operates!

I refer you to Einstein’s original train thought experiment which proves both that we always see with a delay and that there is no universal “now,” but instead different “nows” relativized to reference frames. Of course all this has been explained to you before, but as usual you learn nothing. ETA: In other words, I don’t have “opinions” on the matter. I have facts.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

You cannot prove that there is another NOW than the NOW we all share.

I refer you to Einstein’s original train thought experiment which proves both that we always see with a delay and that there is no universal “now,” but instead different “nows” relativized to reference frames.

In case this helps, another way of looking at this "now" issue: I am going to take some liberties with Einstein's personality here. Okay, so I am giving him an entirely new personality. Won't matter. With his original train thought experiment, Einstein proved that subjectivity is at the core of "now" observations. He stressed the importance of this inescapable presence by continually noting that looking at any matter from only one perspective was virtually never sufficient for attaining the best understanding. Something like that.

 

[peacegirl]

You are probably interested in my commentary to see whether I understand his proof. Pood has put me on trial so many times for this reason that I've lost count. I have always added my commentary, but nothing can take the place of the author's own words.

Not even close. It does not matter whether or not the author has proven anything. It does not matter whether your understanding is the very same as that of the author. What makes what someone says interesting is what follows from what is said. A proof is a saying, but a proof from which nothing follows is necessarily worthless.

True.

Your commentary provides an opportunity to see what can follow from what is written.

Fair enough.

What can follow from thinking in terms of determinism? What remains to be shown is how that compares to what can follow from thinking in other terms which are contrary to and deny determinism.

There is a lot of confusion around this issue because of how these words are defined. I have explained that it is impossible, once a choice is made, to have done otherwise. It is this "doing otherwise" that is under scrutiny. Free will is being defined in ways contrary to what this debate is about.

I hope you can tentatively accept his premise that we are born, grow up, and die in the present, so we can move forward.

I can accept any premise for the sake of argument, for the sake of investigation. But what can possibly follow from that? Most people most often invite (or utilize) assumptions for the sake of argument to (invite a) test for consistency in a presentation. However, inconsistency is seldom as much of a problem as most people imagine it to be, because inconsistency is often readily rectified with modification of expression (and it is that which most often makes assuming for the sake or argument/investigation a worthwhile undertaking). Mere consistency is typically sufficient for apologetics. Apologetics, whether of the religious variety, the science-istic variety, or any other conceivable type is rarely if ever interesting.

With that said, let me move on to one significant shortcoming which often occurs with regards to assuming for the sake of argument. Such an assumption is a perspective. Not all perspectives are equal. Some perspectives are more trans-perspectival than others; some understandings work from only one viewpoint. I look for the more trans-perspectival understandings. The apparent emphasis on the present being all that exists immediately suggests to me a narrow - and likely unnecessary - viewpoint, and that warns of a rigidity which will, in the end, not be justifiable beyond a mere internal consistency.

It's okay if you don't believe that the past is gone, and we can only access the past through memory. This observation doesn't negate his discovery, so no worries, and it certainly doesn't forewarn of a rigidity of thought that goes beyond internal consistency.

Perspective commonly relates closely to framing. Framing human actions so that they are to be categorized along the lines of wants, desires and their fulfillment, satisfaction, what have you, jumps out as likely too facile. It is also an after the fact assessment. That assessment reveals little about (and, on the face of it, little interest in) the processes available for producing the alleged satisfaction. On top of that, there is reason to believe that the satisfaction explanation is erroneous. Take, for instance, the Sophie's Choice sort of context:

Sophie’s Choice is the title of a 1979 novel by William Styron ... In the novel, which is set during World War II, the title character must choose between the lives of her two children while imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. She is given an impossible choice: pick one to live while the other is gassed, or else watch both die. For Sophie, there is no best option, and even not making a choice carries a heavy consequence. Either she chooses one of her children to die and lives with the guilt, or she watches both of them die while knowing she could have saved one’s life. The title and situation it represents became an analogy for choices that are similarly difficult for the person making them.

Dissatisfying options (even if not as extreme as Sophie's choice) are not infrequent.

Dissatisfying options are frequent but thank goodness not as frequent as the choice Sophie had to make.

To describe them even in terms of preferences is an abuse of language options. Even so, it is possible that most humans are never sufficiently self-aware to be able to function much beyond what might be described most aptly as mere wants-fulfillment. But not all are determined to remain in such a condition.

We are not talking about what most people think of in terms of wants-fulfillment. We are going deeper into the meaning of determinism as the gateway to a new understanding of human nature. Moreover, nothing says we are determined to remain in a particular condition.

So, you see that I am interested in your commentary just in case the author did not take account of and engage with such considerations among others possibly. You might be able to take up such issues. It is fine to relate them to select citations (rather than large swaths) from the author.

The author's writing is original. There are no citations for that reason although he did mention certain philosophers in his writing when he quoted them.

One other thing:

The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’

Right. That’s compatibilism.

No Pood. You still don't get it ...

See Section 2.1 here:

According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom is nothing more than an agent’s ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way.

I understand that, but there is an internal necessity that pushes us toward a position that is more satisfying, or we would be satisfied to remain where we are. This is an invariable law that is much more than mere logic, which can look great on paper but be utterly unsound.

 

[peacegirl]

You cannot prove that there is another NOW than the NOW we all share. You can have tons of opinions about it but proof is another thing altogether. You start with premises that you believe are sacrosanct and therefore any argument to the contrary must be wrong. That's not how science operates.

Like you know how science operates!

I refer you to Einstein’s original train thought experiment which proves both that we always see with a delay and that there is no universal “now,” but instead different “nows” relativized to reference frames. Of course all this has been explained to you before, but as usual you learn nothing. ETA: In other words, I don’t have “opinions” on the matter. I have facts.

You are the one that will not allow for any other point of view that just might be more accurate.

 

[peacegirl]

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to a projecting function of the brain (which you conveniently ignore), you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility.

Real-time seeing was ruled out hundreds of years ago and has no chance of being right. They eyes are a sense organ.

His observations, not those that were ruled out hundreds of years ago, offer a new understanding. You can't keep using this as a reason to ignore his findings.

As to the “projecting function of the brain,” whatever that is actually supposed to be according to the author,

Whoa, if you don't know what it means, according to the author, then you have failed to understand his demonstration, which couldn't have been any more clear. Could it be because you don't want to understand?

it has nothing to do with light or sight. Yes, we all “project” onto others are own biases and conditioning, if that is what he means, but once again, this has nothing to do with light and sight.

Wrong Pood. I made a distinction between social conditioning and physical conditioning. I even showed where a person can be told how delicious a certain food is, but if he doesn't like it, nothing can condition him to like it. He can acquire a taste for a certain food, but this is different than being conditioned by words. The same goes for hearing. A person can be told how wonderful a classical piece is but that will not condition him to like it if is not his cup of tea. It is a personal preference. The same goes for smell. If someone says how great the smell of a certain perfume is and to try it, but if he doesn't like it, he cannot be conditioned to like it. Even when it comes to touch, if a person says something feels good (a deep massage for example) but this other person doesn't like the feeling, he cannot be conditioned to like it if he doesn't. Again, he can acquire a liking for it, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned by words. But when it comes to the eyes, it's a completely different story. People are categorized as either beautiful or ugly or in between these extremes. It is believed that this beauty and ugliness is being transmitted through light as it reaches our eyes. This standard has taken the place of personal likes and dislikes and has hurt many people in believing they are inferior physiognomic productions. To summarize: This "physical" conditioning is due to the projecting function of the brain that was never before understood. You say it's just conditioning, but the question is, how does this physical, not social, conditioning occur? You can't just handwave it away.

 

[pood]

You are the one that will not allow for any other point of view that just might be more accurate.

No, you are the one who will not allow for facts in order to support the crackpot ravings of your writer.

 

[pood]

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to a projecting function of the brain (which you conveniently ignore), you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility.

Real-time seeing was ruled out hundreds of years ago and has no chance of being right. They eyes are a sense organ.

His observations, not those that were ruled out hundreds of years ago, offer a new understanding.

He made no observations, He simply made outlandish, foolish claims that are demonstrably false.

You can't keep using this as a reason to ignore his findings.

He made no findings.

As to the “projecting function of the brain,” whatever that is actually supposed to be according to the author,

Whoa, if you don't know what it means, according to the author, then you have failed to understand his demonstration, which couldn't have been any more clear. Could it be because you don't want to understand?

it has nothing to do with light or sight. Yes, we all “project” onto others are own biases and conditioning, if that is what he means, but once again, this has nothing to do with light and sight.

Wrong Pood. I made a distinction between social conditioning and physical conditioning. I even showed where a person can be told how delicious a certain food is, but if he doesn't like it, nothing can condition him to like it. He can acquire a taste for a certain food, but this is different than being conditioned by words. The same goes for hearing. A person can be told how wonderful a classical piece is but that will not condition him to like it if is not his cup of tea. It is a personal preference. The same goes for smell. If someone says how great the smell of a certain perfume is and to try it, but if he doesn't like it, he cannot be conditioned to like it. Even when it comes to touch, if a person says something feels good (a deep massage for example) but this other person doesn't like the feeling, he cannot be conditioned to like it if he doesn't. Again, he can acquire a liking for it, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned by words. But when it comes to the eyes, it's a completely different story. People are categorized as either beautiful or ugly or in between these extremes. It is believed that this beauty and ugliness is being transmitted through light as it reaches our eyes. This standard has taken the place of personal likes and dislikes and has hurt many people in believing they are inferior physiognomic productions. To summarize: This "physical" conditioning is due to the projecting function of the brain that was never before understood. You say it's just conditioning, but the question is, how does this physical, not social, conditioning occur? You can't just handwave it away.

tl;dr

 

[peacegirl]

Call

You are the one that will not allow for any other point of view that just might be more accurate.

No, you are the one who will not allow for facts in order to support the crackpot ravings of your writer.

This is a non-response typical of you Pood. What is true is true. I can't worry about your name calling.

 

[pood]

This is a non-response typical of you Pood. What is true is true. I can't worry about your name calling.

Right. Delayed seeing and the eye is a sense organ are true.