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

[peacegirl]

Pg
When we are threatened we stop being rational.

Some people are not rational to begin with. You are afraid to consider Lessans may be wrong, your life appears to be built around how your view Lessans,. On the other hand science has always been in a state of change. No absolutes. What becomes science is what remains after everything else that was proposed failed to be demonstrated.

Maxwell's Equations became mainstream science because i twas demonstrated and congestion theories did not work.

To get attention Lessans would have had to write a paper wihout all the rhetoric simply dtreilng the hypothesis and an experiment that others can do for themselves.

You do not just approach a university and expect a response.

The religious debates prepared me to debate and understand you.

I’m sorry you don’t like the book. I tried.

 

[DBT]

They are not discoveries. There is no threat.

How very unfortunate coming from someone who believes man’s will is not free! 🫩

It has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe. Real time seeing/instant vision has no merit because there is no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
When we are threatened we stop being rational.

Some people are not rational to begin with. You are afraid to consider Lessans may be wrong, your life appears to be built around how your view Lessans,. On the other hand science has always been in a state of change. No absolutes. What becomes science is what remains after everything else that was proposed failed to be demonstrated.

Maxwell's Equations became mainstream science because i twas demonstrated and congestion theories did not work.

To get attention Lessans would have had to write a paper wihout all the rhetoric simply dtreilng the hypothesis and an experiment that others can do for themselves.

You do not just approach a university and expect a response.

The religious debates prepared me to debate and understand you.

I’m sorry you don’t like the book. I tried.

Nit about personal like or dislike.

It is about your irrational claims based in he book. You try and reconcile Lessans with science and fail over and over.

One thing the forum is not is a mutual admiration society.

 

[bilby]

When we are threatened we stop being rational. We close our ears as if doing this saves us from the truth.

Yup, you certainly do.

Perhaps you should stop doing that.

Funny thing about "truth"; Real truths are important, but of limited scope. Religions, however, believe that there are truths that will usher in utopias - that (if only everyone could be persuaded to believe) will change humanity globally and for the better.

The easiest way to detect a religious belief masquerading as "truth", is to ask what effects it has outside its immediately obvious field of importance.

True statements about how eyes work, for example, are of use to optometrists and the designers of optical instruments. They are of interest to people who study eyes, and optics.

True statements about how eyes work are utterly unimportant to people whose interest is world peace, or an understanding of human nature, or who want people to be nicer to each other.

And the nice thing about this methodology for separating claims about specific systems, from faith claims of a religious nature, is that it works even when we don't know whether a given claim is actually true or false.

Just the scope of the claim is enough. If it's actually going to revolutionize the world, a new discovery will do so in complex and incomprehensible ways, such that the discoverer cannot predict the effects - for example, the inventors of the transistor didn't claim, and couldn't know, that their idea would utterly transform every human's daily life, and had they claimed that it would, it would have been sensible to dismiss those claims as quackery.

What they actually claimed was "hey, this might be more reliable and somewhat smaller and lighter than a vacuum tube".

If the originator of an idea predicts that it will have massive and wide-ranging effects that he understands and can predict, then he's a religious nutter.

The actual originators of ideas that genuinely go on to have massive and wide-ranging effects are always as surprised as everyone else by their disproportionate impact.

 

[pood]

What happens when you enter a perfectly dark room, where you see nothing, and then you switch the light on?

What are you getting at DBT? You would see what is in the room. Light travels so fast, there is no way someone could prove that we see in real time. It is assumed that light brings us the image which takes a nanosecond or less to reach our eyes. This goes right back to the belief in delayed vision. This question doesn't answer anything more than what is believed to be happening.

The speed of light has been measured. Now if you consider what happens when you enter a dark room and switch the light on, understanding that light has travel time, you'd understand that "real time/instant vision' is impossible.

I just explained that the conclusion that we see in delayed time cannot be determined by your example because it is assumed that because light travels, and light brings the image to the eye, it follows that we see in delayed time. But this is the very theory that is being challenged. It doesn't prove this version of vision is correct, and it certainly doesn't prove that "real time" vision is impossible. Real time vision is impossible the way you're looking at it, is all, not that it's actually impossible.

It's not about the way I am looking at it, but the way the world works.

Obviously not.

It's the physics of light, the evolutionary role of the eyes, brain, mind and consciousness. It's not magic. It's not some inexplicable real time vision, nor some modified form of determinism.

The role of the eyes is to detect light. This does not change, because light is at the eye in both versions. Real-time vision is not magic if you understand how it works. As far as the role of the brain, you cannot state your premise is sound when it is the very thing being challenged. And what does consciousness have to do with either delayed or real-time vision? There has to be consciousness, regardless, or there is no conversation.

"Fundamentally, the brain analyzes the information your eye gathers"

https://glaucoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/how-the-eye-works_620a.jpg

She has been given a shit ton of info on how the eye works for years, and she is impervious to it. Peacegirl has no connection with reality. Her only reality is her father’s ridiculous book, which to her is holy writ, like the bible is to fundy Christians.

Pood is very threatened by this news for whatever reason.

Ad hom. Will be reported.

When we are threatened we stop being rational. We close our ears as if doing this saves us from the truth. I’m sorry Pood, but this isn’t going to work. The good news is there is more to gain than to lose but you won’t allow yourself to see it.

You are talking about yourself.

It is the height of irrationality to claim that light is at the eye instantly even while conceding it takes light time to get to the eye. This a violation of the Law of Noncontradiction, which points out that no proposition and its negation can simultaneously be true. To say that light is at the eye instantly even though it takes light time to get there clearly violates this law.

 

[pood]

To sum up: You have provided no evidence for your claims about light and sight, but worse for you, you will always be unable to present such evidence even if you tried, because there can be no such evidence, since the claim is logically self-refuting.

 

[pood]

BTW, @peacegirl, do you think you are doing yourself any good with your sleazy little ad hom attacks on me and others? Are you winning brownie points? Do you think you are converting anyone?

Here is the logical structure of ad hom:

P1: First interlocutor: Here is a detailed, evidence-based argument of why real-time seeing cannot be true, because it is both physically and logically impossible.

P2: Second interlocutor: You are threatened by my claim that real-time seeing is true, and being irrational. You don’t like to have your world view challenged.

C: Second interlocutor: Therefore, your rebuttal of my argument for real-time seeing is wrong.

This is classic ad hominem, and you do it all the time. Every single instance of this shall henceforth be reported, staring with the one just upthread.

You should probably try to understand that the people posting here, as well as at the numerous other web sites where you have tried to peddle your nonsense, are for the most part very bright, well-educated, and accomplished. Nobody here is falling for your crap, or your ad homs.

 

[peacegirl]

I thank all of you all so much for your input. I have seen the light and now realize that Lessans could not be right, and I'm just a fundie because he was my father. I am forever grateful for your feedback. I can now reject Lessans' discoveries and get on with reality. You are my saviors!

 

[peacegirl]

NOT!

 

[pood]

NOT!

Would you care to actually address the arguments rather than committing sleazy little ad hom attacks and posting stupid smilies in lieu of a credible response?

Let me guess:

No.

 

[steve_bank]

I don;'t see any ad homs.

I do see a lot of ad libs.

 

[pood]

I don;'t see any ad homs.

I do see a lot of ad libs.

An ad hom is not an insult (or not only an insult). It is as I described above.

Insult: Your are an idiot.

Ad hom: Your argument is wrong because you are an idiot.

Peacegirl tells me that my arguments are wrong because I am afraid of having my world view threatened or because I am irrational or some such bullshit.

Straightforwardly ad hom.

Some ad homs can be compliments:

You are far too bright to believe what you are saying, so your argument is wrong.

I have never ad hommed her author. I have never said that his arguments are wrong because he is an idiot.

I have said the opposite: that he is an idiot because his arguments are wrong, and he should have gotten an education to know better.

 

[steve_bank]

I thank all of you all so much for your input. I have seen the light and now realize that Lessans could not be right, and I'm just a fundie because he was my father. I am forever grateful for your feedback. I can now reject Lessans' discoveries and get on with reality. You are my saviors!

The fact that you said that says it must be sinking in, at least a little. You will have to find a way to cope with it.

Life long patterns are wired into the brain, hard to change even when you know it is wrong.

 

[pood]

I thank all of you all so much for your input. I have seen the light and now realize that Lessans could not be right, and I'm just a fundie because he was my father. I am forever grateful for your feedback. I can now reject Lessans' discoveries and get on with reality. You are my saviors!

The fact that you said that says it must be sinking in, at least a little. You will have to find a way to cope with it.

Life long patterns are wired into the brain, hard to change even when you know it is wrong.

Did you read her immediate follow-up post?

 

[steve_bank]

I don;'t see any ad homs.

I do see a lot of ad libs.

An ad hom is not an insult (or not only an insult). It is as I described above.

Insult: Your are an idiot.

Ad hom: Your argument is wrong because you are an idiot.

Peacegirl tells me that my arguments are wrong because I am afraid of having my world view threatened or because I am irrational or some such bullshit.

Straightforwardly ad hom.

Some ad homs can be compliments:

You are far too bright to believe what you are saying, so your argument is wrong.

I have never ad hommed her author. I have never said that his arguments are wrong because he is an idiot.

I have said the opposite: that he is an idiot because his arguments are wrong, and he should have gotten an education to know better.

Correction. No ad hom. Ad lib AND ad hoc.

Pood and Pg, two peas in a pod. The two should do a podcast.

 

[pood]

I don;'t see any ad homs.

I do see a lot of ad libs.

An ad hom is not an insult (or not only an insult). It is as I described above.

Insult: Your are an idiot.

Ad hom: Your argument is wrong because you are an idiot.

Peacegirl tells me that my arguments are wrong because I am afraid of having my world view threatened or because I am irrational or some such bullshit.

Straightforwardly ad hom.

Some ad homs can be compliments:

You are far too bright to believe what you are saying, so your argument is wrong.

I have never ad hommed her author. I have never said that his arguments are wrong because he is an idiot.

I have said the opposite: that he is an idiot because his arguments are wrong, and he should have gotten an education to know better.

Correction. No ad hom. Ad lib AND ad hoc.

Pood and Pg, two peas in a pod. The two should do a podcast.

View attachment 53854

I am two peas in a pod with her how, exactly?

I am pointing out, quite correctly, that she is committing a classic ad hom fallacy with her personal attacks on me and others, without addressing our arguments. And?

 

[peacegirl]

They are not discoveries. There is no threat.

How very unfortunate coming from someone who believes man’s will is not free! 🫩

It has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe. Real time seeing/instant vision has no merit because there is no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it.

There is still no evidence that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone. It is just handwaved away as if it doesn't count. But it does count because it indicates that recognition in dogs requires more than sight alone. IOW, light reaches the dog's eyes (a dog who is not further than 20 ft away, in a picture, or on a screen), but he cannot identify. Of course, this doesn't bother anyone. They just keep telling me that there's no evidence to support the claim, which is untrue. They tell me bees can recognize humans, too. Hmm, from a lineup? I have said that different cultures have different standards as to what is considered beautiful and ugly, but where does this standard come from, and how do we get conditioned? Answer: We get conditioned by words. How, then, do words get attached to faces if beautiful and ugly faces are not traveling in the light itself? Does the word and face travel together in the light, allowing us to see this beauty and ugliness? Of course not. There has to be a way the word gets associated with certain facial structures. But no, people just handwave away whatever he wrote because they conclude it's of no import. But if children don't grow up believing they are inferior physiognomic productions of the human race, it becomes very important. You have to understand, he saw this from a completely different angle entirely. Although this knowledge did not come from astronomy, it doesn't make him wrong. In fact, knowledge can come from unexpected places. There is nothing in the anatomy of the eyes that proves he is wrong about how the brain and eyes work. Elon Musk and a few others are trying to see if they can make the blind see through internal processes. Only time will tell. I am saddened by the lack of interest other than telling me he was wrong when no one has understood his proof of determinism, either, and why he had to tweak the definition. One of his premises is that the past does not exist except in our memory. This is important because of the confusion over the word cause, which has important implications. If people can't accept that premise, even temporarily, then there is no point in continuing. It's disheartening that this group claims to be objective, but I don't see it.

 

[pood]

Discussion of ad hominem attacks here

 

[steve_bank]

I do n' see anything on the thread tat rises above the normal banter.

Ad hom means to attack the person instead of the message.

Calling her a name is ad hom. Stupid and so on.

Two peas in a pod. You both dig in your heals and go back and forth hitting each other on the head.

You both know the other is not going to budge, but keep whacking each other about the head and shudders, so to speak.

You two should do a live Internet show discussion politics, philosophy, science, and religion. Callers asking questions. It would be a hit.

 

[steve_bank]

They are not discoveries. There is no threat.

How very unfortunate coming from someone who believes man’s will is not free! 🫩

It has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe. Real time seeing/instant vision has no merit because there is no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it.

There is still no evidence that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone. It is just handwaved away as if it doesn't count. But it does count because it indicates that recognition in dogs requires more than sight alone. IOW, light reaches the dog's eyes (a dog who is not further than 20 ft away, in a picture, or on a screen), but he cannot identify. Of course, this doesn't bother anyone. They just keep telling me that there's no evidence to support the claim, which is untrue. They tell me bees can recognize humans, too. Hmm, from a lineup? I have said that different cultures have different standards as to what is considered beautiful and ugly, but where does this standard come from, and how do we get conditioned? Answer: We get conditioned by words. How, then, do words get attached to faces if beautiful and ugly faces are not traveling in the light itself? Does the word and face travel together in the light, allowing us to see this beauty and ugliness? Of course not. There has to be a way the word gets associated with certain facial structures. But no, people just handwave away whatever he wrote because they conclude it's of no import. But it has major implications, so it is important. He came from a completely different perspective. Although this knowledge did not come from astronomy, it doesn't make him wrong. In fact, knowledge can come from unexpected places. There is nothing in the anatomy of the eyes that proves he is wrong about how the brain and eyes work. Elon Musk and a few others are trying to see if they can make the blind see through internal processes. Only time will tell. I am saddened by the lack of interest other than telling me he was wrong when no one has understood his proof of determinism, either, and why he had to tweak the definition. One of his premises is that the past does not exist except in our memory. This is important because of the confusion over the word cause, which has important implications. If people can't accept that premise, even temporarily, then there is no point in continuing. It's disheartening that this group claims to be objective, but I don't see it.

Do you have anything else other than to demand 'proof' of what we say?

Your claims have have pretty much been shown to be false, or least not capable of being demonstrated. Is there anything else or new you have to offer?