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

[pood]

Pg

The bottom line is you are the one with the agenda trying to convince us. We are not accepting anything you are claiming form the book.

So, what comes next? There are a finite number of forums for you to post n.

It is common after a failed exercise like this to do a postmortem. Ask yourself why it failed and how it could have been done better. Ask yourself 'What am I doing wrong?'

The only thing I have done wrong is thinking a forum like this would create interest.

Then why have you been coming to forums like this for 25 years?

It isn't anyone's fault. People don't normally assess a book that has not been read,

People have read the book, or at least the chapters you have posted. We disagree with it.

especially in a philosophy forum.

Huh?

The discussion was doomed from the beginning, but not due to anything wrong with the knowledge itself.

It was doomed for you as soon as people read the posted excerpts. Because it is not knowledge.

Question: Do you remember anything I posted regarding why man's will is not free?

Yes, I know the argument exactly. You just say that I don’t because you can’t explain the argument yourself.

Do you remember the two principles leading to the discovery?

Yes. But it’s not a discovery.

I don't think you do. Prove me wrong.

I have. Now why don’t YOU explain the knowledge in your own words/? I don’t think you can.

Prove me wrong.

I have done my best, but it's not enough, unfortunately.

The same as at every message board you try. Wonder why that is?

 

[bilby]

I can't even make sense of the definitions that define ad homs.

That's really not surprising. Making sense of things has repeatedly eluded you.

Um, I think you are confused as to who is eluded. I don't want to get into a match as to who is wrong or right.

I am not at all surprised; You just scored a massive own goal in that match, by proving yourself to be wrong at a fundamental logical level.

You started this match; Now, suddenly, having shown yourself to be wrong, you no longer want to play?

Just keep in mind that a comment like this does nothing to prove anything. It's a waste of bandwidth.

You just demonstrated undquivocally that the entire thread is a waste of bandwidth, and that your whole argument is nonsensical.

I am confused with the double-talk as much as everyone else

You should take this advice, which comes from somebody you seem to trust (despite her contradicting you):

Um, please stop alluding to "everyone here," which is a giveaway that you can't stand on your own two feet.

By the way, I didn't refer to "everyone", but to "anyone".

I don't think anyone else here is even slightly confused.

You are demonstrably confused; Your efforts to confuse others, however, appear to have failed miserably.

 

[bilby]

Why use the word "idiot" at all

Because it is apt.

It is not apt, and like I just said to Pood, it's nasty. Would you teach your kids to call people idiots just because they don't agree with what someone has to say?

Obviously not. I would teach them inly to call people idiots when they have good evidence that those people were, in fact, idiots.

That would turn them into little arrogant know-it-alls who can't accept that they aren't all that.

I see. So, direct insults bad; Indirect passive agressive insults good?

It's not a nice word, so why are you defending it?

Because it's apt.

 

[pood]

If you are NOT saying that the light bounces off of objects, taking the frequency/wavelength with it across eons to finally reach the eye, which is then transduced into a virtual image in the brain, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

You have repeatedly said that science claims light bounces off an object and takes the “object’s wavelength” with it.

Science does not say this.

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

So you are saying light doesn't arrive at the eye?

I think he means that light does not arrive at the eye instantly, which is correct. You are the one claiming that light is at the eye instantly even though it takes time to get to the eye, a clear logical contradiction, a self-refuting statement and a very silty one to boot.

There is no logical contradiction, which I've explained. The way you say it sounds ludicrous, sort of like teleportation, but that's not what it is. Why not say it like this: As we focus on an object in the sky, we see it because when our gaze is upon it, there is enough light at our eyes for it to be seen.

But there can only be enough light at our eyes for anything to be seen when the light arrives at our eyes, which takes time. That is why everything we see, is seen as it was in the past.

Do you remember the requirements? Luminosity and size?

Luminosity and size have nothing to do with anything.

If an object is too far away, there won't be any light at the eye in which to see, and if the object is too dim, there won't be enough light at the eye to see it. This account has nothing to do with time but everything to do with whether the object we are looking at meets the requirements, whether that object is a million miles away or ten yards away.

If it is ten yards away we see it as it was in the past. If it is millions of miles away we see it as in the past

 

[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.

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.

Evidence that dogs are able to recognize people by sight has been posted, yet you dismiss it out of hand.

Where has it been posted? There are many more like this one.

Evidence based explanations of the role of eyes in enabling sight have been posted, yet you dismissed it out of hand.

It appears that you value faith over understanding how the world works.

Oh my goodness. You are like Pood, without proof. Show me dogs that have not seen their masters in a long time but can easily recognize them from sight alone. What is it going to take?

If a dog cannot recognize their owner after a long period of absence, that is not a matter of the function of their eyes, but memory. Dogs, like people, tend to forget, which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight.

 

[bilby]

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

I want to, once again, explain why this is not a contradiction.

Well, you can't; Because it is. And no amount of "explain" can alter that.

Light IS constantly traveling and being replaced with new photons,

Replaced?

but light that is a mirror image

Light isn't an image. Light can form images, but light is just photons.

(so to speak, I don't like using the word reflected for obvious reasons)

Nothing about your internally contradictory position is "obvious".

of the object goes only so far until we cannot see the object anymore, since the light diminishes before it gets to us.

Oh, goody. Not only are you contradicting yourself, you are also discarding the first law of thermodynamics - or perhaps you are claiming that the inverse square law breaks the first law, because you comprehend neither.

No light, no sight.

No shit.

This has nothing to do with light itself or its properties,

It absolutely does. Specifically, you say that light has the following properties:

A) It is constantly travelling; and
B) It does NOT travel

This seems a touch contradictory to me, though I am assured that if we yell "AFFERENT" loudly enough, nobody will notice.

so why does everyone keep talking about light

Because that's what you keep bringing up, and that's where you contradict yourself.

when it has to do with the brain?

The brain responds to light, in the same way that it responds to sound or touch - via sense organs (eyes, ears, skin).

You seem to want to show that this is false, but to date you have utterly failed to do so, even going so far in your failure as to explicitly and directly contradict yourself.

 

[bilby]

Why use the word "idiot" at all

Because it is apt.

It is not apt, and like I just said to Pood, it's nasty. Would you teach your kids to call people idiots just because they don't agree with what someone has to say? That would turn them into little arrogant know-it-alls who can't accept that they aren't all that. It's not a nice word, so why are you defending it?

Why are you calling people irrational and terrified of having their world view threatened, which are not only nasty insults but ad hom to boot in the context in which you are using these insults?

Projection.

Projection is why she is doing that. Every accusation a confession, as they say.

 

[bilby]

Pg

The bottom line is you are the one with the agenda trying to convince us. We are not accepting anything you are claiming form the book.

So, what comes next? There are a finite number of forums for you to post n.

It is common after a failed exercise like this to do a postmortem. Ask yourself why it failed and how it could have been done better. Ask yourself 'What am I doing wrong?'

The only thing I have done wrong is thinking a forum like this would create interest book sales. It isn't anyone's fault. People don't normally assess a book that has not been read, especially in a philosophy forum.

FTFY.

The discussion was doomed from the beginning, but not due to anything wrong with the knowledge itself.

Indeed. No knowledge was ever even involved.

It was doomed because your arguments are illogical, unreasonable, self-contradictory, and demonstrably wrong.

Question: Do you remember anything I posted regarding why man's will is not free? Do you remember the two principles leading to the discovery?

No matter what anyone remembers, your arguments still fail, and the word "discovery" still doesn't apply to anything in your dad's daft book. "absurd assertion" and "discovery" are not synonymous.

I don't think you do. Prove me wrong.

You have been proven wrong.

Showing that an argument contains a contradiction is the most powerful and undeniable proof that it is wrong.

I have done my best, but it's not enough, unfortunately.

Or, to be more accurate, fortunately.

When you objective is to spread and disseminate nonsense, your failure is a good thing.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

The bottom line is you are the one with the agenda trying to convince us. We are not accepting anything you are claiming form the book.

So, what comes next? There are a finite number of forums for you to post n.

It is common after a failed exercise like this to do a postmortem. Ask yourself why it failed and how it could have been done better. Ask yourself 'What am I doing wrong?'

The only thing I have done wrong is thinking a forum like this would create interest.

Then why have you been coming to forums like this for 25 years?

Because I had no other avenue and still don't. I am going to write to certain professors and philosophers to see if I can get traction. It would be sad if this knowledge went by the wayside because I couldn't get people to take it seriously.

It isn't anyone's fault. People don't normally assess a book that has not been read,

People have read the book, or at least the chapters you have posted. We disagree with it.

If that is true, tell me what you disagree with. You are a compatibilist, so of course you will continue to disagree unless you change your position. Compatibilism doesn't add up. You cannot do otherwise and not do otherwise at the same time, which is incompatible. IT IS A CONTRADICTION. Compatibilists create their own definition, which is nothing more than the average person's idea of free will. If I have no gun to my head, no OCD, and no addictions, I'm free and deserve to be punished if I do wrong. It's nothing more than a repeat of what we now have.

especially in a philosophy forum.

Huh?

Yes, because many ideas have already been established. For me to come in here and announce that I have a discovery that no one has ever heard of is bound to fail. I get it.

The discussion was doomed from the beginning, but not due to anything wrong with the knowledge itself.

It was doomed for you as soon as people read the posted excerpts. Because it is not knowledge.

It's the best knowledge we have. Don't discard it because it will be a loss for all of us.

Question: Do you remember anything I posted regarding why man's will is not free?

Yes, I know the argument exactly. You just say that I don’t because you can’t explain the argument yourself.

You explained some, but you got confused as you went along, and it was incomplete. I know you're trying.

Do you remember the two principles leading to the discovery?

Yes. But it’s not a discovery.

Yes it is. Steve couldn't answer me, can you? Do you know the two principles that lead to the discovery? I think you gave some of it in your summary. So please explain the two-sided equation again, if you can. It may help me to help others see what they understand and what they may not.

I don't think you do. Prove me wrong.

I have. Now why don’t YOU explain the knowledge in your own words/? I don’t think you can.

I don't want to. I see the problem, and it's that no one is taking this book seriously. I guarantee you, they did not read what I have posted without an attitude that says, "You better believe we will show you he was wrong."

Prove me wrong.

I have done my best, but it's not enough, unfortunately.

The same as at every message board you try. Wonder why that is?

It's the same venue, just differnet people. I have finally learned my lesson. Every bit of energy has been drained out of me. I can't do this again. I will have to do something different. What, I'm not sure.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.

There it is folks end of story. I am fighting 'In the name of justice and truth' and I am being nailed to the cross. Tactfully today we might say he had some issues, or be blunt and just just say he was a crackpot. Looney Tunes.

Those professors are out to get me? I am thinking of Bogart as Captain Quig in the Cain Mutiny. A WWII combat navy cap0tain cracks under stress and becomes paranoid. In the final scenes in a ciourt marital he cracks completely.

Yes Pg, you made a mistake tn thinking we would just accept the book without question and hail it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you looked at past threads in on free will and determinism you would have seen that before you started.

You have gone around all your responses several times. So, what's next for Pg? Hang up the old keyboard?

I forget te name, there was one of those who show up teling us we are all wrong about science and religion. One of several similar to you. He had a website using the same forum software as here and similar categories. But he was he only one who was allowed to post on it.

He had multiple thread attacking atheists and science . And like you redefined and made up terms.

As others like him he got progressively hostile, angry, and insulting. And like others he got banned.

Which is why I say this thread is well within the norm for behavior.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not frustrated for that reason. I'm frustrated at the ignorance that poses as knowledge.

You should look in the mirror when you say that.

I have, and the verdict is still out who is the ignorant one.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.

No one is disputing any of this, but whether the brain is seeing a virtual image of real life or whether we are seeing real life directly cannot be mapped out in the way you describe. So it's moot.

No, it’s not. We understand how light and sight and the brain work and that real-time seeing is both physically and logically impossible.

Nope. Not if the brain works as Lessans described.

This is old news. There should be videos on it.

I'm sure there are. People are trying to help the blind by sending signals to the brain that would mimic the retina that is being bypassed. Only time will tell if these methods will give people back their sight. That would be amazing indeed.

It has already worked and also disproves real-time seeing. This was explained to you years ago by The Lone Ranger.

He gave a careful description of how the eyes work. There is only one disagreement, and I think by now you know what it is.
This must be so boring for everyone by now. Seeing in real time is not both physically and logically impossible; it is possible if the brain works as Lessans described. What more can I say?

 

[DBT]

Again.

Dogs Remember Faces
Research strongly supports that dogs remember and recognize their human companions.

Do Dogs Remember People? - Whole Dog Journal

Dogs remember people. Their looks, scent, and the experiences they share together. Your dog remembers you and wants to see you again.

www.whole-dog-journal.com

 

[pood]

I'm not frustrated for that reason. I'm frustrated at the ignorance that poses as knowledge.

You should look in the mirror when you say that.

I have, and the verdict is still out who is the ignorant one.

The verdict is in. It ain’t us.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.

No one is disputing any of this, but whether the brain is seeing a virtual image of real life or whether we are seeing real life directly cannot be mapped out in the way you describe. So it's moot.

No, it’s not. We understand how light and sight and the brain work and that real-time seeing is both physically and logically impossible.

Nope. Not if the brain works as Lessans described.

He did not describe how the brain worked. He had no idea how it worked.

This is old news. There should be videos on it.

I'm sure there are. People are trying to help the blind by sending signals to the brain that would mimic the retina that is being bypassed. Only time will tell if these methods will give people back their sight. That would be amazing indeed.

It has already worked and also disproves real-time seeing. This was explained to you years ago by The Lone Ranger.

He gave a careful description of how the eyes work.

LOL, no he did not. That is exactly what is missing from his blather.

There is only one disagreement, and I think by now you know what it is.

No. What is that?

This must be so boring for everyone by now. Seeing in real time is not both physically and logically impossible;

Yes, it is, for reasons given,

it is possible if the brain works as Lessans described.

He did not describe how the brain works. He had no idea how light, the eyes, or the brain works.

What more can I say?

Preferably nothing.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't even make sense of the definitions that define ad homs.

That's really not surprising. Making sense of things has repeatedly eluded you.

Um, I think you are confused as to who is eluded. I don't want to get into a match as to who is wrong or right.

I am not at all surprised; You just scored a massive own goal in that match, by proving yourself to be wrong at a fundamental logical level.

You started this match; Now, suddenly, having shown yourself to be wrong, you no longer want to play?

Just keep in mind that a comment like this does nothing to prove anything. It's a waste of bandwidth.

You just demonstrated undquivocally that the entire thread is a waste of bandwidth, and that your whole argument is nonsensical.

I am confused with the double-talk as much as everyone else

You should take this advice, which comes from somebody you seem to trust (despite her contradicting you):

Um, please stop alluding to "everyone here," which is a giveaway that you can't stand on your own two feet.

By the way, I didn't refer to "everyone", but to "anyone".

I don't think anyone else here is even slightly confused.

You are demonstrably confused; Your efforts to confuse others, however, appear to have failed miserably.

 

[peacegirl]

If you are NOT saying that the light bounces off of objects, taking the frequency/wavelength with it across eons to finally reach the eye, which is then transduced into a virtual image in the brain, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

You have repeatedly said that science claims light bounces off an object and takes the “object’s wavelength” with it.

Science does not say this.

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

So you are saying light doesn't arrive at the eye?

I think he means that light does not arrive at the eye instantly, which is correct. You are the one claiming that light is at the eye instantly even though it takes time to get to the eye, a clear logical contradiction, a self-refuting statement and a very silty one to boot.

There is no logical contradiction, which I've explained. The way you say it sounds ludicrous, sort of like teleportation, but that's not what it is. Why not say it like this: As we focus on an object in the sky, we see it because when our gaze is upon it, there is enough light at our eyes for it to be seen.

But there can only be enough light at our eyes for anything to be seen when the light arrives at our eyes, which takes time. That is why everything we see, is seen as it was in the past.

Do you remember the requirements? Luminosity and size?

Luminosity and size have nothing to do with anything.

If an object is too far away, there won't be any light at the eye in which to see, and if the object is too dim, there won't be enough light at the eye to see it. This account has nothing to do with time but everything to do with whether the object we are looking at meets the requirements, whether that object is a million miles away or ten yards away.

If it is ten yards away we see it as it was in the past. If it is millions of miles away we see it as in the past

This is getting ridiculous. I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore.

 

[peacegirl]

Again.

Dogs Remember Faces
Research strongly supports that dogs remember and recognize their human companions.

Do Dogs Remember People? - Whole Dog Journal

Dogs remember people. Their looks, scent, and the experiences they share together. Your dog remembers you and wants to see you again.

www.whole-dog-journal.com

This is all conjecture. Where is the proof? I gave real examples of dogs not recognizing their owners until they sniffed them. Why are you ignoring this and trusting an article that has no proof of anything?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg is going green.

She just keeps recycling the same things over and over and over.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not frustrated for that reason. I'm frustrated at the ignorance that poses as knowledge.

You should look in the mirror when you say that.

I have, and the verdict is still out who is the ignorant one.

The verdict is in. It ain’t us.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.

No one is disputing any of this, but whether the brain is seeing a virtual image of real life or whether we are seeing real life directly cannot be mapped out in the way you describe. So it's moot.

No, it’s not. We understand how light and sight and the brain work and that real-time seeing is both physically and logically impossible.

Nope. Not if the brain works as Lessans described.

He did not describe how the brain worked. He had no idea how it worked.

This is old news. There should be videos on it.

I'm sure there are. People are trying to help the blind by sending signals to the brain that would mimic the retina that is being bypassed. Only time will tell if these methods will give people back their sight. That would be amazing indeed.

It has already worked and also disproves real-time seeing. This was explained to you years ago by The Lone Ranger.

He gave a careful description of how the eyes work.

LOL, no he did not. That is exactly what is missing from his blather.

There is only one disagreement, and I think by now you know what it is.

No. What is that?

This must be so boring for everyone by now. Seeing in real time is not both physically and logically impossible;

Yes, it is, for reasons given,

it is possible if the brain works as Lessans described.

He did not describe how the brain works. He had no idea how light, the eyes, or the brain works.

What more can I say?

Preferably nothing.

Don't tell me his work is blather. You are the one blathering on and on about nothing. You use "we" instead of "I" to boost your confidence. You don't know what other people are thinking. He gave enough of a description of how the brain and eyes work, which is enough to go on. Of course, you won't hear of it. I'm sorry, but it is what it is. Others can take it further, once it is established that he was right. But right now I need a break from all the accusations.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.

There it is folks end of story. I am fighting 'In the name of justice and truth' and I am being nailed to the cross. Tactfully today we might say he had some issues, or be blunt and just just say he was a crackpot. Looney Tunes.

Those professors are out to get me? I am thinking of Bogart as Captain Quig in the Cain Mutiny. A WWII combat navy cap0tain cracks under stress and becomes paranoid. In the final scenes in a ciourt marital he cracks completely.

Yes Pg, you made a mistake tn thinking we would just accept the book without question and hail it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you looked at past threads in on free will and determinism you would have seen that before you started.

You have gone around all your responses several times. So, what's next for Pg? Hang up the old keyboard?

I forget te name, there was one of those who show up teling us we are all wrong about science and religion. One of several similar to you. He had a website using the same forum software as here and similar categories. But he was he only one who was allowed to post on it.

He had multiple thread attacking atheists and science . And like you redefined and made up terms.

As others like him he got progressively hostile, angry, and insulting. And like others he got banned.

Which is why I say this thread is well within the norm for behavior.

You are out of line for mimicking this man and making shit up about him. Your comments are on the verge of slander. Stop while the going is good. I have no desire to talk to you anymore.

 

[steve_bank]

I could speculate on the environment Pg grew up in, but that would probably be going too far.

For me it was not until I was in my 30s I began to fully understand how the environment I grew up in affected me. Bad habits I inhered from my father.

Out of line? Again you argue your failures areother people's fault right?

It could not be your lack science and Lessans' pseudoscience. and his conspiracy theories about universities.

Delusions of grandeur and paranoia. Like Trump.

I am familiar with a number of pseudoscience.

Orgone - wikidoc

www.wikidoc.org

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich for the "universal life energy" which he claimed to have discovered in published experiments in the late 1930s. Reich claimed that orgone energy was a "life energy" which filled all space, was blue in color, and that certain forms of illness were the consequence of depletion or blockages of the energy within the body. These theories are considered pseudoscience.[1][2][3]

Orgone accumulator.



The book and Lessans to me fits a category.

Scientology and the E-Meter.

New Age crystal power is the belief that natural stones and crystals possess unique vibrational energies that can interact with human energy fields to promote physical, emotional, and spiritual healing. Popular in modern spiritual practices, crystals like amethyst, rose quartz, and clear quartz are used to boost energy, reduce stress, and restore balance

In the 70s there was pyramid power. I knew a woman who slept under a pyramid frame. There were clams food stayed fresh longer under a pyramid frame.

Lessans is pseudoscience.

Way back there was a stream of people who believed in the paranormal and similar stuff, all claiming science just does not get it. Or when asked about a demonstration under controlled conditions it was said 'it does not work that way'.

Claims of levitation and telekinesis.