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

[peacegirl]

You know what I mean.

I can assure you that I don't.

At this point, I have serious doubts that even YOU know what you mean.

Particularly when you come out with utter drivel like:

The "image" is the light that is the precursor that allows the brain to see in delayed time, according to science.

Literally every part of this is wrong.

Particularly the idea that any of it is "according to science"

Then you explain it. All I am doing is replacing wavelength/frequency with image. Using the word "image" doesn't change the meaning. I think people understand what he meant.
---------------------------------------------


They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound, the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, tells us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present, and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet at the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking and the object seen has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light; therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would.

 

[bilby]

You're playing with semantics

No, I am asking you to use words to carry meaning, rather than to obscure it, by the simple expedient of not abusing them to mean things that only you think that they mean.

 

[peacegirl]

You are still thinking in terms of a gap between the object and the eye. That is because you have not fully grasped this account of vision. there is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between the object and the eye

FTFY.

Nooo, there isn't, not if you are seeing the object, NOT INTERPRETING THE LIGHT!!!

 

[peacegirl]

You're playing with semantics

No, I am asking you to use words to carry meaning, rather than to obscure it, by the simple expedient of not abusing them to mean things that only you think that they mean.

Whatever! I do not think I am abusing words to mean things that only I think that they mean, but I'll use wavelength/frequency for now, so you will see that I'm trying to work with you.

 

[bilby]

I don't mind discussing this, but not when it turns to mockery.

Well, if you don't want to be mocked, stop being such a clown.

This is not about feelings; it's about respect, and respect does not have to be earned.

Yes, it absolutely does.

 

[bilby]

You are still thinking in terms of a gap between the object and the eye. That is because you have not fully grasped this account of vision. there is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between the object and the eye

FTFY.

Nooo, there isn't, not if you are seeing the object, NOT DETECTING THE LIGHT!!!

There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't mind discussing this, but not when it turns to mockery.

Well, if you don't want to be mocked, stop being such a clown.

This is not about feelings; it's about respect, and respect does not have to be earned.

Yes, it absolutely does.

No bilby, it's an incorrect mindset to think that someone deserves more respect than someone else. We can appreciate someone's accomplishments or dislike someone's behavior, but that doesn't give anyone the right to disrespect another due to their position in life or the way they may have turned out.

 

[bilby]

Yes, but you are assuming that packets of electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons) have within them the reflective light of the object that will travel and eventually be interpreted as an image in the brain.

Nope. You have that exactly backwards.

I am assuming nothing.

I know, from observation, that light reflected from an object is made up of packets of electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons).

Each photon is nothing other than a carrier of electromagnetic energy; The amount of energy in a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. A photon has nothing within it. It's just energy.

 

[peacegirl]

You are still thinking in terms of a gap between the object and the eye. That is because you have not fully grasped this account of vision. there is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between the object and the eye

FTFY.

Nooo, there isn't, not if you are seeing the object, NOT DETECTING THE LIGHT!!!

There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not.

This is where you are mistaken, and why distance is not a factor as much as the object's size and brightness. The inverse square law should help you understand why the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel forever through space/time. Photons do.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

To be or not to Be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

More incite in Shakespeare than a lot of other sources.

Pg, the choice is yours to post or not, and in posting suffering the consequences.

Your dilemma is ancient.

 

[bilby]

I don't mind discussing this, but not when it turns to mockery.

Well, if you don't want to be mocked, stop being such a clown.

This is not about feelings; it's about respect, and respect does not have to be earned.

Yes, it absolutely does.

No bilby, it's an incorrect mindset to think that someone deserves more respect than someone else.

What is this, China 1959?

Should I now denounce my neighbour for his incorrect mindset, prior to my execution?

We can appreciate someone's accomplishments or dislike someone's behavior, but that doesn't give anyone the right to disrespect another due to their position in life or the way they may have turned out.

I never suggested that it did.

Your position in life is irrelevant (and unknown to me). My lack of respect for you is a consequence of your behaviour, which is ignoble and vile.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, but you are assuming that packets of electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons) have within them the reflective light of the object that will travel and eventually be interpreted as an image in the brain.

Nope. You have that exactly backwards.

I am assuming nothing.

I know, from observation, that light reflected from an object is made up of packets of electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons).

Each photon is nothing other than a carrier of electromagnetic energy; The amount of energy in a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. A photon has nothing within it. It's just energy.

Yes, but you have agreed that a photon is proportional to its frequency. So what happens when the light that bounced off the object disperses due to the inverse square law? Are you saying that we will still see the object because it's still traveling toward our eyes?

 

[bilby]

You are still thinking in terms of a gap between the object and the eye. That is because you have not fully grasped this account of vision. there is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between the object and the eye

FTFY.

Nooo, there isn't, not if you are seeing the object, NOT DETECTING THE LIGHT!!!

There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not.

This is where you are mistaken, and why distance is not a factor as much as the object's size and brightness.

How is the statement "There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not", in any way mistaken?

The inverse square law should help you understand why the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel forever through space/time. Photons do.

And...?

None of that so much as hints at a way in which the clearly and demonstrably true statement "There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not" might be in any way mistaken.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

To be or not to Be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

More incite in Shakespeare than a lot of other sources.

Pg, the choice is yours to post or not, and in posting suffering the consequences.

Your dilemma is ancient.

It is a dilemma, but I'm facing it head-on. I have no choice. I suppose it's my fate.

 

[bilby]

The inverse square law should help you understand why the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel forever through space/time.

Once again, for those who have not been paying attention for the last 6,773 posts:

NOBODY THINKS OBJECTS EVEN HAVE A WAVELENGTH/FREQUENCY except you.

I don't need help to understand that a non-existent thing doesn't do stuff.

 

[bilby]

Yes, but you have agreed that a photon is proportional to its frequency.

Nope. I have not agreed to that; It doesn't even make sense.

A photon's energy is proportional to its frequency.

A photon isn't proportional to anything, and the suggestion that it is is a category error.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg, you have free will an can choose to post or not post.

Of course, I can choose to post or not to post, but today I decided to post IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION THAN NOT TO POST, which gives me no free will at all.

Pg, you are deterministically bound to post or not post. You have no choice.

Once I made the choice, it could not have been otherwise.

Pg, you sort of have free will and are sort of deterministically bound. You are conditioned to post or not post.

We are all deterministically bound. The free will you are talking about just means "doing something of your own desire; nothing forced or made you do something against your will." But that does not make will free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. 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.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted due to the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because they wanted to, this in no way indicates that their will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature.

So for you which of the three options is it? Can you choose not to post?

Yes, from birth we are conditioned by experience and knowledge, the experience can be conscious or unconscious conditioning. So in that sense I do not think we have an unconditioned idealized free will.

Again Lessan'; use of terms. That we may be conditioned by prior experiences and events but that does not mean future choices are deterministically predicable.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

To be or not to Be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

More incite in Shakespeare than a lot of other sources.

Pg, the choice is yours to post or not, and in posting suffering the consequences.

Your dilemma is ancient.

It is a dilemma, but I'm facing it head-on. I have no choice. I suppose it's my fate.

I sense there is some honesty in that.

 

[peacegirl]

You are still thinking in terms of a gap between the object and the eye. That is because you have not fully grasped this account of vision. there is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between the object and the eye

FTFY.

Nooo, there isn't, not if you are seeing the object, NOT DETECTING THE LIGHT!!!

There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not.

This is where you are mistaken, and why distance is not a factor as much as the object's size and brightness.

How is the statement "There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not", in any way mistaken?

The inverse square law should help you understand why the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel forever through space/time. Photons do.

And...?

None of that so much as hints at a way in which the clearly and demonstrably true statement "There is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between object and eye whether you are seeing the object or not" might be in any way mistaken.

You keep saying that. Light is constantly traveling, but when we look at an object in real time, the light has to be at the eye, or the object would not be seen. Photons are packets of electromagnetic energy. Photons fall between every bit of matter, which allows us to see what is out there in the external world, but these photons do not bounce off objects, taking the object's wavelengths/frequencies with them across millions of light-years.

 

[peacegirl]

The inverse square law should help you understand why the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel forever through space/time.

Once again, for those who have not been paying attention for the last 6,773 posts:

NOBODY THINKS OBJECTS EVEN HAVE A WAVELENGTH/FREQUENCY except you.

I don't need help to understand that a non-existent thing doesn't do stuff.

Okay, objects absorb and reflect light. It is this reflection that lands on our retina and allows us to see the object, but the reflection (or wavelength/frequency) does not travel through space/time ad infinitum. We see the object as long as the light that the object reflects has not dispersed beyond what the inverse square law allows. Gosh, this is hard. I hope my being here is not for naught.