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

[peacegirl]

.

It does not mean faster than light transmission when lightspeed has nothing to do with his claim. This is a big blunder that no one wants to address objectively.

There are no blunders by us, and nothing for us to admit.

Light speed HAS TO be taken into account.

No it doesn't. That's where you're wrong. I have said that if it is true that we see the object, it works in reverse. The wavelength/frequency would be at the eye instantly, which puts the world in real time. Other than that, there is no difference in terms of what we would be seeing. If light were refracted in water, we would see the same illusion.

Any account of light and sight that fails to do that is obviously and provably wrong, as we have demonstrated.

Fails to do what? You don't get to say that if this, then that, when you haven't proven this.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve

He had his own proof ... Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli, such as those of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch, and smell.

So, let's see. Nothing impinges, nothing has an effect on the optic nerve, and only light strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do, only light strikes the optic nerve and has an effect as stimulus. Uh, that sure looks like yet another contradiction. Proof by contradiction? Is that how he proves? Because contradiction does not prove so-called real time seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve

He had his own proof ... Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli, such as those of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch, and smell.

So, let's see. Nothing impinges, nothing has an effect on the optic nerve, and only light strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do, only light strikes the optic nerve and has an effect as stimulus. Uh, that sure looks like yet another contradiction. Proof by contradiction? Is that how he proves? Because contradiction does not prove so-called real time seeing.

It is not a contradiction to say that at birth, nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve. The stimulus that light produces is not the same thing as light bringing data to the eye that would allow an infant to see.

CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

P. 113 Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult, since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause it; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there were no light, we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant were placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience, which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young, and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

 

[peacegirl]

In common usage I think free will means the freedom to choose without mostly govern mt coercion.

From my Catholic education god gave us the free will to choose between good and evil. Adam and Eve chose to disobey god's command.

They are the points of contention. A question of the validity of compatibilism, libertarian free will, the ability to make decisions, etc, as representing freedom of will. Basically, a quagmire.

A similar issue in he meaning of randomness andrandom in math and technology. Much historical debate.

A computer scientist in Knuth in the 70s wrote that random is a matter of definition. If something matches the definition then by your definition it is random.

A random variable is a variable where the occurrence of one event does not affect the probability of the next event. No matter how many times you toss a 6 sided die the probability is always 1/6.

There arer theoretical probability distributions like uniform and normal. Mathematical/software distribution generators are called pseudo random. They can closely approximate theoretical. For all practical purposes random.

So the quetion is howe to defone free will, and tat is near impoosble. There ios no commonn reference point to assess a defintion.

The Libertarian free will seems to be a disembodied mind capable arbitrary choice without any influence orprior experience from the outside world. The Libertarian sense of a line independent individual.

Like pseudo random numbers I tend to think we do have free will for all practical purposes. A pseudo free will.

From something I read the free will - determinism dichotomy may not fit the reality of how our brain works.


The answer probably lies in future science and he ability to simulate brain down to the fine details.

The answer is already here. Simulating the brain down to the fine details will not identify free will or determinism. That's not where it's found.

I don't know if Lessans or Pg precisely defines determinism and free will.

Lessans seems to boil down to our actions, decisions, and thoughts are based on prior events so we humans are deterministic.

If we roll back back tthe solar system to wnen the Earth was formed and evolution began, with the same initial conditions would you and I exist today andn be posing the exact same thing right now?

Yes, 100%.

I do not know if that would happen.

Rolling back with the same initial conditions, nothing would have deviated because every human being would have made the same exact choices based on their genetics and environment.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Nooo, it is not a contradiction.

You say that light is constantly travelling, but does not arrive because it does not travel.

That's a contradiction, and remains one no matter how much you deny it.

It does not remain a contradiction no matter how much I deny it. Light travels with its own intrinsic energy and momentum, but the pattern of the object does not arrive because the PATTERN does not travel.

 

[peacegirl]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It may look contradictory, but it isn't. I have often said that light travels at a finite speed, but when you understand that in efferent vision, we see the object, not the light that travels with the pattern, the result is that the pattern that allows us to see the object is already at the eye, with no time involved.

 

[peacegirl]

Solar flares are hard to see, even with telescopes. This phenomenon does not prove that we see in delayed time.

Observing solar flares with a telescope is not hard

Are you really citing a source that directly contradicts you??

Of course you are. Contradictions mean nothing to you, you just ignore them, as you ignore everything that could in any way challenge your incoherent beliefs.

Where is the contradiction?

Seriously? You don't see a contradiction between your saying "Solar flares are hard to see, even with telescopes", and your cite that leads with "Observing solar flares with a telescope is not hard"??

It did sound contradictory. It would depend on the size of the flare. The bottom line is that none of this actually contradicts real-time vision.

Small solar flares can be visible with a telescope on Earth, but they are difficult to see without proper equipment and safety measures. The Sun’s surface is extremely bright, and even a small flare is often too dim to be noticed by the naked eye or a regular telescope without filtering hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov.

Why They’re Hard to See​

• Overwhelming brightness: The Sun’s photosphere is so bright that small flares appear as faint changes in brightness, often just a few percent increase, making them hard to detect without sensitive instruments hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov.
• Wavelength dependence: Flares emit across the electromagnetic spectrum, but visible-light flares are subtle. Specialized filters that block almost all sunlight except a narrow band (e.g., hydrogen-alpha or calcium-K) are needed to reveal them cosmobc.com+1.
• Atmospheric interference: Earth’s atmosphere can absorb or scatter certain wavelengths, especially in the ultraviolet and X-ray ranges, which are key to flare detection hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov.

 

[peacegirl]

I've explained that If we see a celestial object, the reflected light or pattern has to be at the eye, or the object would not be seen.

OK. Pattern is at eye. Got it. Pattern and eye are in the same location.

The object and the pattern are not separate.

OK. Pattern is not separate from object. Got it. Pattern and object are in the same location.

The object and pattern are contiguous, like a mirror image. It would not be in the same location. The rest of this post is invalid.

If eye is in the same location as the pattern, and the pattern is in the same location as the object, then the object is in the same location as the eye.

That's basic logic - If A=B and A=C then B=C.

So when I see the Moon, I am in the same location as the Moon.

But!

We know when we look at the Moon, there is distance between us.

So we have a contradiction. Your claims here quoted require that when we see the Moon, the Moon and the eye are in the same place, and simultaneously require that there is distance between them.

This is impossible; Therefore your claims MUST be false.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[peacegirl]

It is important to understand that there is a finite speed of light, which takes time to arrive, and simultaneously, we can see the world in real time without a violation of physics because there is no time involved.

The two bolded statements contradict each other. They cannot both be true.

There is no time involved in efferent vision. These are not contradictory statements. We are not waiting for light to travel and bring the image to us. It would be a contradiction to say that travel time IS NOT involved (real-time vision) and in the same breath to say that travel time IS involved. But that is not the case.

Light cannot take time to arrive if there is no time involved.

I am not denying that it takes time for light to arrive because it is a fact that it takes time for light to get from here to there.

 

[bilby]

Frankly, I would much rather discuss the arguments themselves than spend time documenting contradictions, revisions, and accusations. However, rational dialogue requires some continuity. If prior statements, corrections, and changes of position cannot be acknowledged, then it becomes extremely difficult to analyze the arguments because there is no stable foundation from which to proceed.

It might even be impossible to move forward.

Indeed. The question then being whether this is a bug, or a feature.

The presumption that everyone here wants to know real things about reality may not be entirely correct.

 

[peacegirl]

This has nothing to do with faster-than-light vision. Nada. Anyway, I am waving the white flag of surrender. I'm sure this will make all of you tickled pink, even though it isn't what you think.

You are claiming you and Lessans are above further debate and somehow project emotions onto us that would make us happy. No, your retreat from questions and from learning doesn't make me happy. It's actually frustrating to see you trying to take a high ground, after contradicting yourself, changing your story, and then somehow directing all that negative emotion onto us, as if we're the bad guys.

He never contradicted anything, and I never did in his defense.

You contradicted yourself. Why you do not remember doing so, I cannot say. At one point, after pages of discussion, you were forced to issue a correction because your position had become inconsistent with earlier statements. Later, when we returned to the vision discussion and I presented new visualizations, you offered yet another explanation that differed from your previous ones. Scenario A and Scenario B were both suddenly declared invalid, even though your earlier reasoning would have accepted at least one of them. You retreated from discussing further, but then claimed you never retreated.

Please show me where I changed my position or where both scenarios were suddenly declared invalid.

The same pattern has appeared elsewhere. When I first posted AI-generated analysis, you objected to its use and dismissed it. When I pointed out that you had posted AI-generated material yourself, you denied having done so. More recently, you have posted AI-generated material multiple times. Whether these changes are due to forgetfulness or something else, the result is the same: positions are adopted, abandoned, and later revisited without acknowledging the change.

I use AI to define something or to add to our understanding of what is being discussed, but I don't think some of the interpretations were accurate regarding this book, which makes sense because this is new knowledge, which AI has nothing to compare it to. If you still have a question that was brought up by AI, give it again, and I'll try to respond.

This is crazy, and I never projected negative emotion onto anyone. I was stating that people are wrong, and it's upsetting to me. I'm human.

You continue to attribute motives and emotions to other participants. For example, you suggested that your "surrender" would leave everyone else "tickled pink," implying that people are primarily interested in victory rather than evaluating claims. Multiple participants have repeatedly told you that this is not their motivation, yet the characterization persists.

Please remind me if I do this. I am trying not to attribute motives and emotions to other participants, but sometimes it slips out. I hope people stop attributing false motives and emotions to me as well. It works both ways.

Frankly, I would much rather discuss the arguments themselves than spend time documenting contradictions, revisions, and accusations. However, rational dialogue requires some continuity. If prior statements, corrections, and changes of position cannot be acknowledged, then it becomes extremely difficult to analyze the arguments because there is no stable foundation from which to proceed.

It might even be impossible to move forward.

You may be right. I already surrendered, not because I believe he was wrong, but because both sides are just digging their heels in deeper on this topic.

 

[bilby]

The assumption is that every object that light strikes converts to that object's wavelength/frequency and travels to our eyes or telescopes,

Not only is that nobody's assumption, it is not even coherent.

Objects are converting to their own frequencies? What madness is that??

Read again. That's not what I said.

That's exactly what you said. "every object that light strikes converts to that object's wavelength/frequency"

If it wasn't what you meant to say, that's on you.

rather than allowing us to see the object through that wavelength/frequency when we're looking in that direction.

Well, that's not coherent either.

You seem to be using a lot of words that don't mean anything coherent in the contexts in which you use them; and/or to be missing great chunks of sentence that you expect the reader to magically restore.

Nothing is missing.

Meaning is missing. It's word salad.

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

We would see the same exact thing in real time as in delayed. The only difference would be the timing.

...and the physics. And the mechanism. And the entire way in which the universe works.

You seem blissfully unaware that all of physics (and hence chemistry and hence biology) hangs together; That the way particles interact is the same across all contexts, a fact that makes possible our advanced technology, and our practical understanding of reality. The failure to grasp this was one of the main reasons why nobody landed on the Moon in the Middle Ages.

 

[pood]

.

The assumption is that every object that light strikes converts to that object's wavelength/frequency and travels to our eyes or telescopes, rather than allowing us to see the object through that wavelength/frequency when we're looking in that direction.

Do you even know how to parse a sentence, or how to diagram a sentence?

Is there no way for you to understand that the above is NOT what science says, and does not even make any sense whatsoever?

 

[steve_bank]

Solar flares are hard to see, even with telescopes. This phenomenon does not prove that we see in delayed time.

Observing solar flares with a telescope is not hard

Are you really citing a source that directly contradicts you??

Of course you are. Contradictions mean nothing to you, you just ignore them, as you ignore everything that could in any way challenge your incoherent beliefs.

Where is the contradiction?

Seriously? You don't see a contradiction between your saying "Solar flares are hard to see, even with telescopes", and your cite that leads with "Observing solar flares with a telescope is not hard"??

It did sound contradictory. It would depend on the size of the flare. The bottom line is that none of this actually contradicts real-time vision.

Small solar flares can be visible with a telescope on Earth, but they are difficult to see without proper equipment and safety measures. The Sun’s surface is extremely bright, and even a small flare is often too dim to be noticed by the naked eye or a regular telescope without filtering hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov.

Why They’re Hard to See​

• Overwhelming brightness: The Sun’s photosphere is so bright that small flares appear as faint changes in brightness, often just a few percent increase, making them hard to detect without sensitive instruments hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov.
• Wavelength dependence: Flares emit across the electromagnetic spectrum, but visible-light flares are subtle. Specialized filters that block almost all sunlight except a narrow band (e.g., hydrogen-alpha or calcium-K) are needed to reveal them cosmobc.com+1.
• Atmospheric interference: Earth’s atmosphere can absorb or scatter certain wavelengths, especially in the ultraviolet and X-ray ranges, which are key to flare detection hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov.

Wow, that takes me back all the way to the 70s. A physics class lab where we measured emission spectra of gases.

It is how distant star types are identified, emission spectra.

Hydrogen spectral series - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The emission spectrum of atomic hydrogen has been divided into a number of spectral series, with wavelengths given by the Rydberg formula. These observed spectral lines are due to the electron making transitions between two energy levels in an atom. The classification of the series by the Rydberg formula was important in the development of quantum mechanics. The spectral series are important in astronomical spectroscopy for detecting the presence of hydrogen and calculating red shifts.

 

[peacegirl]

The assumption is that every object that light strikes converts to that object's wavelength/frequency and travels to our eyes or telescopes,

Not only is that nobody's assumption, it is not even coherent.

Objects are converting to their own frequencies? What madness is that??

PEACEGIRL I wrote it incorrectly. So what? You know what I meant. The assumption is that light bounces off of objects and ... here is the fallacy... travels with that pattern through spacetime. If Lessans is right, it doesn't work that way, and no one has proven him wrong, no matter how wrong you think he is.

Read again. That's not what I said.

That's exactly what you said. "every object that light strikes converts to that object's wavelength/frequency"

If it wasn't what you meant to say, that's on you.

I just fixed it.

rather than allowing us to see the object through that wavelength/frequency when we're looking in that direction.

Well, that's not coherent either.

Why not?

You seem to be using a lot of words that don't mean anything coherent in the contexts in which you use them; and/or to be missing great chunks of sentence that you expect the reader to magically restore.

Nothing is missing.

Meaning is missing. It's word salad.

No it isn't. I have said all along that we would see the same thing in either account through the same wavelength/frequency, but it does change the fact that we would not be seeing galaxies billions of light-years away. I think that this hits a sore spot.

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

It is a tale told by a visionary, full of truth and wisdom, signifying a new beginning.

We would see the same exact thing in real time as in delayed. The only difference would be the timing.

...and the physics. And the mechanism. And the entire way in which the universe works.

You seem blissfully unaware that all of physics (and hence chemistry and hence biology) hangs together; That the way particles interact is the same across all contexts, a fact that makes possible our advanced technology, and our practical understanding of reality. The failure to grasp this was one of the main reasons why nobody landed on the Moon in the Middle Ages.

You are the one who has concluded with absolute conviction that there is no way he could be right because it violates physics, but it does no such thing. You won't even look at what he observed with an ounce of curiosity, if nothing more, to see what made him come to this conclusion. That is on you.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Is there no way for you to understand that the above is NOT what science says, and does not even make any sense whatsoever?

But you know what she means!!! Despite being a naysayer when it comes to anything and everything about Lessans, you know what she means!! So, since you actually well understand, please explain to me how it is, despite stimulating the optic nerve as other "stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch, and smell", that light nonetheless does not affect the brain as do those other sense stimuli. Light is energy which is received by photoreceptors which essentially transform that energy into data which the brain processes further transform into information used by the brain which registers that information as seeing. Likewise, the other sense processes transform energy (since, in the case of taste and smell, even molecules have mass and are, therefore, a form of energy) via appropriately sensitive sensors into data which serve as information for the brain to utilize. What I'm not understanding is how light is both necessary and uninformative, both necessary and informatively inert. Surely you can explain that to me, because, despite your persistent naysaying, you really do understand.

 

[pood]

You are the one who has concluded with absolute conviction that there is no way he could be right because it violates physics, but it does no such thing.

Yes, it does. It also violates logic.

Sorry. Daddy was wrong.

You won't even look at what he observed with an ounce of curiosity, if nothing more, to see what made him come to this conclusion. That is on you.

We all looked at it, AS YOU MUST KNOW.

It was wrong.