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

[peacegirl]

sorry bilby, but this is the only way I can explain it

You mis-spelled "sorry bilby, but I can't actually explain it at all, so here are some words that don't mean anything relevant, which I hope you will accept in place of an explanation".

Your comment reminds me of this skit. Funny!

 

[bilby]

He did not define words with a different meaning.

Well he sure as shit isn't using "lightwave", "image", or "efferent" to mean any of the things these words mean in standard English. So, yes, he did.

Either that, or he used them with no meaning at all, which is looking increasingly and depressingly likely.

 

[bilby]

I wanted to give you time, but you have not met me halfway. I purposely posted Chapter Four for you, and you said that you didn't care if it wasn't in my own words, so I proceeded, and then you ghosted me.

No.

If you want to tell me what his observations were, please just do so, clearly and simply.

There is no request there for a chapter of waffle that does not include any clear or simple descriptions of any observations.

I ignored your response because it didn't in any way address my request. You might as well have posted page 276 of the 1966 Vladivostok telephone directory.

I don't care if your reply is in your own words. I do care whether or not it adresses my question.

 

[peacegirl]

Whether you say "lightwaves" or "images" doesn't matter in terms of his proof.

Thats true. When a supposed proof is pure nonsense, it makes zero difference what words you use. Precision is only necessary for rational claims; The irrational can be expressed using literally any words at all.

That you see the interchangeability of words with totally different meanings as irrelevant, is the strongest evidence possible that you are babbling nonsensical drivel, and not making a case or argument of any kind.

Once you abandon reason, all words are identically meaningless.

Bilby, you are so off the beaten track, it saddens me. The fact that you think that you can determine what this man has discovered the way you're doing it is wrong. Somewhere along the line, your criteria have gone off the rails. You need to rethink how you are judging this body of work before knowing what it's about. Stop trying to be a sleuth looking for errors so you don't have to do the hard work, you know, a careful study. You would never discuss a famous philosopher in this way. You would dissect his work with a fine-toothed comb before opening your mouth.

 

[peacegirl]

I wanted to give you time, but you have not met me halfway. I purposely posted Chapter Four for you, and you said that you didn't care if it wasn't in my own words, so I proceeded, and then you ghosted me.

No.

What do you mean no? You didn't read the chapter. You never asked a question after I took the time to post.

If you want to tell me what his observations were, please just do so, clearly and simply.

There is no request there for a chapter of waffle that does not include any clear or simple descriptions of any observations.

Again, if you don't like how he explained his findings, I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean his observations were wrong, which is what you should be focused on.

I ignored your response because it didn't in any way address my request. You might as well have posted page 276 of the 1966 Vladivostok telephone directory.

What is it you want?

I don't care if your reply is in your own words. I do care whether or not it adresses my question.

What question? The mechanism? Stop making me play guessing games.

 

[peacegirl]

He did not define words with a different meaning.

Well he sure as shit isn't using "lightwave", "image", or "efferent" to mean any of the things these words mean in standard English. So, yes, he did.

Either that, or he used them with no meaning at all, which is looking increasingly and depressingly likely.

There were no other words that approximated what he was trying to get across. That is a language issue, but he was as clear as day if you were actually paying attention. You're just picking on him. He didn't use the word "lightwave," I did. I could replace it with "visible light" that is at the retina, allowing us to see, if that suits you better. The word image is used to distinguish it from the actual object. It is believed that light is transduced in the brain and converted to a virtual image of the real thing. People believe we see images of everything in delayed time, not in real time, but light travels so fast that we don't realize there is a delay until you get into astronomy, where the delay would be light-years in the past. This is the theory that has graduated into fact, and to dispute this is considered blasphemy.

af·fer·ent
[ˈaf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
afferent (adjective)
physiology

1. conducting or conducted inwards or towards something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of efferent

ef·fer·ent
[ˈɛf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
efferent (adjective)
physiology

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of afferent.
   "efferent neurons carry impulses outwards to the effector organs"

 

[peacegirl]

sorry bilby, but this is the only way I can explain it

You mis-spelled "sorry bilby, but I can't actually explain it at all, so here are some words that don't mean anything relevant, which I hope you will accept in place of an explanation".

This comedy sketch reminds me of this.

View attachment 53603

I don't know why the youtube video didn't work. Sorry about that.

 

[peacegirl]

sorry bilby, but this is the only way I can explain it

You mis-spelled "sorry bilby, but I can't actually explain it at all, so here are some words that don't mean anything relevant, which I hope you will accept in place of an explanation".

That is not what I'm doing, and it exasperates me that this is what you believe.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to add, for those who might think this is a contradiction. Light does travel, and it does take time to reach Earth, but this has nothing to do with efferent vision. These are two completely different things.

So light takes time to reach the earth, but we see the source of the light instantly. A logical contraction and total bunk, obviously.

Pood, I hope you eventually see that this account is not impossible when you understand that nothing is being violated. Let's look at it again: light takes time to reach Earth, which is why it would take 8 minutes to see each other, because it would NOT have met the necessary conditions for sight. We cannot see anything without light. But in this version of sight, we would be able to see a celestial body far away due to the fact that it would HAVE MET the conditions of size and brightness to be seen by an observer. The lightwave from that celestial body would be at the eye instantly if our eyes were focused on the real object. We would not be seeing an image in delayed time, we would be seeing the real deal. Remember: If he is right (I say "if" to show that it's not just about my daddy; it's about figuring out whether he was right, and I believe he was), light reveals the external world; it doesn't bring the external world to us through space/time.

Total bullshit, as usual.

Watch the sun come up in the morning.

If your author were correct, we would see the sun rise above the horizon but the earth itself would be dark. Only after some 8.5 minutes would the earth light up.

No, I told you that this was a hypothetical example because the light is here and has been for 4 billion years; it's just on the other side of Earth as it rotates. He was just trying to demonstrate that if the Sun were suddenly turned on, we would see it instantly, but not see each other, which would take 8.5 minutes.

This does not happen.

Your idiot author was therefore wrong.

Q.E.D.

The Sun hasn't risen over the horizon yet, but daylight starts to appear as the Earth rotates in a 24-hour cycle. Light would appear before the Sun due to the scattering of sunlight. See below.

Why​

Daylight appears before the sun is seen coming over the horizon due to the scattering of sunlight by tiny gas molecules in Earth's atmosphere. This process, known as Rayleigh scattering, causes shorter wavelengths of light, such as blue and violet, to be scattered more effectively than longer wavelengths like red and orange. As the sun approaches the horizon, its light travels through a greater thickness of the atmosphere, allowing much of the blue and violet light to be scattered away from the direct path to the observer. This results in the less-scattered longer wavelengths, primarily reds and oranges, reaching our eyes, creating the warm hues often seen during dawn. The upper layers of the atmosphere are illuminated first, with this scattered light gradually reaching observers as the sun rises.
biologyinsights.com

You don’t need to teach me about this stuff, peacegirl. I know far more than you do, and I don’t need to Google it, either.

We are not talking about the upper layers of the atmosphere. We are talking about the GROUND, and about the people standing next to us.

WTF!

Yes, people can see each other before the sun comes over the horizon due to atmospheric refraction. This phenomenon occurs when sunlight passes through the Earth's atmosphere, bending as it moves from a less dense to a more dense substance, such as air to water. This bending of light causes celestial objects, including the sun, to appear higher in the sky than they actually are. The extent of this effect can vary based on atmospheric conditions, such as temperature and humidity, and can lead to the sun being visible for several minutes before it rises in the morning and after it sets in the evening.

TimeAndDate+5

Your author claimed that if the sun suddenly appeared in the sky, we would see it instantly, but NOT our neighbors standing right next to us. We would have to wait some 8.5 minutes to see them.

Did you not read my previous post, that this was hypothetical, Pood? If the Sun were turned on for the first time and began its journey toward Earth, we would see it turned on (because of its brightness and size) before we would see each other in this account of vision. Now that the Sun's light is here and has given us life, it continues emitting photons nonstop, or the Earth would not be livable.

We can test this. We note that when the sun peeps over the horizon, I can see the ground and my neighbors at the same time I see the sun.

Your author is wrong. Q.E.D.

Of course you can, but you can also see each other before the Sun peeps over the horizon. Scroll up.

 

[bilby]

The fact that you think that you can determine what this man has discovered the way you're doing it is wrong.

I don't think that I can determine what this man has discovered in any way at all. In fact, you have pretty much convinced me that:

a) He hasn't discovered anything; and
b) You don't know (or don't care) what a discovery is.

I want to determine what is true about reality. And I have sound reasons to think that empiricism and the scientific method is the sole means to do this.

Your continued ignorance of these tools, and/or dilligent avoidance of their being applied to your claims, tells me that you are just another empty clown, capering around the appeal to emotion fallacy, blissfully ignorant of literally everything.

And that you are actively determined never to learn anything at all, lest it interrupt your mental masturbation by introducing facts to your emotional landscape.

You can get away with this, ironically, because a whole society of people using facts and reason have built a world that can readily support freeloaders through the surpluses that these methods have, for the first time in human history, brought into being.

You are a valueless parasite on society, and on intellect, and on reason. You take everything, and in return contribute only valueless myths and badly composed fiction dressed as fact.

 

[peacegirl]

The fact that you think that you can determine what this man has discovered the way you're doing it is wrong.

I don't think that I can determine what this man has discovered in any way at all. In fact, you have pretty much convinced me that:

a) He hasn't discovered anything; and
b) You don't know (or don't care) what a discovery is.

Yes I do.

I want to determine what is true about reality. And I have sound reasons to think that empiricism and the scientific method is the sole means to do this.

I agree, but this type of discovery cannot be tested before it's put into practice. What is it you don't get?

Your continued ignorance of these tools, and/or dilligent avoidance of their being applied to your claims, tells me that you are just another empty clown, capering around the appeal to emotion fallacy, blissfully ignorant of literally everything.

This has nothing to do with emotion. Of course I'm emotional when you make these false accusations. It's upsetting.

And that you are actively determined never to learn anything at all, lest it interrupt your mental masturbation by introducing facts to your emotional landscape.

What is it you want me to learn? I have learned a lot in my life. One is that man's will is not free. But you'll never know why this matters and why moral responsibility goes up, not down, due to this knowledge. Your crazy rant is beyond shocking. I thought we were having a half-decent conversation, but I guess I misjudged big time.

You can get away with this, ironically, because a whole society of people using facts and reason have built a world that can readily support freeloaders through the surpluses that these methods have, for the first time in human history, brought into being.

What are you talking about? Please explain; I'm lost.

You are a valueless parasite on society, and on intellect, and on reason. You take everything, and in return contribute only valueless myths and badly composed fiction dressed as fact.

Bilby, I'm sorry you feel this way, but you are dead wrong. You have no idea what you're missing. I feel sorry for you.

 

[DBT]

The problem is that there are no physical means or mechanisms by which real time/ instant vision could work. It would have to be magic vision.

That is not true DBT. It is only because you are looking at the mechanism through the idea that light carries the image. I won't change the terminology as bilby believes is necessary because it won't make sense to the average reader who is not an astronomer. That changes nothing insofar as the truth.

Light doesn't carry images, roughly speaking, it has wave function, amplitude, frequency, etc, where it is radiated or how it interacts with objects. When the eye acquires this information it sends signals to the brain via the optic nerve, which interprets the information and represents it in conscious form as vision.

Pictures are not being transmitted, but information is.

 

[DBT]

The problem is that there are no physical means or mechanisms by which real time/ instant vision could work. It would have to be magic vision.

Incorrect. There is no gap if you see the object in real time, because it meets the requirements of size and luminosity. You keep assuming that, although light travels, it is bringing the image of the object to our eyes because the object reflected that lightwave. If the light does not bring the image to us through space/time, then how do we see without it violating physics? Efferent vision. You keep going back to the idea that when light strikes an object it takes on the object’s chacteristics, but that is not what is happening if Lessans is right. Light reveals. It is a necessary condition of sight, but it does not bring anything to us.

There is always a gap between light emission or reflection and information acquisition by the eyes, processing by the brain and conscious representation in the form of sight: we see the object.

That is basically how it works. No real time/ instant vision, just a physical process.

Nooo. You are missing the entire claim. Light travels, but the eyes and brain work differently than previously thought. You have to give this author a break, or you will just keep repeating the same old mantra that there is no way for us to see without light traveling to us with the image (sorry bilby, but this is the only way I can explain it). You will never get it if you keep thinking in these terms, not because he was wrong, but because you refuse to entertain the idea that there is no violation of physics.

Light in fact has speed and travel time. Light is in fact radiated by the sun, stars, etc, and reflected by the moon and other dark objects, the objects all around us during daylight hours are illuminated by the sun, and the moon and stars by night. We see these things because they either radiate or reflect light.

Without light we cannot see. Go into a dark room and you see nothing, flip the light switch and there it all is, the room is illuminated.

It's as simple as that. The eyes acquire light, the brain generates vision. The eyes don't see, that is the function of the brain.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

The book and you talk about dogs not being able to recognize owner from a picture. You say the brain takes a photograph. Is this linked to what you say about 'seeing' and the alleged great discovery?

 

[peacegirl]

The problem is that there are no physical means or mechanisms by which real time/ instant vision could work. It would have to be magic vision.

That is not true DBT. It is only because you are looking at the mechanism through the idea that light carries the image. I won't change the terminology as bilby believes is necessary because it won't make sense to the average reader who is not an astronomer. That changes nothing insofar as the truth.

Light doesn't carry images, roughly speaking, it has wave function, amplitude, frequency, etc, where it is radiated or how it interacts with objects. When the eye acquires this information it sends signals to the brain via the optic nerve, which interprets the information and represents it in conscious form as vision.

Pictures are not being transmitted, but information is.

I have said over and over again that Lessans was not an astronomer. The terminology he used was therefore not up to speed, but that in itself didn't mean he was wrong, as bilby believes based on his criteria. Words do matter, and a person can indeed throw any word in if he isn't precise and rational, but that was not this man. He was the most rational thinker you can imagine. Regardless of the words he used, he tried to express as best he could that light is at the eye instantly (no time involved) when we are focused on the object, as long as the object meets the conditions of luminosity and size, or it would be out of our field of view. Present-day thinking states, as if it's fact, that we are interpreting the information from the light that has transduced into an image in the brain, which they call vision. In his account, there is no gap between the light and the retina (made possible by efferent vision, which makes it possible to see in real time), so there is no violation of physics. Nevertheless, no one can believe such a claim could be true, and I don't think this is going to end well in this thread; therefore, I don't want to discuss this topic anymore. Only time will tell whether he was right or wrong. I would concede if daddy (lol) was wrong, so please know it's not about daddy, as some people have surmised. It's about finding the truth, no matter who wins or who loses.

 

[pood]

The problem is that there are no physical means or mechanisms by which real time/ instant vision could work. It would have to be magic vision.

That is not true DBT. It is only because you are looking at the mechanism through the idea that light carries the image. I won't change the terminology as bilby believes is necessary because it won't make sense to the average reader who is not an astronomer. That changes nothing insofar as the truth.

Light doesn't carry images, roughly speaking, it has wave function, amplitude, frequency, etc, where it is radiated or how it interacts with objects. When the eye acquires this information it sends signals to the brain via the optic nerve, which interprets the information and represents it in conscious form as vision.

Pictures are not being transmitted, but information is.

I have said over and over again that Lessans was not an astronomer. The terminology he used was therefore not up to speed, but that in itself didn't mean he was wrong, as bilby believes based on his criteria. Words do matter, and a person can indeed throw any word in if he isn't precise and rational, but that was not this man. He was the most rational thinker you can imagine. Regardless of the words he used, he tried to express as best he could that light is at the eye instantly (no time involved) when we are focused on the object, as long as the object meets the conditions of luminosity and size, or it would be out of our field of view. Present-day thinking states, as if it's fact, that we are interpreting the information from the light that has transduced into an image in the brain, which they call vision. In his account, there is no gap between the light and the retina (made possible by efferent vision, which makes it possible to see in real time), so there is no violation of physics. Nevertheless, no one can believe such a claim could be true, and I don't think this is going to end well in this thread; therefore, I don't want to discuss this topic anymore. Only time will tell whether he was right or wrong. I would concede if daddy (lol) was wrong, so please know it's not about daddy, as some people have surmised. It's about finding the truth, no matter who wins or who loses.

Of course there is a violation of physics. Among others things the claim directly contradicts relativity theory, and it has been explained to you again and again that relativity theory would never even have been formulated in a world that operated the way your author claims. Alas, you are imperious to learning.

But even more telling, your author’s claim violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, as also has been explained to you over and over.

 

[pood]

The problem is that there are no physical means or mechanisms by which real time/ instant vision could work. It would have to be magic vision.

That is not true DBT. It is only because you are looking at the mechanism through the idea that light carries the image. I won't change the terminology as bilby believes is necessary because it won't make sense to the average reader who is not an astronomer. That changes nothing insofar as the truth.

Light doesn't carry images, roughly speaking, it has wave function, amplitude, frequency, etc, where it is radiated or how it interacts with objects. When the eye acquires this information it sends signals to the brain via the optic nerve, which interprets the information and represents it in conscious form as vision.

Pictures are not being transmitted, but information is.

Exactly. And relativity theory shows that we cannot acquire information instantly. This was explained to her for countless pages at FF. In one year and …

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I have said over and over again that Lessans was not an astronomer. The terminology he used was therefore not up to speed, but that in itself didn't mean he was wrong,

Therein lies the problem you and your father had.

Writing 101, define your terms. Us here are not intellectual slouches, yet have trouble deciphering the book.

When I look back I had a good high school education, reading comprehension and writing. I learned structured writing in political science and philosophy clasees.

What I think we are looking for is a simple structure.

Statement of hypothesis, the premises, and the conclusion..

To begin there is a problem xxxx. I will show the solution to the rblm is yyyy suoprued by am b,c..

IOW, a syllogism.

It appears your father never went through a critical peer review.

First stae exactly what you are going to prove.

It is common to co opt terms, but you have to define the redefinition or adaptation.

The physics term inertia is commonly used to describe social forces, human inertia.

The book is poorly written.

You use the term as if it should be obvious what you mean, which it is not.

'In te context of the book efferent vision means xxx which works by zzzz'

Wring 10120 again, assume the people you are addressing know nothing about what you are talking about. What I was taught look at an audience as explaining to 5th graders.

Pg, assume we know nothing about anything and walk us through it step by step leadng to the concussion.

 

[peacegirl]

The problem is that there are no physical means or mechanisms by which real time/ instant vision could work. It would have to be magic vision.

Incorrect. There is no gap if you see the object in real time, because it meets the requirements of size and luminosity. You keep assuming that, although light travels, it is bringing the image of the object to our eyes because the object reflected that lightwave. If the light does not bring the image to us through space/time, then how do we see without it violating physics? Efferent vision. You keep going back to the idea that when light strikes an object it takes on the object’s chacteristics, but that is not what is happening if Lessans is right. Light reveals. It is a necessary condition of sight, but it does not bring anything to us.

There is always a gap between light emission or reflection and information acquisition by the eyes, processing by the brain and conscious representation in the form of sight: we see the object.

That is basically how it works. No real time/ instant vision, just a physical process.

Nooo. You are missing the entire claim. Light travels, but the eyes and brain work differently than previously thought. You have to give this author a break, or you will just keep repeating the same old mantra that there is no way for us to see without light traveling to us with the image (sorry bilby, but this is the only way I can explain it). You will never get it if you keep thinking in these terms, not because he was wrong, but because you refuse to entertain the idea that there is no violation of physics.

Light in fact has speed and travel time. Light is in fact radiated by the sun, stars, etc, and reflected by the moon and other dark objects, the objects all around us during daylight hours are illuminated by the sun, and the moon and stars by night. We see these things because they either radiate or reflect light.

Without light we cannot see. Go into a dark room and you see nothing, flip the light switch and there it all is, the room is illuminated.

It's as simple as that. The eyes acquire light, the brain generates vision. The eyes don't see, that is the function of the brain.

Who is disputing this? The brain is involved, but it does not explain how this occurs. It's all theoretical, not fact!

 

[pood]

Pg

I have said over and over again that Lessans was not an astronomer. The terminology he used was therefore not up to speed, but that in itself didn't mean he was wrong,

Therein lies the problem you and your father had.

Writing 101, define your terms. Us here are not intellectual slouches, yet have trouble deciphering the book.

When I look back I had a good high school education, reading comprehension and writing. I learned structured writing in political science and philosophy clasees.

What I think we are looking for is a simple structure.

Statement of hypothesis, the premises, and the conclusion..

To begin there is a problem xxxx. I will show the solution to the rblm is yyyy suoprued by am b,c..

IOW, a syllogism.

It appears your father never went through a critical peer review.

First stae exactly what you are going to prove.

It is common to co opt terms, but you have to define the redefinition or adaptation.

The physics term inertia is commonly used to describe social forces, human inertia.

The book is poorly written.

You use the term as if it should be obvious what you mean, which it is not.

'In te context of the book efferent vision means xxx which works by zzzz'

Wring 10120 again, assume the people you are addressing know nothing about what you are talking about. What I was taught look at an audience as explaining to 5th graders.

Pg, assume we know nothing about anything and walk us through it step by step leadng to the concussion.

She has been asked to do this countless times. She can’t do it. She says the ideas are “too complex” to reduce to a set of premises and conclusions, but then has the temerity to ask us to explain what the “discovery” is!

It’s almost as if she doesn’t actually understand this stuff herself and is asking us to bail her out.