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

[peacegirl]

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?

No Steve this knowledge does contribute to a world without hurt, but this is a separate finding that adds to a world without hurt, just as Edison's discoveries led to more than one discovery.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

 

[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.

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!

Of course it is fact. Light and sight is understood down to the atomic level, in granular detail. At FF The Lone Ranger, a biologist, wrote you a 33-page treatise, with pictures, explaining how it all works, Remember?

You admitted you refused to read it.

 

[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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

I am being honest. I even tried to help you set up the argument with standards premises and a conclusion. Nothing was good enough for you, but you won’t even try because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[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!

Of course it is fact. Light and sight is understood down to the atomic level, in granular detail.

Understanding sight down to the atomic level does not include the direction we see. Sorry.

At FF The Lone Ranger, a biologist, wrote you a 33-page treatise, with pictures, explaining how it all works, Remember?

You admitted you refused to read it.

I read most of it because there was nothing that I would find to disagree with, but this has NOTHING to do with the direction we see.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

I am being honest. I even tried to help you set up the argument with standards premises and a conclusion. Nothing was good enough for you, but you won’t even try because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I appreciate your effort, although I doubt the purity of your motives. It wasn't good enough for me because any shortcut would not do it justice. I strongly believe this was an effort on your part to prove he was wrong, not because he was wrong in actuality, but because the argument with standards, premises, and conclusions would make it appear he was wrong, which is what you wanted.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl bowdlerized the book, expurgating its main selling point — Seymour’s ribald disquisitions on how sex will work in the new world (It’s OK to fuck your wife on the dinner table, provided little ones aren’t present, among many other gems). If I had been the book’s editor, and I have worked for years a professional editor and writer, I would have scrapped all the garbage on light and sight and put the sex stuff in chapter one. Arguably she would have had a best seller.

In fact the author, Seymour Lessans, reminds me strongly of Henry Miller. Like Miller, he is sex-obsessed, and his writing on sex that peacegirl took out rival and arguably exceed those of Miller in their comic intensity.

Miller, like Lessans, was wholly self-absorbed, and writes miles and miles of text talking about people who allegedly flattered him, kissed his ass, and praised him to the skies for being a genius. Lessans does the same in his prolix opening chapters, inventing dialogues to put him on a pedestal.

One big difference between the two is that Miller really was a splendid writer, whereas Lessans is good (and comic) when he writes about sex but gets bogged down in pedantry when he tries to explain his “discoveries.” Another difference is that Miller was not attempting to promulgate some world-changing revelation, except insofar as it might be that we should all be happy and free: “I am a citizen of the world;” “I am a plenipotentiary from the realm of free spirits;” etc.

Fortunately, the sex stuff that peacegirl took out has been salvaged by the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and is available for reading.

 

[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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

I am being honest. I even tried to help you set up the argument with standards premises and a conclusion. Nothing was good enough for you, but you won’t even try because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I appreciate your effort, although I doubt the purity of your motives. It wasn't good enough for me because any shortcut would not do it justice. I strongly believe this was an effort on your part to prove he was wrong, not because he was wrong in actuality, but because the argument with standards, premises, and conclusions would make it appear he was wrong, which is what you wanted.

Incorrect. I was trying to help you offer the strongest argument possible, in the most succinct way possible — premises followed by a conclusion. This is called the principle of charity.

As I repeatedly explained to you, the first step is to establish that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. These means the argument is valid.

The second stage is check whether premises are actually true. If they are, the argument is called sound.

Even that is not enough, because there could be hidden premises that need to be uncovered and could potentially be false.

I explained to you early on that in stage one, you do not need to defend the premise that man’s will is not free — that is for stage two, when we examine the truth of the premises.

But of course you ignored all that and charged ahead with trying to defend the truth of the premise that man’s will is not free even before we presented and established the validity of the overall argument.

In short, you are not a serious thinker.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree, she does not understand the book.

I think she did say downstream she edited the book.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl bowdlerized the book, expurgating its main selling point — Seymour’s ribald disquisitions on how sex will work in the new world (It’s OK to fuck your wife on the dinner table, provided little ones aren’t present, among many other gems). If I had been the book’s editor, and I have worked for years a professional editor and writer, I would have scrapped all the garbage on light and sight and put the sex stuff in chapter one. Arguably she would have had a best seller.

In fact the author, Seymour Lessans, reminds me strongly of Henry Miller. Like Miller, he is sex-obsessed, and his writing on sex that peacegirl took out rival and arguably exceed those of Miller in their comic intensity.

Miller, like Lessans, was wholly self-absorbed, and writes miles and miles of text talking about people who allegedly flattered him, kissed his ass, and praised him to the skies for being a genius. Lessans does the same in his prolix opening chapters, inventing dialogues to put him on a pedestal.

One big difference between the two is that Miller really was a splendid writer, whereas Lessans is good (and comic) when he writes about sex but gets bogged down in pedantry when he tries to explain his “discoveries.” Another difference is that Miller was not attempting to promulgate some world-changing revelation, except insofar as it might be that we should all be happy and free: “I am a citizen of the world;” “I am a plenipotentiary from the realm of free spirits;” etc.

Fortunately, the sex stuff that peacegirl took out has been salvaged by the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and is available for reading.

Here you go again when you're backed against a wall. You are showing your true colors, Pood, and it will do you no good to anyone who has half a brain. You are trying to ruin his reputation, which is litigious. I don't want to have to report you again, but I will because this kind of behavior is subject to a warning or an expulsion.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

I am being honest. I even tried to help you set up the argument with standards premises and a conclusion. Nothing was good enough for you, but you won’t even try because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I appreciate your effort, although I doubt the purity of your motives. It wasn't good enough for me because any shortcut would not do it justice. I strongly believe this was an effort on your part to prove he was wrong, not because he was wrong in actuality, but because the argument with standards, premises, and conclusions would make it appear he was wrong, which is what you wanted.

Incorrect. I was trying to help you offer the strongest argument possible, in the most succinct way possible — premises followed by a conclusion. This is called the principle of charity.

As I repeatedly explained to you, the first step is to establish that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. These means the argument is valid.

The second stage is check whether premises are actually true. If they are, the argument is called sound.

Even that is not enough, because there could be hidden premises that need to be uncovered and could potentially be false.

I explained to you early on that in stage one, you do not need to defend the premise that man’s will is not free — that is for stage two, when we examine the truth of the premises.

But of course you ignored all that and charged ahead with trying to defend the truth of the premise that man’s will is not free even before we presented and established the validity of the overall argument.

In short, you are not a serious thinker.

You're full of *a%*$ AND YOU KNOW IT. You were never trying to help me. You were trying to get me to come here to get people to take your side, so you could feel good about your mistaken view that the eyes are a sense organ, and we can have free will and no free will at the same damn time. One of us is wrong, and it ain't me.

 

[steve_bank]

I am wondering, symptoms of childhood abuse?

 

[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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

I am being honest. I even tried to help you set up the argument with standards premises and a conclusion. Nothing was good enough for you, but you won’t even try because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I appreciate your effort, although I doubt the purity of your motives. It wasn't good enough for me because any shortcut would not do it justice. I strongly believe this was an effort on your part to prove he was wrong, not because he was wrong in actuality, but because the argument with standards, premises, and conclusions would make it appear he was wrong, which is what you wanted.

Incorrect. I was trying to help you offer the strongest argument possible, in the most succinct way possible — premises followed by a conclusion. This is called the principle of charity.

As I repeatedly explained to you, the first step is to establish that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. These means the argument is valid.

The second stage is check whether premises are actually true. If they are, the argument is called sound.

Even that is not enough, because there could be hidden premises that need to be uncovered and could potentially be false.

I explained to you early on that in stage one, you do not need to defend the premise that man’s will is not free — that is for stage two, when we examine the truth of the premises.

But of course you ignored all that and charged ahead with trying to defend the truth of the premise that man’s will is not free even before we presented and established the validity of the overall argument.

In short, you are not a serious thinker.

You're full of *a%*$ AND YOU KNOW IT. You were never trying to help me. You were trying to get me to come here to get people to take your side, so you could feel good about your mistaken view that the eyes are a sense organ, and we can have free will and no free will at the same damn time. One of us is wrong, and it ain't me.

Yes, it is you. I was trying to help you formalize your argument because you are unable to do so yourself. I was extending to you the philosophical principe of charity, which holds that you should offer the strongest possible argument for an argument with which you disagree, because in so doing you might change your own mind.

You are immune to all of this because you are not a serious thinker or a thinker at all.

I am interested in ideas, not personalities. I have never been trying to hurt you or anyone. I am only interested in finding out what is true insofar as that can be determined.

Real-time seeing is demonstrably not one of things that is true or even could be true.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Pood, please be honest. This is not what I'm doing. I don't want to be bailed out. I want the truth.

I am being honest. I even tried to help you set up the argument with standards premises and a conclusion. Nothing was good enough for you, but you won’t even try because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I appreciate your effort, although I doubt the purity of your motives. It wasn't good enough for me because any shortcut would not do it justice. I strongly believe this was an effort on your part to prove he was wrong, not because he was wrong in actuality, but because the argument with standards, premises, and conclusions would make it appear he was wrong, which is what you wanted.

Incorrect. I was trying to help you offer the strongest argument possible, in the most succinct way possible — premises followed by a conclusion. This is called the principle of charity.

As I repeatedly explained to you, the first step is to establish that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. These means the argument is valid.

The second stage is check whether premises are actually true. If they are, the argument is called sound.

Even that is not enough, because there could be hidden premises that need to be uncovered and could potentially be false.

I explained to you early on that in stage one, you do not need to defend the premise that man’s will is not free — that is for stage two, when we examine the truth of the premises.

But of course you ignored all that and charged ahead with trying to defend the truth of the premise that man’s will is not free even before we presented and established the validity of the overall argument.

In short, you are not a serious thinker.

You're full of *a%*$ AND YOU KNOW IT. You were never trying to help me. You were trying to get me to come here to get people to take your side, so you could feel good about your mistaken view that the eyes are a sense organ, and we can have free will and no free will at the same damn time. One of us is wrong, and it ain't me.

Yes, it is you. I was trying to help you formalize your argument because you are unable to do so yourself. I was extending to you the philosophical principe of charity, which holds that you should offer the strongest possible argument for an argument with which you disagree, because in so doing you might change your own mind.

I've done that. I have gone over and over his proof, and I have not changed my mind, and I'm not going to give 3 sentences to satisfy your desire to screw me over, Pood. You know what your motives are. You should be apologizing for that last post you made that was complete and utter garbage. You did this at ff. Why are you bulldozing into this thread, trying to ruin his reputation again, and for what? You've never proven him wrong regarding determinism. You bring up things that don't apply. Determinism, the way he defines it, is not a modal fallacy. You give examples to show we have free will that don't prove free will. You laughed when he wrote, "he is compelled, of his own free will," without understanding that "of his own free will" only means "of his own desire because he wants to." In no way does it mean we have freedom of will. Admit you were wrong. Obviously, after making a choice, you are free to make a different one in the next moment. That is not free will. You are making stuff up to try to give credence to your worldview (such as other worlds, different dimensions, etc.), but these explanations are based on air, not proof.

I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore. I gave people the entire chapter, which would have become clearer had they read the book. I have gone over his observations regarding the eyes many times, and I questioned them. Instead of being unsure if he got it right, I have become more sure. I also gave a video (did you see it?) where a dog, who loves his master but had not seen him in a few months, could not recognize him through sight alone. This isn't proof, but it certainly supports his claim. We become conditioned, not because light is traveling and showing this beauty and ugliness as an image in the brain. It is due to WORDS that are projected onto real substance that appear real because they are seen with our very eyes. He showed that the brain doesn't know the difference between real substance such as trees, houses, and cars, and words that do not represent anything real. That is probably when he questioned the entire idea that we see in delayed time. You can read his chapter starting on page 196, but I don't want to discuss it anymore.

You are immune to all of this because you are not a serious thinker or a thinker at all.

I am interested in ideas, not personalities. I have never been trying to hurt you or anyone. I am only interested in finding out what is true insofar as that can be determined.

Then why did you jump on the bandwagon to make this book something it was not, and you're still doing it? I don't trust your "sincerity" with a ten-foot pole.

Real-time seeing is demonstrably not one of things that is true or even could be true.

IT IS YOUR OPINION that real-time seeing is demonstrably not true or not something that even could be true, which doesn't mean much, as you've gotten many things wrong, including compatibilism.

 

[steve_bank]

Post 1

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Post 2

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the bet

Post 3

I hope I can get some interest, as the knowledge I am presenting is novel. It's important to mention that the author used the word God throughout his books but was clear that this word only meant the laws that govern our universe. If he was still living (he passed away in 1991), he may have changed how he expressed himself, but this does not change the value of his words. I want to reiterate that this is not a religious work. I know people's time is valuable and they don't want to read something they know nothing about. Maybe they will make an exception. This knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism, but please don't jump to premature conclusions. The author was a philosopher but was forced to self-publish. He was not a part of a university and held no distinguishing titles. As a result, he was unable to reach those who could have been instrumental in passing along his work. His entire adult life was dedicated to sharing his findings in a way that others could comprehend. He wrote 6 books in all and thanks to technology, they have been reproduced online. The book I am sharing today is my compilation. Some people have said it's too longwinded. Maybe that's true, but it's important to remember that form is less important than what is being conveyed. Please keep this in mind if you decide to read it.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.

PG, you have so far not demonstrated anything. We have looked for ourselves and reject the book.

 

[peacegirl]

Post 1

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Post 2

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the bet

Post 3

I hope I can get some interest, as the knowledge I am presenting is novel. It's important to mention that the author used the word God throughout his books but was clear that this word only meant the laws that govern our universe. If he was still living (he passed away in 1991), he may have changed how he expressed himself, but this does not change the value of his words. I want to reiterate that this is not a religious work. I know people's time is valuable and they don't want to read something they know nothing about. Maybe they will make an exception. This knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism, but please don't jump to premature conclusions. The author was a philosopher but was forced to self-publish. He was not a part of a university and held no distinguishing titles. As a result, he was unable to reach those who could have been instrumental in passing along his work. His entire adult life was dedicated to sharing his findings in a way that others could comprehend. He wrote 6 books in all and thanks to technology, they have been reproduced online. The book I am sharing today is my compilation. Some people have said it's too longwinded. Maybe that's true, but it's important to remember that form is less important than what is being conveyed. Please keep this in mind if you decide to read it.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.

PG, you have so far not demonstrated anything. We have looked for ourselves and reject the book.

You read the first three chapters?

 

[bilby]

I have said over and over again that Lessans was not an astronomer.

And you are right. He was clearly not a great number of things.

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.

I believe nothing of the sort. He was wrong because he contradicts both himself, and observed reality.

His terminology is wrong in an apparent attempt to conceal that he was wrong, possibly even from himself.

 

[bilby]

I don't want to have to report you again, but I will because this kind of behavior is subject to a warning or an expulsion.

Truth is a complete defence in defamation proceedings.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't want to have to report you again, but I will because this kind of behavior is subject to a warning or an expulsion.

Truth is a complete defence in defamation proceedings.

They are lies, and I would win!

 

[bilby]

I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore.

I am not surprised.

I am a little surprised that it took you quite so long to realise that doing so shines a spotlight on your irrationality that can only harm your reputation, with no possibility of any countervailing benefit for you.

And I feel I should point out that nobody else is under any obligation to stop talking about the subject, and how it reveals your failings, now that you have broached it.

The phrase "Hoist by her own petard" springs to mind.