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

[peacegirl]

Hey, @peacegirl look up! There’s the moon! The moon is not a light source. But according to you, light does not bounce off objects.

How do we see the moon?

The same way we are able to see any celestial body... by meeting the conditions of luminosity and size. Sometimes we only see half a moon because the light from the Sun is only shining on one side. You seem to have a short memory because I've never denied that we need light to see anything in the external world.

The Moon's phases are a result of the Moon's orbit around Earth and its illumination by the Sun. As the Moon orbits, different parts of it are illuminated by the Sun, creating the different phases we observe. The Moon does not produce its own light; it reflects sunlight. The illuminated portion of the Moon continuously changes its orientation relative to Earth as the Moon orbits, which dictates which parts of the Moon's illuminated half are visible from our vantage point. This changing geometry, combined with the Moon's position relative to the Sun and Earth, results in the eight main Moon phases: New Moon, Waxing Crescent, First Quarter, Waxing Gibbous, Full Moon, Waning Gibbous, Last Quarter, and Waning Crescent.
NASA+5

 

[steve_bank]

Hey, @peacegirl look up! There’s the moon! The moon is not a light source. But according to you, light does not bounce off objects.

How do we see the moon?

The same way we are able to see any celestial body... by meeting the conditions of luminosity and size. Sometimes we only see half a moon because the light from the Sun is only shining on one side. You seem to have a short memory because I've never denied that we need light to see anything in the external world.

The Moon's phases are a result of the Moon's orbit around Earth and its illumination by the Sun. As the Moon orbits, different parts of it are illuminated by the Sun, creating the different phases we observe. The Moon does not produce its own light; it reflects sunlight. The illuminated portion of the Moon continuously changes its orientation relative to Earth as the Moon orbits, which dictates which parts of the Moon's illuminated half are visible from our vantage point. This changing geometry, combined with the Moon's position relative to the Sun and Earth, results in the eight main Moon phases: New Moon, Waxing Crescent, First Quarter, Waxing Gibbous, Full Moon, Waning Gibbous, Last Quarter, and Waning Crescent.
NASA+5

Did you really have to look that up?

 

[steve_bank]

Post 1

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects …

So you are denying that reflection takes place. Beyond bizarre. You can easily test for yourself that reflection happens. How do you think a mirror works? Oh, wait, we had this discussion at FF. You remain utterly clueless.

Nothing about mirrors disproves his claim. You're grasping at straws, but that's not surprising.

taking the object's lightwave with it, …

The object does not have a light wave.

I didn't say the object has a lightwave. I said the object does not reflect a lightwave that travels through space/time over long distances.

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

If values are not in the light, then it has to be some other way we become conditioned by words. This is the missing element.

No one ever said that light carries values, The stupidity of all this is stupendous and stupefying.

That's when he realized that we do not see in delayed time. It's not stupefying if you analyze it carefully. If beauty and ugliness don't travel to us through light, how do we get conditioned? It is through words. He shows exactly how the brain is able to do this and why it contradicts the present-day theory of sight.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

You don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You didn't read the first three chapters.

1. Why is the will of man not free, Steve? (Chapter One)

2. What is the other principle that leads to his discovery? (Chapter One).

3. What is the two-sided equation? (Chapter Two).

4. Why can't someone strike a first blow under the new conditions? (Chapter Two)

5. Why does carelessness come to a virtual end? (Chapter Three)

These are clearly spelled out in these chapters. You should be able to answer these easily. But I know you can't.

Unfortunately you can’t answer them easily, either. Whenever asked, you refer us back to the book. Pathetic.

No, I created the questions, and I know how to answer them. But I'm not doing any more until people meet me halfway.

Ok, again you resort to saying it is our fault we don't accept what you claim is true.

Anytng but actualy rsnding to quetions. Pood id right, yiu don;t relly udertd yur book.

Tell me, is the book you quote as written by Lessans or did you you put it together from his writings?

 

[peacegirl]

Hey, @peacegirl look up! There’s the moon! The moon is not a light source. But according to you, light does not bounce off objects.

How do we see the moon?

The same way we are able to see any celestial body... by meeting the conditions of luminosity and size. Sometimes we only see half a moon because the light from the Sun is only shining on one side. You seem to have a short memory because I've never denied that we need light to see anything in the external world.

The Moon's phases are a result of the Moon's orbit around Earth and its illumination by the Sun. As the Moon orbits, different parts of it are illuminated by the Sun, creating the different phases we observe. The Moon does not produce its own light; it reflects sunlight. The illuminated portion of the Moon continuously changes its orientation relative to Earth as the Moon orbits, which dictates which parts of the Moon's illuminated half are visible from our vantage point. This changing geometry, combined with the Moon's position relative to the Sun and Earth, results in the eight main Moon phases: New Moon, Waxing Crescent, First Quarter, Waxing Gibbous, Full Moon, Waning Gibbous, Last Quarter, and Waning Crescent.
NASA+5

Did you really have to look that up?

I want it to be clear because Pood is trying to make me look foolish. Why would he even ask this question unless he was confused about the importance of light in everything we see? He is trying to get me to say that if we see in real time, there must be a gap where we see without light, because in his mind, how can we see without light traveling to our eyes, which takes time. He just can't imagine how light can be at the retina when looking directly at the object.

 

[peacegirl]

Post 1

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects …

So you are denying that reflection takes place. Beyond bizarre. You can easily test for yourself that reflection happens. How do you think a mirror works? Oh, wait, we had this discussion at FF. You remain utterly clueless.

Nothing about mirrors disproves his claim. You're grasping at straws, but that's not surprising.

taking the object's lightwave with it, …

The object does not have a light wave.

I didn't say the object has a lightwave. I said the object does not reflect a lightwave that travels through space/time over long distances.

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

If values are not in the light, then it has to be some other way we become conditioned by words. This is the missing element.

No one ever said that light carries values, The stupidity of all this is stupendous and stupefying.

That's when he realized that we do not see in delayed time. It's not stupefying if you analyze it carefully. If beauty and ugliness don't travel to us through light, how do we get conditioned? It is through words. He shows exactly how the brain is able to do this and why it contradicts the present-day theory of sight.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

You don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You didn't read the first three chapters.

1. Why is the will of man not free, Steve? (Chapter One)

2. What is the other principle that leads to his discovery? (Chapter One).

3. What is the two-sided equation? (Chapter Two).

4. Why can't someone strike a first blow under the new conditions? (Chapter Two)

5. Why does carelessness come to a virtual end? (Chapter Three)

These are clearly spelled out in these chapters. You should be able to answer these easily. But I know you can't.

Unfortunately you can’t answer them easily, either. Whenever asked, you refer us back to the book. Pathetic.

No, I created the questions, and I know how to answer them. But I'm not doing any more until people meet me halfway.

Ok, again you resort to saying it is our fault we don't accept what you claim is true.

Anytng but actualy rsnding to quetions. Pood id right, yiu don;t relly udertd yur book.

Tell me, is the book you quote as written by Lessans or did you you put it together from his writings?

The 7th book was compiled by me. I was a careful steward not to change any of his concepts.

 

[steve_bank]

Foolish is one way to say it.

Ignorant, narrow minded, dogmatic.

You do adapt what you see posed and integrate it in to your narrative. That would IMO idicte intelligence.

When photons were mentioned to explain how the retina works you added photons to your posts. I brought up Faraday on this thread and you referenced him in another.

I see what you are dong and hear the wheels spinning in your head because for most of my adult life I was immersed in company politics. It was inescapable You are not in any way new to me.

From my perspective you have a marketing messaging problem. In a sense you are trying to sell a product.

'My product is great and a revolutionary new development. It will grow hair on your head and increase make virility Trust me I know it is true, my wife loves the results. Try it, for only $29.95 a bottle'

A typical TV supplement commercial narrative. in some ways similar form to your pitch for your ideas.

 

[pood]

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects …

So you are denying that reflection takes place. Beyond bizarre. You can easily test for yourself that reflection happens. How do you think a mirror works? Oh, wait, we had this discussion at FF. You remain utterly clueless.

Nothing about mirrors disproves his claim. You're grasping at straws, but that's not surprising.

You said light does not bounce off an object.

Welcome to a mirror.

taking the object's lightwave with it, …

The object does not have a light wave.

I didn't say the object has a lightwave.

See your own quote just above. Hilarious! Taking the object’s light wave with it …

I said the object does not reflect a lightwave that travels through space/time over long distances

But of course it does. But that is still not what you said.

So you are actually sitting there and telling us that there is no such thing as the reflection of light??? And you expect anyone anywhere to take you seriously???

 

[pood]

Foolish is one way to say it.

Ignorant, narrow minded, dogmatic.

You do adapt what you see posed and integrate it in to your narrative. That would IMO idicte intelligence.

When photons were mentioned to explain how the retina works you added photons to your posts. I brought up Faraday on this thread and you referenced him in another.

Her genius author thought that light was made of molecules.

 

[pood]

The 7th book was compiled by me. I was a careful steward not to change any of his concepts.

Except for all the wonderful, goofy sex stuff you took out. Best part of the book,

 

[pood]

I want it to be clear because Pood is trying to make me look foolish.

I am not trying to make you look foolish. You are making yourself look foolish. We here are trying to help you stop being foolish by acquainting you with the elementary facts of reality.

 

[bilby]

Nothing about mirrors disproves his claim.

Well, the fact that you can't explain how they work, pretty much does, actually.

 

[bilby]

What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

The clue is in the name:

From tele- +‎ -scope. From Latin tēlescopium, from Ancient Greek τηλεσκόπος (tēleskópos, “far-seeing”), from τῆλε (têle, “afar”) + σκοπέω(skopéō, “I look at”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/telescope

They need a telescope, because the thing they are trying to see is a long way away.

Despite being large and luminous, many stars can only be seen with a telescope - which makes no sense at all if sight does not entail light travelling from object to eye, at lightspeed.

In the usual model of sight, a telescope works by collecting the light that passes through (or reflects off) a large diameter collector, and focuses it into a smaller diameter eyepiece.

In your efferent vision model, light need not travel through space for us to see a star, which is instantly visible due to its size and luminosity. So any star visible with a telescope should slso be visible without one.

We can test this. All we need is a clear night, and a telescope.

When we test it, we discover - (that is, literally anyone who wants to look, discovers for themselves, regardless of what books they have read, or what pre-conceptions they have, or what they expect to see, or who they trust, or who they believe, or who is their friend, or who is their enemy, or whether they are a scientist, a bricklayer, a stage magician or a bus driver; Everyone can see) - that more stars are visible with a telescope, than without one.

How do you explain that, other than by saying "my model of instant vision must be wrong"? Does pointing a telescope at a star make it larger? Does pointing a telescope at a star make it more luminous? If so, how come the star becomes visible only to the person looking through the telescope, but not to a person with no telescope who is standing right beside him?

 

[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.

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.

Whether it's light from the stars or a light in your house, the principle is the same. The light radiated or reflected from the source has a travel period to the eye, which is much longer from the stars than the lamp in your house, whereupon that light is detected by the eyes and the information, wavelength, etc, transmitted to the brain for processing and representing as vision; you see the stars or the objects in your room.

That is how it works. Instant seeing is impossible. There is no way for it to work. It's a bad idea.

 

[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.

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

You are disputing it with the claim of instant vision/seeing. Claiming that things like stars are seen instantly without the time lag between light emission and acquisition by the eyes and brain.

By making the claim, you are trying to bypass the fundamental principles of physics.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

I’m not irrational.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

I’m just tired of defending what people here are set on dismissing without understanding why this model of sight is possible.

It's not possible. It's logically impossible, and it's also contradicted by a number of simple experimental observations that are available to anyone.

It’s just not the right timing.

Timing is the least of your problems, but sure - you would have been far more likely to persuade people to join you in your irrationality before the Enlightenment. You were born five hundred years too late.

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.

They can say whatever they want, but if Im still here, I will report anyone who is purposely causing harm by misrepresenting the book in a way that is totally slanderous and causing harm to the author!

As I said, truth is a complete defence. You do not have the legal right to defraud people, even if (indeed, particularly if) doing so is your livelihood, and being restrained from doing so causes you demonstrable harm.

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

Dumbest thing I’ve heard yet!

It is OK to admit that you don't know what that means.

It comes from Hamlet

It means being taken down by your own scheme. It's still dumb. This is not a scheme, and I'm not being taken down.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Why do you think you are not getting any traction here?

 

[peacegirl]

Wait, let me preemptively answer.

The light from the sun does not bounce off the moon, but it *at* the moon, and therefore we see it in real time. Right?

How pathetic that any person could believe such nonsense,

It amazes me that you don't understand the simplest concept. Light travels. Light strikes an object, and it obeys the law of reflection. The author was not disputing this. He was disputing the fact that because light strikes an object, it takes on the characteristics of that object. That is what he meant when he said the image is not reflected. According to his observations, light allows the object to be revealed when looking at it, but it does not bring the image (i.e.,the lightwaves of said object) through space/time to our eyes. The word "lightwaves" is the only way I can express this concept. Give me a better word, and I'll use it. Remember, it's not the word that makes or breaks the truth, especially when language is limited, so keep that in mind. It's not meant to fool anyone.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

Why do you think you are not getting any traction here?

Because people have been burned so many times by fraudulent claims, and this claim is so extraordinary that they can't imagine there is any truth to the claim that we can achieve world peace; so as not to be burned again, or to be thought of as suckers, they are positioning themselves in such a way that won't allow them even to consider that this discovery could be right. They have already made up their minds as a protective mechanism, which makes it doubly hard for me to prove to them that there is something to this knowledge.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

I’m not irrational.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

I’m just tired of defending what people here are set on dismissing without understanding why this model of sight is possible.

It's not possible. It's logically impossible, and it's also contradicted by a number of simple experimental observations that are available to anyone.

It’s just not the right timing.

Timing is the least of your problems, but sure - you would have been far more likely to persuade people to join you in your irrationality before the Enlightenment. You were born five hundred years too late.

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.

They can say whatever they want, but if Im still here, I will report anyone who is purposely causing harm by misrepresenting the book in a way that is totally slanderous and causing harm to the author!

As I said, truth is a complete defence. You do not have the legal right to defraud people, even if (indeed, particularly if) doing so is your livelihood, and being restrained from doing so causes you demonstrable harm.

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

Dumbest thing I’ve heard yet!

It is OK to admit that you don't know what that means.

It comes from Hamlet

Pg
The next step is showing how the environment has to be completely revamped using these principles

So said Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and now Trump.

It's 180-degree turnabout from a free will, blame filled environment to a no free will, no blame environment. This means that all authority and control must be removed for these principles to work. That's all I'm giving you right now until I finish demonstrating the first 3 chapters which is the foundation. Then I will skip to Chapter Six: The New Economic World, which removes all government other than jobs that do not blame its citizens. Do you see how hard this is? Again, if I can't do it my way, then I will move on. This change in environment isn't going to take place tomorrow, but it IS the answer to a world of peace, brotherhood, and economic cooperation.

What happens when someone or a group decides to say the hell with all this and demands a change from this new order? What happens when someone becomes a psychopathic killer?

Steve, this is a typical question of someone who didn't read anything. You are assuming that nothing in this world can stop a person other than force. You're incorrect. Please read the chapters. They will help you to understand the basics, at the very least.

Your proposal is counter to our natural genetic proclivities. We are in heat 24/7 past puberty and like to fuck like rabbits.

No, we are human first and foremost, and we are born with a rudimentary conscience, every single one of us. Chapter 5 is related to this very topic. (Premarital Relations)

A take on the old Charlton Heston cliche about guns, 'You will have to pry my free will form my cold dead hands'.


The old saying about hums is tryiing to herd cats.

You cannot understand this paradigm shift from the vantage point of this world, so stop trying. It will do you no good.

Oh no!!! Not a [paradigm shift!!!

YES, is a paradigm shift by definition.

Post WWII liberal western demarcates are a paradigm shift and it is being tested as we speak. It may fail.

The notion tat there can be a global uniform ideology that eliminates war and crime across politics.,philosophies, race, and culture is fantasy.

It really is not. It doesn't tell cultures what they have to believe in or what they must do. It's the exact opposite.

The UN has failed in its primary mission, a place to resolve dispute to avoid war. It became a bloated bureaucracy and a sink hole for money.

I am in agreement. There is a lot of distrust as to whether these people are only out for money.

The UN is comprosed of rubbernecker nationalistic states out to get whatever they can. Human nature.

Here in Seattle during the ritss our progressive city council promoted getting rid of curtailing the police. There were actually clams that police cause crime.

This is what happens in a world of blame and accusation. This author was only showing all of us a better way to what we all want. That is the irony.

It deroyed the Seattle police. Officers left in droves. Repose times went as did crime. Criminals took advantage. Police no resnded to anythng but immediate threts.

Eventually sentiment changed, there was finger pointing as to why SPD got so bad. It took years to recover.

So again, what do you do when things are not so peaceful and tranquil under your new paradigm?

Somebody likes to beat up women.

Steve, I understand your concerns, and I am not dismissing them at all. I am showing you that all of these horrible things can be eliminated with the truth. Are you willing to listen? You have never answered my questions. This was not to embarrass you, it was to know what you understand. How can I move forward when you have no understanding of Chapter One? Or Chapter Two? Or even Chapter Three?

 

[WAB]

Pg

Why do you think you are not getting any traction here?

Because people have been burned so many times by fraudulent claims, and this claim is so extraordinary that they can't imagine there is any truth to the claim that we can achieve world peace; so as not to be burned again, or to be thought of as suckers, they are positioning themselves in such a way that won't allow them even to consider that this discovery could be right. They have already made up their minds as a protective mechanism, which makes it doubly hard for me to prove to them that there is something to this knowledge.

Which makes it far more sensible that you would offer a summary of this discovery to the best of your ability, so that some people might be more inclined to read the book, and this has the added benefit that it might generate some sales. I do not understand your resistance to that idea. People MUST read the book and find out for themselves...? Certainly you must be able to see that explaining this discovery can only benefit you and your father's work, while constantly refusing to do that will keep you in the same place you've apparently been for many years. I do not understand it, save in one context only: that you are more concerned with selling the book than in revealing the discovery that will benefit the entire world. Even worse, this possibility yields another, far less appealing possibility: that there actually is no great discovery - hence the reason you can't summarize or explain it.