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

[peacegirl]

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.

If this is what you have concluded from my efforts to explain that you need to understand the principles in this book before coming to a premature conclusion, I HAVE FAILED. There is nothing more I can do.

 

[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?

I asked you fair questions, and you never answered. Doesn't this tell me something? This tells me you don't know the answers. Yes, it is your fault for telling me he's wrong when you have no idea what you're even disputing. This would be funny if it were not tragic because so many people are dying needlessly.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

I will defend him because you are trying so hard to ruin him with everything you've got, but it won't work, Pood. He was not an astronomer. His findings didn't come from astronomy, so he didn't have the correct terminology. That did not make his observations wrong. When one thing doesn't work, you try to bring in the whole cavalry, but it will still fail because in the end, truth wins, no matter how long it takes.

 

[pood]

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.

O, irony!

Light travels. Light strikes an object, and it obeys the law of reflection.

Earlier you said light does not bounce off an object.

The author was not disputing this.

OK

He was disputing the fact that because light strikes an object, it takes on the characteristics of that object.

Huh? Wuh? What does that mean, “takes on the characteristics of that object”? Light does not “take on the characteristics of the object” it bounces off. Light is just light. If light bounces off the moon it does not become the moon. So whatever the hell your author is babbling about, he is disputing a strawman.

That is what he meant when he said the image is not reflected.

No one ever said “images” are reflected. Yet again you repeat this idiocy. Images are formed in the mind. They are not reflected.

According to his observations,

He had no 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)

Objects do not have light waves. Light has light waves.

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.

What makes or breaks what you are saying is fact. And in fact what you are saying is wholly broken.

 

[pood]

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.

Yes, this is your silly little defense mechanism. It must be our fault because we dislike having our “precious world view” challenged, or because we don’t want to be “burned” by fraudulent claims. The truth is much simpler. Your author’s claims are stupid and wrong and we are smart and right and therefore we reject his stupid and wrong claims.

 

[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.

I will defend him because you are trying so hard to ruin him with everything you've got, but it won't work, Pood. He was not an astronomer. His findings didn't come from astronomy, so he didn't have the correct terminology. That did not make his observations wrong. When one thing doesn't work, you try to bring in the whole cavalry, but it will still fail because in the end, truth wins, no matter how long it takes.

Truth has already won. Your father was wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

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,

The sex part of the book was just another extension of how these will principles will help to improve relationships. You twisted everything he wrote because you decided he was wrong, and your jokes were your way of getting back at him. But it won't work, Pood.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Nothing about mirrors disproves his claim.

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

Light hits a surface and, depending on the angle it strikes, and whether the surface is smooth or rocky, determines the angle of incidence, but it doesn't take the object's lightwave with it in its travels. That's what he meant when he said objects don't reflect an image. Do you see why language is limited in this case?

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It makes a lot of sense. Telescopes bring objects into the field of view because they magnify them.

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.

No bilby. Objects that are too small would not be seen without a telescope because they don't meet the conditions for sight. Telescopes help with size and luminosity by focusing the object into a smaller-diameter eyepiece, as you mentioned. That would put the object into one's field of view.

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.

Of course it doesn't take some special individual to see this, because it can be observed by anyone. And it proves my case that telescopes magnify celestial bodies so that they come into one's field of view. There is no argument here.

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?

Because the magnification allows light to enter the telescope. If that star were not magnified, the light being emitted would never reach us through space/time because the image is not traveling. We are seeing it because it is, once again, large enough and bright enough to be seen due to magnification.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

You have 3 choices

1. Stop posting.
2. Continue posting ad infinitum.
3. Recognize the flaws in the book and redo your approach.

You are modifying your approach a little. Saying his choice of words could have been better. He was not a scientist. But the revolutionary idea is still true.

To communicate an idea and get buy in you have to understand your audience and how they perceive you. Ten use a narrative in the context of perceptions.

Reagan was called the great commutator for a reason, he was skilled at communicating with regular people. Politicians have political consultants who figure out what to say to appeal to and concatenate with groups of people.

Your approach is all wrong for the forum. Generally secular skeptics who like to debate and argue.

If you started with 'I realize that there are issues with the book but I think the occlusion has merit and would like to discuss it' things might have gone differently.

You with 'This is true, all of it. And I will prove it'. So we debate your alleged proofs.

You need to add a lite give and take.

So ends the post mortem analysis. Sometimes called lessons learned.

Have you leaned anything from all the posts?

 

[peacegirl]

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.

After all this time, you think I'm trying to pitch a product, and nothing more? I'm speechless!

 

[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.

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.

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.

It's not that it's a bad idea. It's not an idea at all. It is either true or not. You keep repeating how you believe we see, and you can't see it any other way (like Pood) because you are not thinking in terms of efferent vision, and why the brain acts as a movie projector. You can tell me his observations are wrong all you want, but that doesn't make him wrong. Before condemning him, take a moment to pause before jumping to conclusions. I will repeat what he wrote, in case you didn't read this part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

 

[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.

Right. Who is saying otherwise?

Go into a dark room and you see nothing, flip the light switch and there it all is, the room is illuminated.

Agreed.

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.

The brain focuses the eyes to see the real world. The brain doesn't generate vision.

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.

How many times have I said this version of sight does NOT violate physics? The reason we don't see stars without a time lag is the same reason we don't see the moon without a time lag. Distance is not as much a factor as size and luminosity. If a star exists but can't be seen because it is too far away, a telescope won't help. Any celestial body has to be visible, however faint, for a telescope to collect the light and magnify it. The ACTUAL star has to be visible, not just light that was emitted light-years earlier, which present-day thinking believes is all that is necessary. To repeat: The star has to be within the field of view of the telescope for it to collect the emitted light. It cannot magnify something that isn't there. IOW, if a star is too far away, and therefore too dim for it to be seen, a telescope won't be able to give us any new information.

 

[pood]

How many times have I said this version of sight does NOT violate physics?

Who care how many times you say it? It DOES violate physics, in the most fundamental way possible. As has been explained to you about a million times, it straightforwardly violates relativity, And relativity is correct and your author is full of shit.

 

[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.

After all this time, you think I'm trying to pitch a product, and nothing more? I'm speechless!

It is not about me.

After all the the you have spent trying to promote the book without success maybe it is time for you to have a PARADIGM SHIFT. Another way of looking at your proble.


Selling a car and selling an idea are fundamentally the same process. Understand who you are trying to sell to.

Try Dale Carnegie's How To Win Fiends And Influence People. Still a good read and inciteful.

People skills.

https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/english-collections-1/How%20To%20Win%20Friends%20And%20Influence%20People%20-%20Carnegie%2C%20Dale.pdf

Dealing with people is probably the biggest problem you face,
especially if you are in business. Yes, and that is also true if you are a
housewife, architect or engineer. Research done a few years ago under the
auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
uncovered a most important and significant fact – a fact later confirm
investigations revealed that even in such technical lines as engineering,
about 15 percent of one’s financial success is due to one’s technical
knowledge and about 85 percent is due to skill in human engineering – to
personality and the ability to lead people.

 

[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.

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.

How can I do justice to this book with a quick summary? It's not fair. I've given so much. The first three chapters are there for anyone who wants to know what it's about. If this man were well-known, no one would be putting him through this. They would be in line to get his work. This is so hurtful because this book is a gem hidden in dung.

 

[pood]

This has got nothing to do with winning friends and influencing people. It has to do with the fact that the author’s claims are garbage.

If one could win friends and influence people to accept garbage claims, that is bad, not good.

 

[pood]

This is so hurtful because this book is a gem hidden in dung.

Oh look, now we are dung!

The book is dung,

 

[pood]

How can I do justice to this book with a quick summary?

Yet that is exactly what you ask of us. To tell you what the books means.

A formal argument with premises and a conclusion is not a “quick summary.” You can do this with anything, including complicated concepts like relativity and QM. That you cannot do this for your father’s own book speaks volumes, namely that the book is vapid.

 

[pood]

Special relativity in a nutshell:

P1: the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers (per Galileo)
P2: the speed of light is invariant as measured by all observers regardless of their frame
C: Time, space, and simultaneity are all relative.

See how simple that was?

Note that the above could not be true if we saw in real time.

Now you do the same for your book.

Can’t, can you?