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

[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.

You're wrong. I didn't ask anyone what the book means. I asked them if they read his explanation as to why man's will is not free, for starters. They need to understand that this explanation is not an opinion. How can I get past page 50 of a 600-page book if they can't even answer the first question?

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.

Wrong again. Your entire criterion for what constitutes truth is faulty. You want this simple summary so you can easily dismiss it. I gave a summary as to what this book is about. That's enough to either create an interest or not.

Summary: Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery originated from philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

No, that is not an argument. Please present a set of premises and a conclusion.

And no, I do not want a “simple summary so I can easily dismiss it,” I want a formal argument that we all then can rationally consider, You can’t provide that, by your own admission, so it follows that you have got nothing.

I don't care one whit what you want Pood. If you think this is bullshit, go somewhere else that will give you more bang for your buck!

Of course you don’t care, because you can’t meet the challenge because you know perfectly well that you have no idea what your are talking about.

 

[pood]

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

To the point of not even denying the allegation, I note.

Of course I'm denying the allegation. That was implied in my comment. I am not here to sell a product. The suspicion here is getting out of hand.

Of course you are trying to sell a product! You are trying to sell it right now on Amazon!

But it aiin’t selling, is it?

As a professional writer and editor (including 18 years at the NY Times) I will offer you free advice which of course you will disregard.

Take out all the garbage about light and sight. It doesn’t even have a hope of being right.

Restore the sex stuff that you inexplicably took out. It’s by far the best part of writings, genuinely engaging and hilarious. The sex stuff worked for Henry Miller, another goofball who lived to see fame and fortune come his way.

Make the sex stuff chapter one. Use it as a segue to chapter two, in which the author discusses free will and determinism,

Please learn to present an actual argument for his claims in this regard and strip out all the self-contgratulatory garbage (“Look! There’s a rabbi!”) and imaginary dialogues.

Follow up with a further, greatly slimmed down discussion of how the new world would look.

You could probably weigh in at around 200 pages instead of the current prolix 600 pages And it might actually sell.

 

[pood]

I will be your editor for a fee.

 

[pood]

I have also been a book designer and editor, and I am thinking out loud here, creatively.

I propose the title should be “Juicy Cunt.” This is a direct quote from your writer that you expurgated.

Recall that Henry Miller’s first (unpublished) book was titled “Crazy Cunts,” but he repurposed much of this material for his later, successful books.

To lend gravitas to the book, the subtitle should be: “How an undiscovered law of human nature will usher in an era of peace and great sex.”

I see the cover art an illustration of a a semi-naked woman trapped in a spider web being preyed upon by a giant spider, but the slap-happy grin on her face suggests she is loving every minute of it.

 

[peacegirl]

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

Earlier you said light does not bounce off an object

Well, obviously it does both. It bounces off and does not bounce off, depending on what you are trying to prove at the time.

What? He did not say light bounces off and doesn't bounce off. Light is always traveling. The only thing that he disputes is that it does not take the object's wavelength with it. When we look at the object, in efferent vision, the light there, which allows us to see the object in real time. Here is that excerpt again. Read it or don't read it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil

p. 115 They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound, the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, tells us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria with the naked eye, either, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present, and it is large enough to be seen.

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet at the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking and the object seen has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light; therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would, which brings us to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star, the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Upon hearing this explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon? Once the light is here, it remains here because the photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the Earth rotates on its axis so that the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again, this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us, because these photons are already present. And if the sun were to explode while we were looking at it, we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light-years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when it is five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the Earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.

To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice?

And before you say "that's a contradiction", just think - do you really want people to continue to suffer, just so that you can point out contradictions?

The Truth^TM doesn't care about mere contradictions.

There are no contradictions, bilby.

'Our eyes see stars, not detect light.'

Semantics. In general conversation I say I see stars. Talking about physiology I say the eye dtetercts light. Both are true and are contextual.

'We see stars because they are there to be seen when enough light is present, according to this account.'
Ok, but so what? Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.....obviously.


As to the quoted text by Lesssans, I believe that nails it down. Light is no more instant than sound. That is an experimental fact. To be pedantic light is a traverse wave and siound is a longitudinal wave.

Tie one end of a long rope to a wall. Sttretech out the rope and move the free end up and down. The disturbance propagates 90 degrees(transverse) to the line of travel. A slinky p[raes as a longitudinal wave, in the line of travel. Concessional wave.

Note that in general usage light also refers to radio signals. Visible light waves and radio waves are both part of the same electromagnet spectrum. Both are electromagnet waves, with different wavelengths and both travel at the same speed.

The above book section is debunked, there is no debate.

If that is the great secret or part of it then the entire thesis is falsified.

Pg you keep saying the book does not violate physics but it clearly does.

He did not say light bounces off and doesn't bounce off. Light is always traveling. The only thing that he disputes is that it does not take the object's wavelength with it. When we look at the object, in efferent vision, the light there, which allows us to see the object in real time. Here is that excerpt again. Read it or don't read it.

An object has a de Broglie wavelength, but that is another matt6er. In terms of visible light each color of visible light has a discrete wavelength. It is art of the wave particle duality problem.

Visible light and radio waves are the same phenomena and travel and reflects in the exact same manner.

Why don't we see an airplane before we hear it? We should see it long before we hear it, considering light travels so much faster than sound. The following explanation doesn't quite add up because we don't see the plane instantaneously. This supports Lessans' claim.


The reason we hear the sound of an airplane before seeing it is due to the speed of light being much faster than the speed of sound. Light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (or 186,000 miles per second), while sound travels at about 346 meters per second (or 0.346 km per second). This means that light waves carrying visual information will reach our eyes almost instantaneously, while sound waves take time to travel to our ears. The time difference between seeing and hearing an event can vary depending on the distance between us and the source of the event, but in most cases, the speed of light is significantly faster than the speed of sound, allowing us to see things before we hear them.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign+3

 

[peacegirl]

The Lessan's Theory Of Light And Seeing And Sound is debunked and falsified by theory evidenced by experiment. In turn the overall thesis is rejected.

de·bunk
/dēˈbəNGk/
verb
past tense: debunked; past participle: debunked

expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
"the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"

fal·si·fy
/ˈfôlsəˌfī,ˈfälsəˌfī/
verb
verb: falsify; 3rd person present: falsifies; past tense: falsified; past participle: falsified; gerund or present participle: falsifying

2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
“the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence"

He also proved his thesis by observation. We cannot be conditioned without words that do this, since values are not in the light where we see these "beautiful and ugly people." So how does this conditioning take place, then? There has to be a way, and he shows exactly how it happens. You can't just ignore his accurate observations because you happen to be having a cognitive/dissonant moment.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell, and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. 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.

 

[pood]

Eyes do not take photographs,

Dogs can recognize their human partners by sight alone, even on videos without any smell involved, as was shown to you years ago.

Now let’s get back to “Juicy Cunt.”

 

[DBT]

I feel very sad about the news of Nancy Guthrie's kidnapping. The reason this is so disturbing to me is that the motivation to do this crime could never occur in the new world.

Diversity in makeup, character, personality, thought and response ensures that in practically any situation someone will do or say something wrong. Take this thread as an example.

 

[peacegirl]

I have asked @peacegirl to do this.

To post a concise summary consisting of premises and a conclusion about her author’s argument to determinism and free will.

I have not asked to her to post such an argument about light and sight because her author’s claims in this respect are obvious garbage that cannot be sustained by any argument.

I tried to help peacegirl elucidate the author’s claims about determinism and free will in a formal manner. She rejected my help.

Can she do it herself?

No, she cannot.

Let’s see if she can prove me wrong.

This has nothing to do with proving YOU wrong. It has everything to do with proving him RIGHT.

He's NOT right.

Because you say so?

Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction

Natural laws are, by definition, always and eternally permanent conditions of the environment.

That is true, but until we know how to apply it by becoming a permanent condition of the environment, we can't use it to our advantage. He was distinguishing it from a free will environment of blame and punishment, where we all live.

They never allow anything "for the very first time".

Rocks didn't fall upwards before Newton made gravity a "permanent condition of the environment".

The law of our nature isn't "for the very time." What will be for "the very first time" is knowing how we can create an environment, through its application, that will prevent the desire to hurt others as a preferable option.

 

[peacegirl]

Eyes do not take photographs,

Dogs can recognize their human partners by sight alone, even on videos without any smell involved, as was shown to you years ago.

Now let’s get back to “Juicy Cunt.”

STFU Pood. I will report you if you keep this up. You do this every time you get scared that you're losing ground. People, you have to understand what Pood is trying to do. When he sees he is not getting the response he expected, in that people are not throwing the book under the bus just yet, he brings in the cavalry, meaning anything he can use to get people on his side, he will do, even if he twists the author's words to sound sleazy. This has gone on for many years. The author came from a time when sex was considered dirty. He was just explaining that this word, when used during sex, is not dirty at all. He explained there is no real difference between the words pussy and vagina. It's the connotation that people give to these words that makes them dirty. He was trying to help couples not to feel shame if they were turned on by these words during the sexual act. It was anything but sleazy. I changed the title because there were two books with the same title. It is now entitled The Secret: Humanity's Next Awakening. I added this:

A Note to The Reader

THE SECRET was the author’s 5th attempt to demonstrate a scientific discovery that has the power to prevent what no one wants: war, crime, and many other evils plaguing mankind. Very few people, when first reading Chapter One, which follows, will believe these changes are possible. However, mathematical proof is undeniably established as the text is read chapter by chapter in the order it was written. It is important that you refrain from opening the book at random, which would be equivalent to trying to understand a mathematical equation with the first half missing.

The problem of responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined, is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. This longstanding conflict in the free will/determinism debate has caused a rift in philosophical circles, which makes this perplexing conundrum appear insolvable. It is important to bear in mind that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they are reflective of reality. This is a crucial point since the reconciliation of these two opposing thought systems (while proving determinism true and free will false) is THE SECRET that opens the door to a world of peace and brotherhood.

Before starting, I would like to clarify a few things. The author used dialogue as a way to make the book as reader friendly as possible, as these concepts may feel foreign at first. Please be aware that he used humor in his writing as a form of comic relief. This does not detract from the seriousness of the subject matter. The word God is used throughout the book, which is a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. This is not a religious work. I would also like to clarify his use of terminology. For example, the words ‘mathematical’ and ‘scientific’ in this context only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the book. In the chapter on marriage, there is some sexually explicit language. This is an adult book and therefore should not be read by anybody who may be offended.

The author described his discovery as a two-sided equation, although it has nothing to do with numbers per se. Throughout the book, he uses the phrase “compelled, of his own free will,” which may sound contradictory at first blush. The expression, “of his own free will,” is used in a colloquial sense, which only means that he was not being coerced or forced to do anything against his will. It does not mean his will is free. You will understand this much better as you read the text chapter by chapter. For those familiar with this topic, this knowledge has nothing to do with compatibilism, so please don’t jump to premature conclusions. When the 20th century is mentioned, this was the time the author lived. Sadly, he passed away in 1991 at the age of 72 before he was able to see his discovery brought to light. Although some of the examples are outdated, the discovery itself couldn’t be timelier. The prediction that this new world would become a reality between 1975-1980 was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Unfortunately, there has been no such investigation, and this discovery remains in obscurity.

 

[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.

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.

Stars radiate light. That's how we are able to see them. Our eyes detect light from the stars and our brain generates mental imagery of them in conscious form. Stars are luminous because they emit light.

Stars radiate light, true, but they are also a mixture of plasma, hydrogen, and other gases. Light that is radiated from them allows us to see what they consist of: MATTER. If Lessans is right, the image of the star is not being sent to our telescopes from light-years in the past. We see the star because we have developed a telescope that is 9 times stronger than the Hubble and can magnify very dim light in order to be able to view the actual star.

The second part of your explanation does not follow from the first part.

We see the light that was radiated from the star and has travelled to our eyes. Luminosity depends on distance and the size of a star.

For instance, proxima centauri is closer to us than Alpha Centauri, yet while we can see Alpha, Proxima is too dim to see with our eyes because it's a red dwarf that emits less light.

 

[pood]

Eyes do not take photographs,

Dogs can recognize their human partners by sight alone, even on videos without any smell involved, as was shown to you years ago.

Now let’s get back to “Juicy Cunt.”

STFU Pood. I will report you if you keep this up.

Peacegirl, your father wrote this stuff. Those are his exact words. I am quoting him. You took all those passages out of the book. Why? Are you ashamed of them?

I personally found them great.

Do you want me to post the published text? It is at FF.

So don’t get on your high horse with me. I am quoting your writer’s exact words.

 

[steve_bank]

Suggestions?

If Lessans had presented his ideas as a fictional story of a person and people enacting his philosophy we might be reading it today.

Scifi and other writers have presented their vision of society as fiction and garnered an audience.

The Null-A series by A.E. van Vogt is a classic Golden Age science fiction trilogy focusing on non-Aristotelian logic, General Semantics, and superhuman abilities. Centered on protagonist Gilbert Gosseyn, the books explore themes of identity, evolution, and interstellar conspiracy.

The World of Null-A - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gilbert Gosseyn (pronounced go-sane), a man living in an apparent utopia where those with superior understanding and mental control rule the rest of humanity, wants to be tested by the giant Machine that determines such superiority. However, he finds that his memories are false. In his search for his real identity, he discovers that he has extra bodies that are activated when he dies (so that, in a sense, he cannot be killed), that a galactic society of humans exists outside the Solar System, a large interstellar empire wishes to conquer both the Earth and Venus (inhabited by masters of non-Aristotelian logic), and he has extra brain matter that, when properly trained, can allow him to move matter with his mind.

People may not realize how controversial the original Star Trek series was in the 60s. They framed social issues in scifi getting past the censors. And of course Twilight Zone, studies in humn nature.

Woulda Coulda Shoulda

The book is not fixable. It is pseudoscience.

You yourself can not speak to it, you dodge by saying it is too complex for words.

I never said it was too complex for words. I said that the concepts don't have a perfect word that would explain what he's talking about, so he used the word that came the closest. Why are you misinterpreting what I wrote?

The book is pseudoscience. Its been refuted by several.

The issue of responsibility and free will versus determinism IOW mortality is not new.

As I understand it compatabilism originated as a solution to the moral dilemma.

With modern genetics there are questions of how much of our behavior is genetic. Is there a violence gene? Ate some people more susceptble to adduction generically?

Here in Seattle years back drugs were decriminalized. Police could not pick up anyone publiclyusing drugs. I sat in nearby park wtatychingh a guy calmly shooting up.

It became epidemic. People ODing on door door step. Eventually it was walked back after public response.

The idea of no punishment makes absolutely no sense at all.

Way back I listened to a reporter who was allowed into an area taken over by Islamicists. He said there was no crime. No one locked doors. Harsh Sharia law.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, did your author not say that boys will fall in love with the sex organs of girls?

Did he not say that 98 percent of all homosexuality is due to boys lacking access to girls?

I have the text.

 

[pood]

Also, remember! Boys will fall in love with girls’ sex organs only after, and not before, sexual intercourse.

Peacegirl, your writer wrote this stuff. Do you disown it? Is that why you took it out of the book?

Just be honest. Because of course you should disown it. It is insane.

 

[peacegirl]

Eyes do not take photographs,

Dogs can recognize their human partners by sight alone, even on videos without any smell involved, as was shown to you years ago.

You also think all kinds of animals (like birds, mice, even roaches) can recognize from sight alone. Who knew?

Now let’s get back to “Juicy Cunt.”

STFU Pood. I will report you if you keep this up.

Peacegirl, your father wrote this stuff. Those are his exact words. I am quoting him. You took all those passages out of the book. Why? Are you ashamed of them?

I was shocked by how relentless people in FF were in ruining his chances of a fair and balanced investigation. I was new to forums, and what people did to deliberately turn his book into an unrecognizable piece of junk literally made me sick.

I personally found them great.

You found them great because they were fodder to make more lulz. You didn't read the book. You just skimmed and found certain sentences funny and a great way to make fun of him, which was your goal. Your resentment is so strong due to your dislike of his claims that even if the new world were here and we achieved peace on earth, you would continue to say he was wrong.

Do you want me to post the published text? It is at FF.

I don't care what you post. He created a dialogue between a husband and wife for purposes of explaining why these words, once thought of as nasty (especially in his day and age), were not, if used discreetly and without the connotation. You are, once again, doing everything you can to make a joke out of this book, and you won't win.

So don’t get on your high horse with me. I am quoting your writer’s exact words.

I really don't care. You took what he wrote and ran with it, completely out of the context in which it was written. That's all you have done because you hate his claim regarding the eyes, and you hate that we don't have any kind of free will, not even the compatibilist kind. That's what it boils down to.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

The book is fundamentally flawed, it is not fixable. A summary of f caveats does not really change the fact.

I am retired and the forum helps keep me mentally active. That;'s my excuse.


My poor vision precludes reading books in any detail. Can you tie it all together and show how light, the eyes, and determinism will change the world?


By the way, do you have a good recipe for lentil soup or chili? Free will or determinism I like Progresso and Amy's soups, but they can be expensive.

Or is the book your sole focus? Gardening, baking cookies?

 

[peacegirl]

Radar works by bouncing electromagnet radiation of an object. Bounce a signal of an arrplanee moving away and the tie for tr echo to return increases.

LIDAR can use visiblee light to find range to an object.

Ultrasonic ranging uses audacious waves to find range to an object.

Put two visible light lasers next each other pulsing burst of light. At two side by side receivers the pulses arve at the sen time. Move one of the lasers away on wheels and the pulses from the mongol laser will arrive after the stationary laser.

There is also the Doppler Effect.

Better telescopes do see fatter back in time. With Hubble areas of space tat looked dark or havnng few objects were found to be filled with objects.

I used to have a poster of the deep field in my office for inspiration. Along with a model of Chuck Yeager's Bell X1.



Hubble images

Hubble Images - NASA Science

Hubble images of the universe. The page includes science images, Hubble Friday images, mission operations images, and servicing mission images

science.nasa.gov

There is nothing about LIDAR, the Doppler Effect, or deep fields due to better telescopes, that Lessans is disputing. You just don't get it, Steve!.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

The book is fundamentally flawed, it is not fixable. A summary of f caveats does not really change the fact.

The basic concepts are not flawed.

I am retired and the forum helps keep me mentally active. That;'s my excuse.

I think that's great! I'm glad you have found something that keeps you on your toes and is a learning tool. It beats doing crossword puzzles in my opinion, but to each his own.

My poor vision precludes reading books in any detail. Can you tie it all together and show how light, the eyes, and determinism will change the world?

I'm trying very hard, Steve. I hope one day I'll actually succeed in getting to the discovery because so far, I haven't.

By the way, do you have a good recipe for lentil soup or chili? Free will or determinism I like Progresso and Amy's soups, but they can be expensive.

I don't have a recipe for lentil soup or chili (with the beans) because I'm pretty much on a low-carb diet.

Or is the book your sole focus? Gardening, baking cookies?

The book is important to me because I know what it will do to help our world, and I don't want it to end up in a scrap heap, never to be seen again. It's an important part of my life for that reason, but I do have other interests, especially because I have 14 grandkids whom I hope to impart some of my wisdom to. I love animals, and I dog sit when my children go on vacation. I sign a lot of petitions to help animals. I am older too, and I have a health condition, so I understand you, but I am making the most of this season of life as best I can.

 

[steve_bank]

Context Pg? What context? The science stated in the book is patently false.

You can try to get around it by saying he was not a scientist or mathematician, but the fact is what he says is false. You keep trying to work around that but you are getting nowhere.

You keep trying to push a bog rock up a steep hill and it is not moving. That must be frustrating and draining.