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

[steve_bank]

Actually, his last book was called This is An Urgent Message From a Visitor To Your Planet, because he thought it might go over better by being an alien who came to help the Earthlings.

And he was wrong about that, too, we observe.

Do you think I'm saying he couldn't ever be wrong? No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that he wasn't wrong regarding his observations and reasoning that led him to his major discovery, and it IS major if it can do what he says.

And tat major concision is what?

Dterminism will get arid of war and suffering?

 

[peacegirl]

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

Literally nobody reasoned this. "They" are a figment of his imagination, and this is a classic strawman logical fallacy.

That has been the logic that gave people the belief that the eyes were a sense organ like the other true sense organs. It made sense, but it turned out to be 100% wrong!

 

[peacegirl]

Objects reflect light, but not in the way you think.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what you purport to think, so understanding what I (or anyone else) thinks may be a touch overambitious for you.

Light travels, there is no argument here,

Good.

but if the eyes are a sense organ,

They are. And I am glad to see that you are beginning to consider the possibility.

they don't see the past. They see the present.

Time is not absolute; There is no "The present", because there are no preferred reference frames.

An individual observer sees only what is in her past; This is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that information cannot travel faster than lightspeed.

If it did, we could use that fact to determine what was going to happen in our future. Which we observably can't.

An observer can detect only those events in her past lightcone, and influence only those events in her future lightcone.

View attachment 53643
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

The entire hypersurface of any observer's present is inaccessable; We cannot see the present, only the past.

Distance and time are relative. All observers measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be a constant, regardless of how they move relative to each other.

This idea is as bizarre and as counterintuitive as your idea that vision is instant, but differs from your idea in that it can be demonstrated to be true.

Crazy ideas are not a problem for science and technology. We can and do profit from them. But only if they are true, which your crazy idea is not.

View attachment 53642
https://xkcd.com/808

Why did you use this chart by implying my father’s ideas fit into no proven crazy thinking that have no scientific backup? It actually does. He, nor I, subscribed to alternative therapies that are not scientific and could actually cause harm, so stop putting his ideas into a false classification!

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
That has been the logic that gave people the belief that the eyes were a sense organ like the other true sense organs. It made sense, but it turned out to be 100% wrong

Nonsense.

Light and sound both follow the inverse square law. Sound and light are specific cases or wave propagation.

law of reflection for sound states that the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence (
). This means that when a sound wave strikes a surface, it bounces off at the same angle it arrived, measured from a line perpendicular to the surface

How a wave reflects has to do with wavelength versus size of object.

Reflection (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reflection of Waves

No one ever says sound and light are physically the same.

Eyes, ears. tongue, touch, nose in engineering are called traducers or sensors. Converts one form of energy to another. Each of the five senses can be and are emulated by technology.

Pop quiz, what is the largest human sense organ?

Spoiler

Skin

By the way I once called Hawking to talk about using telekinesis to travel to stars. He hung g up on me and I never got over it.

 

[peacegirl]

I contacted Clark, but he quickly cut me off and said to go to his thread and post there. He had no desire to hear what I had to say. It's so sad because the ego gets in the way people keep realizing that I am a crank with nothing useful (or even coherent) to contribute.

FTFY.

Your problems in getting your ideas accepted are not problems with other people or their egos; They are problems with your ideas, which are observably and obviously not true.

Well, in this case, to be fair, Clark actually does claim that when we die we are born again as other people (though nothing like a soul reincarnates), and this is also what peacegirl’s author says. It was his “third discovery,” and it predated Clark.

So I would have thought Clark would have been interested in Lessan’s “third discovery.”

Oh my fuckin god. He was given no mention of his third discovery. WTF!!!

 

[steve_bank]

Objects reflect light, but not in the way you think.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what you purport to think, so understanding what I (or anyone else) thinks may be a touch overambitious for you.

Light travels, there is no argument here,

Good.

but if the eyes are a sense organ,

They are. And I am glad to see that you are beginning to consider the possibility.

they don't see the past. They see the present.

Time is not absolute; There is no "The present", because there are no preferred reference frames.

An individual observer sees only what is in her past; This is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that information cannot travel faster than lightspeed.

If it did, we could use that fact to determine what was going to happen in our future. Which we observably can't.

An observer can detect only those events in her past lightcone, and influence only those events in her future lightcone.

View attachment 53643
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

The entire hypersurface of any observer's present is inaccessable; We cannot see the present, only the past.

Distance and time are relative. All observers measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be a constant, regardless of how they move relative to each other.

This idea is as bizarre and as counterintuitive as your idea that vision is instant, but differs from your idea in that it can be demonstrated to be true.

Crazy ideas are not a problem for science and technology. We can and do profit from them. But only if they are true, which your crazy idea is not.

View attachment 53642
https://xkcd.com/808

Why did you use this chart by implying my father’s ideas fit into no proven crazy thinking that have no scientific backup? It actually does. He, nor I, subscribed to alternative therapies that are not scientific and could actually cause harm, so stop putting his ideas into a false classification!

The book is on the sane order as the pseudoscience wellness industry.

As I siad before, they konw how to market pseudoscience. Your father did not.

Time for me to regenerate in my Orgone Machine. Then I have an appointment for Reichian massage.

Orgone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[steve_bank]

I see you Pg trough space and tie with my Third Eye.

 

[peacegirl]

I contacted Clark, but he quickly cut me off and said to go to his thread and post there. He had no desire to hear what I had to say. It's so sad because the ego gets in the way people keep realizing that I am a crank with nothing useful (or even coherent) to contribute.

FTFY.

Your problems in getting your ideas accepted are not problems with other people or their egos; They are problems with your ideas, which are observably and obviously not true.

Well, in this case, to be fair, Clark actually does claim that when we die we are born again as other people (though nothing like a soul reincarnates), and this is also what peacegirl’s author says. It was his “third discovery,” and it predated Clark.

So I would have thought Clark would have been interested in Lessan’s “third discovery.”

Huh? I spent three minutes with him on the phone. Have you completely gone off your rocker?

 

[peacegirl]

Here is Clark’s essay at naturalism.org:

Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity

Maybe someone else can read it and tell my why I should take it seriously.

IMO it runs off the rails in the fifth paragraph and never gets back on the rails. I think it’s easy to identify the error in the fifth graph.

As I have previously noted, I do take (somewhat, provisionally) seriously Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, because if the block universe model is correct, it may imply (even entail?) eternal recurrence.

You're completely out in left field. There is no block universe. You are a fictional writer, and this has given you a lot of content, but it's all fantasy.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

Not hypothetical you are making apologetics for the book. Expanding away the rblms.

I'm not apologizing for anything nor am I expanding away anything.

If the Moon face voice claim is hypothetical what is not hypothetical in the book?

Nothing else. He had to explain his reasoning in this way because there was no other way to get it.

The image in that light is modified by reflection off an object is formed at the object.

Yes, that is true when we are looking at the object. That is the only way that we would be able to see it if not for the reflection. But the reflection is there when we see the object; it does not travel through space/time. This whole thing is unfortunate because no one questions it.

'The light wave of the object' has no meaning. If I said the fritzenkoffer carries image to the eye you would ask what does that mean, right?.

The light wave has a lot of meaning, but when you say light travels to the eye through space/time, and is then seen as an image due to delayed time, is the only thing that is being disputed. And I stand by that.

Do you now understand that when you see an object as an image it is an image of the state of an object in what is to you is the past?

Yes, if that account of sight were true, but he's disputing that it is true. There are no sacred cows, remember?

Yes or no.

'The image is in the light is semantics', the trouble with words and philosophical explanations for physical reality.

I understand that, but there is no confusion with the words he used when it has been clarified, so stop using this as an excuse.

Geometric optics is ray tracing, a lot of work is doe with it. Physical optics explains how light interacts with objects by solving Maxwell's Equations. How light interacts with and passes through a lens. I have a general overview, I am familiar with geometric optics.

I have no doubt that you are familiar with geometric optics. That said, I don't think any of geometric optics proves that we see in delayed time.

 

[steve_bank]

Pood is pretty good at playing left field.

Pg can't even hit a slow pitch softball.

 

[peacegirl]

If people are born and die, how is being born as someone else any different? The someone else who is born can't remember being you in another life, you haveE

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.

What do you mean by "take this thread as an example?" Wrong is not the issue, DBT. Besides, no one has proven him wrong. Not one person. Pood is getting very nasty, and he's got everyone here to back him up. This is his MO in his effort to ruin this author. It's happening all over again. People can listen to this imposter all they want. They can hate me. They can call me names. They can make jokes at my expense. But it doesn't change anything because they haven't understood why the eyes cannot be a sense organ, according to his observations.

'Take this thread as an example'' relates to the conflict that arising from disagreement. People do not agree with the claim of instant seeing, which creates a division between you and the claims you endorse and all of those who do not agree.

Division and conflict come in many forms, some may be mild, mere friction, while other forms may lead to violence.

What we have here is mild, yet there is a conflict between the claims being made and the rejection of them.

In this instance, the rejection is justified. The claims do not represent how the world works.

Disagreement happens, but this does not in any way mean that small disagreements will lead to hatred and destruction.

 

[peacegirl]

If people are born and die, how is being born as someone else any different? The someone else who is born can't remember being you in another life, you have no knowledge of being someone else before you were born, so where is the connection? How is it any different to 'people are born and die?'

You are trying to make a connection with yourself now, and you as someone else. This is causing confusion because there is no connection with DBT who exists now, and the YOU, who will be born later. You would like this chapter because you will see it's not the end when we die, and that is very comforting!

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Not hypothetical you are making apologetics for the book. Expanding away the rblms.

I'm not apologizing for anything nor am I expanding away anything.

If the Moon face voice claim is hypothetical what is not hypothetical in the book?

Nothing else. He had to explain his reasoning in this way because there was no other way to get it.

The image in that light is modified by reflection off an object is formed at the object.

Yes, that is true when we are looking at the object. That is the only way that we would be able to see it if not for the reflection. But the reflection is there when we see the object; it does not travel through space/time. This whole thing is unfortunate because no one questions it.

'The light wave of the object' has no meaning. If I said the fritzenkoffer carries image to the eye you would ask what does that mean, right?.

The light wave has a lot of meaning, but when you say light travels to the eye through space/time, and is then seen as an image due to delayed time, is the only thing that is being disputed. And I stand by that.

Do you now understand that when you see an object as an image it is an image of the state of an object in what is to you is the past?

Yes, if that account of sight were true, but he's disputing that it is true. There are no sacred cows, remember?

Yes or no.

'The image is in the light is semantics', the trouble with words and philosophical explanations for physical reality.

I understand that, but there is no confusion with the words he used when it has been clarified, so stop using this as an excuse.

Geometric optics is ray tracing, a lot of work is doe with it. Physical optics explains how light interacts with objects by solving Maxwell's Equations. How light interacts with and passes through a lens. I have a general overview, I am familiar with geometric optics.

I have no doubt that you are familiar with geometric optics. That said, I don't think any of geometric optics proves that we see in delayed time.

Round and round we go.

That vision is delayed i experimental fact. How an object interacts with light to for pasterns is resumed and is observed with optical methods.

Note that the law of refection applies to flat reflective surfaces. There is catering. How light interacts with an object depends on he wavelength of the light, the dimensions of surface irregularities, and size of the object,. scattering.


Wave particle;e duality. Light has both wave like and particle like properties. Actual ijnteraction at the surface is at the photon level, discrete particles.

The fi9rst cause of our vision is light interacting with an object and then traveling to the eye. We call this being in the time domain. Working with causal sequences separated in time.

t = time inn seconds

t0 light emitted by bulb
t2 light arrives at object
t3 light leaves object odified by surface interaction
t4 light arrives at eye
t5 light arrives at retina
t6 electrons lave retina and travel along optic nerves
t7 signal arrives at brain vision center
t8 we perceive image of object


Think about it, if there were no delays between cause and effect everything would happen at the same time.


Tap a metal rod on one end with a hammer and it takes time for effect to travel to the other end.

Amateur astronomers are versed in geometric optics without any formal training. They use it to deign and build their own telescopes.

Do you want to argue and be stubborn or do you want to listen and learn something?

 

[WAB]

If people are born and die, how is being born as someone else any different? The someone else who is born can't remember being you in another life, you have no knowledge of being someone else before you were born, so where is the connection? How is it any different to 'people are born and die?'

You are trying to make a connection with yourself now, and you as someone else. This is causing confusion because there is no connection with DBT who exists now, and the YOU, who will be born later. You would like this chapter because you will see it's not the end when we die, and that is very comforting!

I disagree. I find the fact that I will eventually cease to exist very comforting.

 

[pood]

I contacted Clark, but he quickly cut me off and said to go to his thread and post there. He had no desire to hear what I had to say. It's so sad because the ego gets in the way people keep realizing that I am a crank with nothing useful (or even coherent) to contribute.

FTFY.

Your problems in getting your ideas accepted are not problems with other people or their egos; They are problems with your ideas, which are observably and obviously not true.

Well, in this case, to be fair, Clark actually does claim that when we die we are born again as other people (though nothing like a soul reincarnates), and this is also what peacegirl’s author says. It was his “third discovery,” and it predated Clark.

So I would have thought Clark would have been interested in Lessan’s “third discovery.”

Huh? I spent three minutes with him on the phone. Have you completely gone off your rocker?

WTF are you talking about?? I told you Clark AGREES WITH your father’s so-called “third discovery.”

 

[pood]

Here is Clark’s essay at naturalism.org:

Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity

Maybe someone else can read it and tell my why I should take it seriously.

IMO it runs off the rails in the fifth paragraph and never gets back on the rails. I think it’s easy to identify the error in the fifth graph.

As I have previously noted, I do take (somewhat, provisionally) seriously Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, because if the block universe model is correct, it may imply (even entail?) eternal recurrence.

You're completely out in left field. There is no block universe.

And you know this how?

The theory of relativity clearly indicates a block universe, that past present and future all exist. And the theory of relativity has passed every test for more than a hundred years.

 

[pood]

If people are born and die, how is being born as someone else any different? The someone else who is born can't remember being you in another life, you have no knowledge of being someone else before you were born, so where is the connection? How is it any different to 'people are born and die?'

You are trying to make a connection with yourself now, and you as someone else. This is causing confusion because there is no connection with DBT who exists now, and the YOU, who will be born later. You would like this chapter because you will see it's not the end when we die, and that is very comforting!

This is exactly what Clark says.

And it makes no sense whatsoever. But at least you have someone who endorses your father’s “third discovery.”

 

[peacegirl]

Here is Clark’s essay at naturalism.org:

Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity

Maybe someone else can read it and tell my why I should take it seriously.

IMO it runs off the rails in the fifth paragraph and never gets back on the rails. I think it’s easy to identify the error in the fifth graph.

As I have previously noted, I do take (somewhat, provisionally) seriously Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, because if the block universe model is correct, it may imply (even entail?) eternal recurrence.

A quick skim, probably wrong, but it seems that he's talking about a way of dealing with death by putting a positive spin on nothingness. Something about that if block time/eternalism is real, you never die, your life is recorded in the fabric of space/time, matter/energy forever.

If true, I'm not sure how that's supposed to help with the realities of life and death here and now.

I want to add that for years, Pood has tried to tell me that Lessans' observations were already observed by Tom Clark and therefore were nothing new. It was just his way of making Lessans look like a used piece of Clark's leftovers, which is not true.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

If not air molecules. how does sound get from am explosion your ears? Is it stataneous herng?

No, you can't compare this sense organ with the eyes. Geeze, after all this time that's you're coming up with?

You are quoting scince from the net without uderstndng.

People may dispute time dilation, but the experiments demonstration it have not been refuted. You can look them up.

Yes, GPS may need to be recalculated to be accurate, but to say that it's due to time dilation (which is a concept that has been accepted because it came from Einstein) is not enough. Am I being blasphemous? Time is not a dimension. As such, it can't bend, slow down, or speed up. It is an indicator of change or movement from one point to another.

BTW, in your new world would homosexuality exist? Will women be in their proper place, making babies and cooking?

Steve, I have answered the first question. And I've answered the second if you were listening rather than waiting with a prepackaged answer. People will not be told what to do. They will do what they want to do, but they could never do anything to cross the boundary of hurting or exploiting someone in an effort to achieve their goals.

And of course light does not carry an image to the eye. Tiny winged creatures flap their wings and carry it to the retina with delay.

You are in a dark room with a rock. Does an image of the rock exist? Turn on a light ad where does the imge in brain originate?

This is how it works.

As my granddaughter’s eyes are focused on one of our canine friends, I shall repeat the word “dog” rapidly in her ear. When she turns away, I stop. This will be repeated until she looks for him when hearing the word, which indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has been established, and a photograph has been taken. Soon, this relation is formed, which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns more and more words, such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these differences, which no one can deny because they are seen through words or slides that accurately circumscribe these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words, only I am speeding up the process. Before long, she learns house, tree, car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. She soon learns that these bits of substance are different, and that is why they have different names.

Until she learns the word “cat,” she could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. If a picture of her mother was flashed on a screen, she would automatically say mommy. She is able to identify her mother because the word is a picture that was taken when the relation was formed and exists in her mind, through which she looks at the differences that exist in substance. My granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other words, as she learns these names and words, her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized, and when she sees these differences again, she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external world, which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds, are identifiable only because they are related to words, names, or slides that we project for recognition. If we lose certain names or words, we will have amnesia because, when we see these ordinarily familiar differences, we are unable to project the words or names necessary for recognition.

You are in a dark room. In the room is a box with a hole tracing the outline of Star Of David. A light is switched on in the box and you see an image of the star. Where is image formed and how does get to your eye?

You are presupposing that images are traveling to the eye, but, once again, that is the very thing being disputed. Images (or the object's lightwave) are not traveling anywhere, although light travels 186,000 miles a second. We are seeing the object or event due to how the brain works, not light. Therefore, nothing he claimed violates physics.

Sky And Te scope? Used to read it. When I was in Ne Hampshire in the 80s I went to the yearly Slellaphane in Vermont. The biggest East coast star party. Heard Dobson speak, creator of the Dobsonian telescope. Cheap telescopes for the masses.

Pele made their own scopes.

Dobsonian telescope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 53647

You claim the book does not violate physics, but what you and the book says does.

Cognitive dissonance, proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, is
the mental discomfort experienced when holding conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes, or acting in a way that contradicts them. It causes psychological stress, guilt, or shame, driving individuals to justify, rationalize, or change their behavior to reduce the inconsistency. It is often used in politics to describe the contradiction between rhetoric and, in the context of global affairs, the actual interdependence of nations.

The claim does not violate physics because we need light to see. He did not say that light isn't necessary. It is a vital condition in order to see anything. I see a lot of cognitive/dissonance in here, but it's not something I am struggling with personally.