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

[pood]

This is making me upset.

You didn't read the book. You didn't see how this discovery plays out. You are just talking out of the side of your mouth. You can't answer one question: Do you know why man's will is not free? Do you know the other side of the equation? Do you know anything about the new economic system that gives security to everyone? Do you know the tax structure? Do you know how the Great Transition will take place? Do you know how the medical profession changes so that profit would never be an overriding motive at the expense of others? Do you know why carelessness will be virtually eliminated? Do you know how children will be raised? Do you know why couples will stay together until death do they part? Do you know what the educational system will look like?

Do you know how it is logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

You have a block, Pood. Once again, this is not about distance or time in this version of sight.

That reply sidesteps the question.

Of course it does! Her replies are as always ludicrous.

@peacegirl, Do you know how it is logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

Please give a straight answer in your own words.

I've given you my own words. You keep pressing me over and over because you want to catch me in an inconsistency.

It IS a logical inconsistency. That is the whole point!

Your own words were gibberish. You can write mountains of words until the end of time, yet never defeat the LOGICAL fact that it can never be the case that a proposition and its negation are both true at the same time. To say that light is at the eye instantly but also must travel to the eye is a LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY the size of Mt. Everest.

 

[pood]

3. People fall in love with sex organs.

Why are you listening to Pood's mockery? He was part of a forum that destroyed this knowledge because they took things out of context purposely.

Um? See below.

------------------------------

<snip>

Since these marriages will take place when boys and girls are very young, and since all psychological impediments to eating will be removed from birth, very few will be carrying excess weight. However, some boys and girls are naturally heavy, and there will be no reason for them to worry in the new world because, to certain people, this is a physical attraction. Indeed, we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset, and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, physical intimacy? That is to say, when the words “beautiful” and “ugly” become obsolete, and people are not conditioned to see this beauty and ugliness as part of the real world, there will be a much broader range of what people find appealing due to their personal likes and dislikes. Until these changes take place, if a person is attracted to someone who is not attracted to them — and they cannot find their ideal but are ready to settle down — they will look for someone ready for the same thing. Looks become a secondary consideration when no one criticizes their choice in a mate and when they fall more and more in love with the person who loves them in return. Once they consummate their union with a complete sexual relation, they will be married. They will have no choice in the matter of marriage as it will be their only source of sexual satisfaction, which I shall sum up by using mathematical

It’s RIGHT THERE! He will then fall in love with her sexual organs! WHAT is being taken out of context?? The rest of that passage, which of course you did not reproduce, goes on to slur gay people and proclaim they will vanish in the “new world.”

 

[steve_bank]

Ok acknowledged, will eccentric be acceptable?

You do blame others for your falure to get acceptance.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
All that is true. Optical theory is not being disputed. Again, you are creating a category error.

Saying light does not convey image to the eye with a delay is disputing optical theory.

Do you understand?

??????

In optics image created from refection, scattering, and absorption of light by an inject is text book


I believe I posted PDFs of texts It is not something you can you can just glance through.

??????

 

[peacegirl]

Ok acknowledged, will eccentric be acceptable?

You do blame others for your falure to get acceptance.

This is hurt, not blame. How can I blame you for being ignorant? 🫩

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
All that is true. Optical theory is not being disputed. Again, you are creating a category error.

Saying light does not convey image to the eye with a delay is disputing coptical theory.

Do you understand?

No, it does not. Optical theory is correct when they discuss light, but this has nothing to do with the direction we see.

 

[peacegirl]

3. People fall in love with sex organs.

Why are you listening to Pood's mockery? He was part of a forum that destroyed this knowledge because they took things out of context purposely.

Um? See below.

------------------------------

<snip>

Since these marriages will take place when boys and girls are very young, and since all psychological impediments to eating will be removed from birth, very few will be carrying excess weight. However, some boys and girls are naturally heavy, and there will be no reason for them to worry in the new world because, to certain people, this is a physical attraction. Indeed, we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset, and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, physical intimacy? That is to say, when the words “beautiful” and “ugly” become obsolete, and people are not conditioned to see this beauty and ugliness as part of the real world, there will be a much broader range of what people find appealing due to their personal likes and dislikes. Until these changes take place, if a person is attracted to someone who is not attracted to them — and they cannot find their ideal but are ready to settle down — they will look for someone ready for the same thing. Looks become a secondary consideration when no one criticizes their choice in a mate and when they fall more and more in love with the person who loves them in return. Once they consummate their union with a complete sexual relation, they will be married. They will have no choice in the matter of marriage as it will be their only source of sexual satisfaction, which I shall sum up by using mathematical

It’s RIGHT THERE! He will then fall in love with her sexual organs! WHAT is being taken out of context?? The rest of that passage, which of course you did not reproduce, goes on to slur gay people and proclaim they will vanish in the “new world.”

When understood in contect, Pood, it makes sense. Love and romance involve sex, but when the criticism is removed as to who someone chooses to be their mate, LOOKS BECOME SECONDARY. That is all he meant, but you're blowing it out of proportion because you hate his claim regarding the eyes. I have known you long enough to know your motives. You glean from what he wrote anything that will give you an edge, disregarding any opposition to the contrary. This is call fundamentalism!

 

[pood]

Ok acknowledged, will eccentric be acceptable?

You do blame others for your falure to get acceptance.

This is hurt, not blame. How can I blame you for being ignorant? 🫩

Looking in the mirror when you said that?

 

[pood]

3. People fall in love with sex organs.

Why are you listening to Pood's mockery? He was part of a forum that destroyed this knowledge because they took things out of context purposely.

Um? See below.

------------------------------

<snip>

Since these marriages will take place when boys and girls are very young, and since all psychological impediments to eating will be removed from birth, very few will be carrying excess weight. However, some boys and girls are naturally heavy, and there will be no reason for them to worry in the new world because, to certain people, this is a physical attraction. Indeed, we have already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset, and when other choices in a partner will never be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, physical intimacy? That is to say, when the words “beautiful” and “ugly” become obsolete, and people are not conditioned to see this beauty and ugliness as part of the real world, there will be a much broader range of what people find appealing due to their personal likes and dislikes. Until these changes take place, if a person is attracted to someone who is not attracted to them — and they cannot find their ideal but are ready to settle down — they will look for someone ready for the same thing. Looks become a secondary consideration when no one criticizes their choice in a mate and when they fall more and more in love with the person who loves them in return. Once they consummate their union with a complete sexual relation, they will be married. They will have no choice in the matter of marriage as it will be their only source of sexual satisfaction, which I shall sum up by using mathematical

It’s RIGHT THERE! He will then fall in love with her sexual organs! WHAT is being taken out of context?? The rest of that passage, which of course you did not reproduce, goes on to slur gay people and proclaim they will vanish in the “new world.”

When understood in contect, Pood, it makes sense. Love and romance involve sex, but when the criticism is removed as to who someone chooses to be their mate, LOOKS BECOME SECONDARY.

To any mature person, looks are already secondary. People fall in love with OTHER PEOPLE, not their LOOKS or their SEX ORGANS.

That is all he meant, but you're blowing it out of proportion because you hate his claim regarding the eyes.

Ad hom. You are pathetic.

I have known you long enough to know your motives. You glean from what he wrote anything that will give you an edge, disregarding any opposition to the contrary. This is call fundamentalism!

Another ad hom attack. Unfortunately we seem to be short on mods these days.

 

[pood]

Let’s look at how superficial, empty-headed, misogynistic, and utterly idiotic the following passage is (she omitted the homophobic conclusion of the passage).

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him.

But not ready to form a relationship with him?

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs

I hate to break it to you, peacegirl, but literally NO ONE falls in love with other people’s sex organs.

and her features will become secondary

And your author thought features were primary in the first place? What about falling in love with the INNER PERSON? Sure, attractive features are, well, attractive, but that attraction is surely not the same as falling in love.

because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful, which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance.

But not inner beauty, eh?

But how is it possible for him to regret his choice when the world stops criticizing and when he has fallen head over heels for his sweetheart, which takes place after, not before, physical intimacy?

So no one can fall in love with another person unless they have sex first?? Are you literally out of your mind? PLENTY of people fall in love with others long before they have sex, if they ever have sex at all. There are loving marriages that have little nor no sex at all. They are countless cases of unrequited love. And on and on. This is pathetic.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
All that is true. Optical theory is not being disputed. Again, you are creating a category error.

Saying light does not convey image to the eye with a delay is disputing coptical theory.

Do you understand?

No, it does not. Optical theory is correct when they discuss light, but this has nothing to do with the direction we see.

Again willful ignorance.

Theory describes how images are formed in light trough interacting with an objects. Images in light travel form object to eye with a delay. Counter to Lessans.

If not the physical pointing of the eyes what specifically do you mean by seeing in a direction? Can you give an example?

 

[pood]

Pg
All that is true. Optical theory is not being disputed. Again, you are creating a category error.

Saying light does not convey image to the eye with a delay is disputing coptical theory.

Do you understand?

No, it does not. Optical theory is correct when they discuss light, but this has nothing to do with the direction we see.

Again willful ignorance.

Theory describes how images are formed in light trough interacting with an objects. Images in light travel form object to eye with a delay. Counter to Lessans.

If not the physical pointing of the eyes what specifically do you mean by seeing in a direction? Can you give an example?

This is basically right, but I object to the idea that images travel in light. Patterns and information travel in light, but images are interpretations in the brain. If there were no eyes anywhere there would be no images anywhere. And, of course, relativity shows that information cannot travel faster than c. Thus there can be no real-time seeing.

 

[steve_bank]

Understandable Pood.

Semantics and philosophy versus scientific models and math.]

Colloquialisms.

Before AI it was common to say a pocess0 or computer was thinking.
A commuter''sees' a sensor. or one computer talks to another.

Processors and software packages refereed to as engines.

In data communications there is a whole theory of information. Shannon adapted the term entropy to information exchange.

Information theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stared a thread in math.

The w0rd information is contextual.

 

[peacegirl]

He is using the word projection correctly and in context.

He is using it correctly as a metaphor. Otherwise, the brain would have to be emitting something, and you previously indicated that the brain is not emitting anything, specifically through the eyes.

You could say that the brain emits thoughts, although that would be an unusual manner of expression. That, too, would be more figurative than necessary.

This was not a metaphor, and the brain has nothing to emit for this claim to be true.

 

[peacegirl]

This is making me upset.

You didn't read the book. You didn't see how this discovery plays out. You are just talking out of the side of your mouth. You can't answer one question: Do you know why man's will is not free? Do you know the other side of the equation? Do you know anything about the new economic system that gives security to everyone? Do you know the tax structure? Do you know how the Great Transition will take place? Do you know how the medical profession changes so that profit would never be an overriding motive at the expense of others? Do you know why carelessness will be virtually eliminated? Do you know how children will be raised? Do you know why couples will stay together until death do they part? Do you know what the educational system will look like?

Do you know how it is logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

You have a block, Pood. Once again, this is not about distance or time in this version of sight.

That reply sidesteps the question.

Of course it does! Her replies are as always ludicrous.

@peacegirl, Do you know how it is logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

Please give a straight answer in your own words.

I've given you my own words. You keep pressing me over and over because you want to catch me in an inconsistency.

It IS a logical inconsistency. That is the whole point!

Your own words were gibberish. You can write mountains of words until the end of time, yet never defeat the LOGICAL fact that it can never be the case that a proposition and its negation are both true at the same time. To say that light is at the eye instantly but also must travel to the eye is a LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY the size of Mt. Everest.

The proposition that light travels and therefore it can't be the case that we see in real time is not logically false. We can have light traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but do not take the object's reflection across space and time with it. That is an assumption. To repeat: Light reveals objects, yet the photons (the packets of energy or electronic waves) continue on their journey. For example, we would not be seeing Columbus discovering America for the first time anywhere in the universe, because that image from the past is not traveling towards us where it would one day reach our eyes. It's absurd if you think about it. AI could create a deep fake and maybe get those who are gullible to believe it was real, but that's for another day.

 

[steve_bank]

'Light reveals objects through its light.' Poetic but nonsense.


Again standard text6booktheory describes how light interacts with obje4cts creating patterns in the light which travels to the eye wit delay. It is demonstrated theory.

By patterns is meant variation across a wavefront in intensity and color.

I did ot have a formal class in optics. Over the course of my 6 years in electro-optics I went trough 5 or 6 books.

How light interacts with different kinds of surfaces is a topic to itself.

Lessans appeasers ignorant of any of it.

Again what is meant by seeing having a direction?

 

[peacegirl]

This is making me upset.

You didn't read the book. You didn't see how this discovery plays out. You are just talking out of the side of your mouth. You can't answer one question: Do you know why man's will is not free? Do you know the other side of the equation? Do you know anything about the new economic system that gives security to everyone? Do you know the tax structure? Do you know how the Great Transition will take place? Do you know how the medical profession changes so that profit would never be an overriding motive at the expense of others? Do you know why carelessness will be virtually eliminated? Do you know how children will be raised? Do you know why couples will stay together until death do they part? Do you know what the educational system will look like?

Do you know how it is logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

You have a block, Pood. Once again, this is not about distance or time in this version of sight.

That reply sidesteps the question.

I did not sidestep the question. You're not understanding how efferent vision works. There is no distance or time involved when looking at an object. Distance is interpreted by the brain. We know the moon is far away and an airplane is closer. Light becomes a condition of sight. It does not cause anything; it reveals.

How​

The brain interprets distance through a combination of sensory inputs and learned experiences. It uses binocular cues like convergence and retinal disparity to gauge depth and distance, especially for objects within ten meters. Monocular cues such as relative size and interposition are used for greater distances. The brain also considers environmental factors and the cognitive abilities of the individual, such as working memory and attention, to refine distance estimates. This complex interplay allows for a dynamic and adaptive estimation of distances, which is constantly updated as an individual interacts with their surroundings.
biologyinsights.com+2

That article doesn't support the claim of light at the eye/instant vision.

It's just another way of sidestepping the question.

The point I was making was that distance is interpreted by the brain through cues and a working memory that can tell us how far away or how close something is. An object could be as far away as the moon, or as close as a streetlight. It's through the learning process that we are able to interpret distance, which is why actual distance due to the speed of light (i.e., the afferent account) is not a factor in this version.

That's not how vision works. Nor does it describe how the authors claim of instant vision could possibly work. It's just the same claim rephrased without an explanation of the means or mechanisms that would make it possible.

The simple answer is, there are none. How vision works is well enough understood, as are the means that make it possible.

He explained what is going on with the brain and how it works. How else could we get conditioned? The brain does what it does through this projection. Do you actually think that science is right because they explained the means and mechanisms of delayed vision? There is still no absolute proof, so what good is the explanation of how we see (i.e., the means and mechanisms), if it turns out not to be true?

 

[peacegirl]

'Light reveals objects through its light.' Poetic but nonsense.

Where is the nonsense?

Again standard text6booktheory describes how light interacts with obje4cts creating patterns in the light which travels to the eye wit delay. It is demonstrated theory.

Patterns don't change. We would see the same thing whether there was a delay or in real time. Don't add more complexity to this than is needed.

By patterns is meant variation across a wavefront in intensity and color.

Again, the intensity and color across a wavefront remain the same. You are trying to dispute something that was not part of his disputation.

In the context of intensity, a wavefront refers to the surface connecting points of a wave that have the same phase of oscillation. This concept is crucial in optics, where wavefronts are used to describe the shape and phase of light waves as they propagate through or reflect from an optical system. The intensity of a wave is defined as the power per unit area carried by the wave, and it is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave. This means that higher intensity corresponds to larger wavefronts, which can be used to analyze and correct optical systems for better image quality and resolution.

Wikipedia

I did ot have a formal class in optics. Over the course of my 6 years in electro-optics I went trough 5 or 6 books.

How light interacts with different kinds of surfaces is a topic to itself.

Light interacts in specific ways with certain surfaces. Who is saying otherwise?

Lessans appeasers ignorant of any of it.

Again what is meant by seeing having a direction?

Afferent = seeing in real time. Looking outward and seeing the real thing. This is what I mean by the direction we see.

Efferent = seeing in delayed time. Looking inward by seeing a virtual image in the mind. This is what I mean by the direction we see.

 

[steve_bank]

How in the 20th century could he possibly explain what is going on in the brain without neuroscience and psychology?

Old philosophy.

Lessans expressed his ideas in pre 20th certainty metaphysics. Which is adequateness.

Theory of mind (interpreted as either "mind," "modal," or similar metaphysical frameworks) is generally considered a form of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being.

The phrase "the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile" is a famous, historically significant, and highly controversial statement in the philosophy of mind and neuroscience. It represents an extreme form of materialism, asserting that mental activity is purely a physical byproduct of brain functioning.
Here is a breakdown of the philosophical and historical context of this idea:
Origins and Key Figures

Pierre Cabanis (18th Century): The French physiologist Pierre-Jean-Georges Cabanis is most often credited with this analogy. He believed that the brain's function is to produce thought, just as the stomach secretes gastric juices or the liver produces bile.
Karl Vogt (19th Century): The 19th-century German materialist Karl Vogt took this idea further, emphasizing that thoughts are just physical, biological activities (like urine from kidneys) and that there is nothing else besides the physical brain.
Modern Interpretations: While no researcher today would describe it in such crude terms, many neuroscientists and philosophers (e.g., V.S. Ramachandran) still maintain that all mental life—feelings, emotions, and consciousness—is simply the functioning of the physical brain.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Nothing is static.

Vision is a continues dynamic process.

Photons are continuously radiated by a light source, they continuously bonce off of and are adsorbed by object, cotysnusly interacting with retina, and the brain consciously productions an image.

Color perception of an object is based in how the object absorbs different light wavelengths.

A red paint absorbs blue and green light, reflects red.