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

[steve_bank]

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

That into a debate over what real mans. What is reality?
I look at a rock and I see a solid object, but on the atomic scale it it is not solid. In the 19th century when xray demarcation of metals showed tiny nodes, atoms, separated by relati9vely large spaces it caused a philosophic astir

Old idea about reality wer5e gone, solid is an abstraction.

Meani9ng of words attached to objects and people can and do cause harm, nothing new.

One of the goalss in Buddhism is seeing reality as it is without it being colored by subjective perceptions.

Our perc9eved human reality being like a fake movie set facade. Our self induced suffering comes form taking the facade as reality.

No0thing new under the Sun. When you see a monk mediating he or she is working towards a goal. Getting rid of suffering.

In Buddhism, "seeing reality as it is" (yatha-bhuta) means perceiving the world directly without the distortions of craving, aversion, or ego-driven projections. It involves understanding all phenomena through the three marks of existence—impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self—leading to freedom from suffering. This practice, central to mindfulness, focuses on experiencing the present moment rather than labeling it.

 

[bilby]

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

Where is the nonsense?

Well, you cannot explain anything by reference to itself, for a start.

Having "light" on both sudes of the word "through" renders thag sentence nonsensical - indeed, renders the sentence incapable of carrying any information beyond "light is light".

Which is about as much use as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest.

 

[peacegirl]

There is no distance or time involved when looking at an object.

OK.

Distance is interpreted by the brain.

Oh. So there IS distance involved.
Why did you just say there wasn't?

Of course there's distance but not due to time. Distance is measured by the brain's ability to approximate how far or close something is. Did you not read what I posted?

We know the moon is far away and an airplane is closer.

Again, distance. So why did you say "There is no distance or time involved", when according to your own next two statements, there IS distance involved?

If you are going to so blatantly contradict yourself, why would anybody believe or trust a single word you say?

It's not a contradiction, bilby. There is distance but it's not measured through space/time. It is measured through monocular or binocular cues as our brain experiences depth perception. That is why my son, as a toddler, looked up at the moon and wanted me to give him what he thought was a ball. He was too young to understand distance. Read the following again, because it's right there.

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.

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.

Then I'm challenging that aspect of optical theory. Let's try again: Light travels. An image of that light will take milliseconds to show up on a screen, but, as I said earlier, we will see the image that is on the screen in real time due to the way the brain/eyes work, not light.

Do you understand?

Yes, do you?

 

[peacegirl]

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

Where is the nonsense?

Well, you cannot explain anything by reference to itself, for a start.

The property of light is for the purpose of revealing. There is nothing contradictory here. Let me rephrase it: Light reveals objects through its properties of absorption and reflection.

Having "light" on both sudes of the word "through" renders thag sentence nonsensical - indeed, renders the sentence incapable of carrying any information beyond "light is light".

Which is about as much use as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest.

 

[peacegirl]

He explains very clearly how the brain works as a movie projector, which is..

...absurd, and demonstrably wrong in every significant regard.

The analogy was close enough. It is not absurd when analyzed carefully. You and others just don't seem to want to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It's easier to throw his claim out because it just doesn't feel right after years of being taught something different. I am sincerely sorry that this has caused so much dissension .

 

[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? 🫩

Looking in the mirror when you said that?

I am, and I can see myself in the reflection because the reflected light is instantly at my eye (due to efferent vision), or I wouldn't be able to see myself in the mirror. One day, you'll get it, at least you will.

 

[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.”

You missed the whole point of this tract. It's really sad that you are blind to anything he wrote. You got into this folly on FF, and you cannot seem to distance yourself from it. Why are you fabricating that he made a slur that gay people will vanish in the new world. That is not true. He said that anything related to a person becoming gay due to the environment will disappear because the environment will be so different that the causes that led people to turn to the same sex will no longer be. That is the truth. I have a family member who was unhappy in her marriage and after her divorce she turned gay. They are now married. But if she never fell out of love with her husband, she would have remained heterosexual. This was not a slur. He was not homophobic. He even said in one of his books that who a person marries (which word is defined differently in the new world) is their business, no one else's. You are portraying him falsely. Why are you doing this?

 

[pood]

There is no distance or time involved when looking at an object.

OK.

Distance is interpreted by the brain.

Oh. So there IS distance involved.
Why did you just say there wasn't?

Of course there's distance but not due to time. Distance is measured by the brain's ability to approximate how far or close something is. Did you not read what I posted?

No.

Distance traveled and time elapsed are inseparable. Velocity = displacement/time. I asked you before and of course you never answered: if you claim that we see instantly, but that time also has a finite rate of speed, how did we calculate the velocity of light in the first place? If we saw instantly the only possible thing we could conclude is that the velocity of light was infinite! This is elementary.

We know the moon is far away and an airplane is closer.

Again, distance. So why did you say "There is no distance or time involved", when according to your own next two statements, there IS distance involved?

If you are going to so blatantly contradict yourself, why would anybody believe or trust a single word you say?

It's not a contradiction, bilby. There is distance but it's not measured through space/time. It is measured through monocular or binocular cues as our brain experiences depth perception.

Meaningless zeppelin tethers.

That is why my son, as a toddler, looked up at the moon and wanted me to give him what he thought was a ball. He was too young to understand distance. Read the following again, because it's right there.

Of course he was too young to understand the concept of distance! So what? It took some clever ancient Greeks to measure the distance to the moon and sun, though the latter was underestimated.

Do you understand?

Yes, do you?

There is nothing to understand. You are wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

Ok acknowledged, will eccentric be acceptable?

You do blame others for your falure to get acceptance.

I'm asking you to please stop calling this book crazy, or I will not respond to you. The ball is in your court. No one will be judging another by some standard that constitutes acceptability. It is the advance knowledge that one won't be judged by others that will prevent one from justifying behavior that is a concrete hurt to others. Eccentricity does not hurt anyone. It's just behavior that is different from the norm.

 

[pood]

Ok acknowledged, will eccentric be acceptable?

You do blame others for your falure to get acceptance.

I'm asking you to please stop calling this book crazy

The book is crazy.

Peacegirl, have you ever seen a car’s speedometer? What do you think it is measuring?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
ou missed the whole point of this tract. It's really sad that you are blind to anything he wrote.

You are making excuses, like a kid.

I looked at what he wrote and none of it makes sense in terms of modern science backed by experimenter.

So0e of i9t needs a secret decoder ring, Like figuring out what seeing with a direction mkeans.

His ideas about words, reality, and suffering are old. No response to what I said about tujat?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

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

If "word projection" was not a metaphor, was it nonetheless used figuratively?

If not everyone then nearly everyone agrees that the brain does not emit words through the eyes, and, since "word projection" would non-figuratively (including non-metaphorically) mean the same as "word emission", everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees that the brain does not project words through the eyes in reality.

the brain works as a movie projector

If Lessans discussed "word projection" non-metaphorically and non-figuratively, you certainly resorted to simile. The word "as" makes your statement a simile, and that is a figurative manner of expression and not a direct explication.

The analogy was close enough.

So, you and Lessans did not resort to using a metaphor, and you have expressed figuratively. You allege that Lessans presented an analogy. Analogy is another form of figurative expression and not a direct explication.

Therefore, there is this very simple question to answer: Do you agree that the brain does not in reality project actual words through the eyes?

 

[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.

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

Romantic love is all about physical attraction. This went right over your head.

Eros: This is passionate, romantic love characterized by physical attraction and desire. Eros is often associated with the initial stages of a romantic relationship, where infatuation and sexual attraction are prominent. In Greek mythology, Eros is the god of love and fertility, symbolizing the intense emotions that come with romantic relationships.

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.

And, of course, you calling me pathetic is just an insult, not worthy of a warning from the mods, right? This is a bunch of baloney and you know it.

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.

Because you don't like hearing the truth. What I said was not an ad hom, and if it was, show me where. You invite my reaction by your insults and your misrepresentation and portrayal of this man to get people to laugh, like you did at FF. These are at homs, but he can't defend himself. You are not an innocent victim when you purposely try to make a damn joke about his expression "falling in love with a person's sex organs", which, in context, makes absolute sense. I won't accept what you and Maturin did to me at FF. I will talk to the moderators if you don't stop.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg labels Lessans with the words great man, and projects that out onto the world.

When no one else believes it she feels discomfort and hurt. She suffers.'

She suffers over the deference between reality and words.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Romantic love is all about physical attraction.

Really? I bet Pg was the jungle love type. Primal animal instinct.

Do your pets love you or do they just associate you with meals?

Parrots mate for life. If one dies the other goes soon after.

Pair bonding is a strong,often long-lasting, selective social and emotional affinity between two individuals, commonly facilitating mating and joint rearing of offspring. It is characterized by intimacy, shared territory, and preference for a partner, serving to enhance offspring survival. These bonds, which can be seen as a form of social monogamy, may last for a single breeding season or a lifetime.

Do parents love children?

 

[pood]

Pg
Romantic love is all about physical attraction.

Really? I bet Pg was the jungle love type. Primal animal instinct.

Do your pets love you or do they just associate you with meals?

That is an interesting thing.

Peacegirl claims dogs do not recognize their humans by sight alone, when we know from numerous scientific studies that they do. But most intriguingly, it has been shown not just that dogs recognize their humans by sight alone, but when we and they gaze into each other’s eyes, both of us get a surge of oxytocin, the so-called love hormone. The same hormone is released during mother/infant bonding.

Last I looked dogs and humans have never fallen in love with each other’s sex organs.

 

[pood]

Romantic love is all about physical attraction. This went right over your head.

Eros: This is passionate, romantic love characterized by physical attraction and desire. Eros is often associated with the initial stages of a romantic relationship, where infatuation and sexual attraction are prominent. In Greek mythology, Eros is the god of love and fertility, symbolizing the intense emotions that come with romantic relationships.

And so now we are back to taking cues fron the ancient Greeks and not from all the things we have learned since then?

Of course sexual attraction is important, but where does the above say anything about falling in love with sex organs? Only a case of arrested development, an aging juvenile delinquent, could make such a claim. People fall in love with PEOPLE.

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.

And, of course, you calling me pathetic is just an insult, not worthy of a warning from the mods, right? This is a bunch of baloney and you know it.

Another ad hom.

Your precious world view is threatened by reality, and reality terrifies you.

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.

Because you don't like hearing the truth.

Looking in the mirror again?

What I said was not an ad hom, and if it was, show me where.

I’ve already explained ad hom. You are incapable of learning.

You invite my reaction by your insults and your misrepresentation and portrayal of this man to get people to laugh, like you did at FF.

I have misrepresented nothing. I quoted him exactly.

These are at homs, but he can't defend himself. You are not an innocent victim when you purposely try to make a damn joke about his expression "falling in love with a person's sex organs", which, in context, makes absolute sense.

WHAT context?

I wonder if anyone else here thinks it makes absolute sense.

I won't accept what you and Maturin did to me at FF. I will talk to the moderators if you don't stop.

You don’t even understand the rules here, among so many other things you fail to understand.

 

[pood]

Note what Seymour Lessans thinks about gays in the underlined yellow part:

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, do you agree with the underlined yellow part?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg labels Lessans with the words great man, and projects that out onto the world.

When no one else believes it she feels discomfort and hurt. She suffers.'

She suffers over the deference between reality and words.

I know the difference between reality and words that are true representations, and those that are not.