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

[pood]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

 

[peacegirl]

Perhaps. But both "image" and "lightwave" are words that have meanings that render your use of them nonsensical, and no dictionary can fix that.

Not really. I'm using them in the same way.

Oh, really? Let's see:

An image is a representation of something.

So, not an electromagnetic wave by which light travels through a medium or a vacuum.

Let's start again. What I meant by image is that the lightwave is believed to bounce off of an object and arrive at the eye where it is seen as a virtual image of the object in the brain.

A lightwave is an electromagnetic wave by which light travels through a medium or a vacuum.

So, not a representation of something.

Not the light itself, but what is believed to be happening in the brain as the lightwave reaches us in delayed time. It doesn't mean an image being carried in the light, but anyone reading this would know what I meant.

So, when you said "I am using them in the ssme way", you went on to immediately contradict yourself.

That's literally insane.

No, you're making too much out of this, and so is Pood when he says no image is being carried in the light; that's what I meant. It's just light.

Still, you aren't even paying attention to the posts to which you claim to be responding, and are instead just giessing what it was that you yourself said, that I then accused of being nonsense.

That's because you rearrange my posts to suit you.

I never do that. I may cut in halfway through a sentence to comment on the first part, but no rearranging takes place; I respond only to what you write.

Half the time they are half-sentences, and you expect me to know what you're talking about?

I expect, at the very least, that you will know what YOU are talking about. That expectation is, sadly, often dashed.

When you cut my sentences in half, I have no idea half the time what sentence I wrote that you were referring back to.

When you don't feel any need to make sense, paying attention to your own claims is a bit pointless, I guess.

It isn't that I don't make sense.

Yes it is. Demonstrably, obviously, and unarguably.

It's that you aren't even trying.

I am trying very hard indeed. Because you are making everything needlessly difficult, which I suspect to be deliberate.

I'm not trying to make anything needlessly difficult. Why would I want to do this?

You've already concluded that he's wrong

Indeed. I studied what he wrote, and reached that conclusion.

No you haven't, bilby, and you know it.

, and there's no meeting of the minds if that's the case..

There's only one rstionsl mind here, and as you demonstrate above, it ain't yours.

Not true. You're just not understanding that the word "image" only means what is supposedly seen by the brain as sight.

Here it is again, without interruption, so the contradiction is obvious even to you:

I'm using them in the same way. An image is a representation of something. A lightwave is an electromagnetic wave by which light travels through a medium or a vacuum. The lightwave is not the representation, but it is believed that once that light reaches the eyes, it turns into an image through transduction that the brain sees. It's a virtual world that we see in this version of sight, so we never see reality as it is, only as it was, which, according to Lessans, is false.

The ONLY way for the first sentence there to be true, would be for the second and third sentences to be the same. They are not even similar; They are totally different in every way.

I tried to clear things up for you. I hope it helped.

 

[peacegirl]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

I need another hand to count the errors you're making. I am not a Trumpster, so stop bringing this up, as if somehow this discovery is defined by who I vote for.

 

[peacegirl]

Astronomy for Dummies, by Stephen P. Maran, is an accessible guide for beginners to the universe, covering topics from our solar system to distant galaxies, black holes, and the Big Bang. It includes star maps, charts, and photos, with updated editions featuring the latest research, exoplanet discoveries, and online resources like quizzes and apps for amateur astronomers. The book aims to make complex concepts easy to understand for anyone curious about the night sky, from backyard skywatchers to students.

Pg
search on how distance to sun us found, you will find video.

The distance to the Sun (about 93 million miles or 149.6 million km) is determined
using triangulation (parallax), by measuring the angle of the Sun from different spots on Earth, and through radar ranging of planets like Venus. Historically, observing the transit of Venus across the Sun allowed astronomers to calculate the distance using geometry.

Transit of Venus (Parallax Method): In the 18th century, astronomers in different parts of the world measured the time it took for Venus to cross the Sun. By knowing the distance between the observers, they calculated the parallax (apparent shift) of Venus, which was used to compute the Sun's distance.
Radar Ranging: Modern scientists use radar to bounce radio signals off Venus and other nearby planets. The time it takes for the signal to return, combined with the known speed of light, provides an extremely precise distance, notes this article on the Profmattstrassler site.
Triangulation (Historical): Aristarchus of Samos (3rd century BC) used the angle between the Moon, Sun, and Earth during half-moon phases to create a right triangle to estimate the distance.
Defining the Astronomical Unit (AU): Today, the average distance from Earth to the Sun is defined as one Astronomical Unit, which is officially set as exactly 149,597,870,700 meters.

Because Earth's orbit is an ellipse, the distance varies throughout the year, with the Sun being closest in January (perihelion) and farthest in July (aphelion).

Stellar parallax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stellar parallax is the apparent shift of position (parallax) of any nearby star (or other object) against the background of distant stars. By extension, it is a method for determining the distance to the star through trigonometry, the stellar parallax method. Created by the different orbital positions of Earth, the extremely small observed shift is largest at time intervals of about six months, when Earth arrives at opposite sides of the Sun in its orbit, giving a baseline (the shortest side of the triangle made by a star to be observed and two positions of Earth) distance of about two astronomical units between observations. The parallax itself is considered to be half of this maximum, about equivalent to the observational shift that would occur due to the different positions of Earth and the Sun, a baseline of one astronomical unit (AU).

Parallax has a limit. Using parallax distance to nearby stars are fund and the luminosity is resumed. Then luminosity for stars out past parallax is fused to determine distance. There is moreo it butthat is it.


View attachment 53662

I'm not sure where stellar parallax proves him wrong.

Yes, stellar aberration can occur without calculating the speed of light but rather with the velocity of Earth's orbit. This phenomenon is a result of the Earth's motion around the Sun, which causes the apparent position of celestial objects to shift based on the observer's velocity relative to the star's motion. The angular displacement of a star due to this aberration is a function of the Earth's orbital velocity and the star's position in the sky.

Wikipedia+5​

 

[pood]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

I need another hand to count the errors you're making. I am not a Trumpster, so stop bringing this up, as if somehow this discovery is defined by who I vote for.

The “discovery” is not defined by who you voted for. It is defined by the fact that it is not a discovery at all. It is just wrong.

And yes, you said a number of times at FF that you were a Trump supporter and voted for him, and I can find the posts.

There does seem to be a strong correlation between support for Trump and stupidity.

 

[DBT]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

In Australia the voting options lie between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Yeah, faith based beliefs are often held regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

[DBT]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

I need another hand to count the errors you're making. I am not a Trumpster, so stop bringing this up, as if somehow this discovery is defined by who I vote for.

If his discoveries have nothing to do with faith, the supporting evidence can be shown.....but, as yet, the evidence has not been shown.

 

[peacegirl]

So what are we doing here?

Keeping mentally fit, which I think is especially important as one ages.

Reading and responding to utter nonsense helps me organize my thoughts, consult sources, and write articulately.

^ That's it, exactly.

Indeed, we are doing the exact opposite if what we are accused of doing. She says we don't believe simlly because our preconceptions prevent us from taking her ideas seriously; But we explicitly don't do that.

Her (or her father's) ideas about sight are absurd, but that's not why we reject them. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are absurd, too.

QM does not prove that we have free will.

Not one person anywhere in this thread has suggested that it did, certainly not me.

<snip<

I will now refute two common mechanisms proposed by free will advocates to allow for free will. Firstly, the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is often cited as a means by which the universe can be considered non-deterministic. This is true, at least for very small systems. However, it is actually unimportant whether or not quantum mechanical fluctuations result in any appreciable uncertainty in macroscopic systems. This is because the argument is based on the notion that a lack of determinism would prove the existence of free will. However, more accurately an agent being non-deterministic is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for free will. This mechanism merely introduces randomization into the decisions and will of the agent, this is not the same thing as freedom of will or choice. In fact, this randomization could potentially infringe upon their freedom of choice. To make this idea clearer, consider a game of roulette. Suppose that each number on the wheel is assigned to a different choice. The roulette wheel in spun and the agent makes the choice corresponding to the number the ball stops on. We could also play this game to determine the state of will of an agent, to the same effect. It is clear to our intuition that the choice and will of the agent are not free, though the outcome is unpredictable. This analogy could be criticized on the basis that it does not properly capture the nature of our non-deterministic decision-making. In particular, the spinning roulette wheel is independent of the agent, whereas the uncertainty of quantum mechanics directly involves the agent since it acts directly on their brain. Nevertheless, whether or not the random event directly involves the agent does not change the situation in any meaningful way. We could involve the agent directly in the random event by having them spin the roulette wheel, for instance. To our intuition it is clear that the outcome selected by the wheel would still be random and not represent free will.

<snip>

An argument against free will: freedom of choice, but not of will

A central issue in the free will debate is confusion and disagreement about how the term is defined. The topic is clarified considerably when we distinguish freedom of choice from freedom of will. I...

www.sciencesnail.com

No, the reason why we reject her claims is precisely because we give them due consideration. We think about what they would imply, and compare those implications against reality.

When the Sun comes up, we see our surroundings brightly lit in direct sunlight at the same time as we see the Sun itself; This contradicts her claim that we see the Sun instantly, but that the light takes eight and a half minutes to arrive.

No it doesn't. We see our surroundings brightly lit in direct sunlight that is already here. It doesn't take 8 and a half minutes for the sunlight to light up our surroundings.

It observably takes the same time to arrive and light up our surroundings as the light from the Sun takes to arrive and make the Sun visible. Instant vision is nonsense. Instant vision in a universe where (as you agree) the speed of light is finite is nonsense on stilts.

If her claims were true, they imply that the temperature would be about 4000K at the Earth's surface, and not the 300K we actually find.

These experiments and observations are exactly the kind of thing that somebody giving due consideration to the claims would come up with; In contrast, if we dismissed the claims out of hand as "absurd", or "contrary to science", no such methods to disprove the claims would be considered. Our response would simply be to present a scientific text and declare the argument to be over.

He indirectly proved that the eyes are not a sense organ, one being that a dog cannot recognize his master from a picture. He should be able to, if a lightwave is bouncing off his master and striking his eye. He would wag his tail or show other signs of recognition (especially if he missed his master because he hadn't seen him in a while), but this doesn't happen. In the ff forum I was at, they found an experiment with a lever that the dog pushes among many faces across the room, trying to prove that dogs can recognize their masters, but the entire design of the experiment was manipulated by training a dog to see a pattern where he would push a lever with his paw and get a treat. This was not true recognition and therefore was not proof of anything. It was similar to the Clever Hans experiment that Steve mentioned.

Which nobody here has done. Except @peacegirl

You are unfortunately doing the very thing you rail against by not even showing any interest in why he claimed the eyes aren't a sense organ. No interest at all.

I am fascinated and deeply interested in why he did that, but sadly no reason is forthcoming, only nonsense and contradiction.

It seems that the only reason why he claimed that the eyes aren't a sense organ was because he didn't feel in any way constrained by reality, logic, or reason.

I have pleaded in vain for you to provide any other reason why; But you don't, so I increasingly strongly suspect that you can't.

He showed how we become conditioned, which doesn't occur due to light sending us values. So what causes this conditioning, and how does this relate to the direction we see?

 

[peacegirl]

Interpreting of Pg’s recent posts.

1. Free will equates to evil.
2. Therefor replacing free will with determinism gets rid of evil, aka war.
3. We don’t have free will but we sort of do, I can make choices and I may not make tH same decision twice in similar circumstances.
4. We have determinism, sort of.


Sounding like some form of compatibilism.

So Pg, is the great idea that free will leads to evil and determinism is the cure?

It isn't so much that determinism is true and free will is false, but what happens when we extend the corollary that follows determinism to see where it leads. It is truly fascinating.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi

Knock knock, Hello, you there Peacegirl? You whooooo! Peacegirl, helllllooo.

I know you arr home, I can see you peeking in the window.

Answer the question please.

 

[pood]

He indirectly proved that the eyes are not a sense organ, one being that a dog cannot recognize his master from a picture.

A dog can recognize its master from a picture and from a video. This has been demonstrated to you.

Even if the dog could not do that, it would not prove, indirectly or otherwise, the laughably idiotic claim that eyes are not a sense organ. It would just show at best that dogs have poor eyesight.

He showed how we become conditioned, which doesn't occur due to light sending us values. So what causes this conditioning, and how does this relate to the direction we see?

Nobody ever claimed that light “sends us values.” Where in the world did you get this crap, except, I guess, from your crank father?

 

[steve_bank]

peacegirl said:
He indirectly proved that the eyes are not a sense organ, one being that a dog cannot recognize his master from a picture.

That is so utterly nonsensical that it is beyond funny.

The eyes do not do recognition, it happens in the brain.

Can Dogs See Color? – American Kennel Club
Are dogs colour blind? Understanding how dogs see colour - BC ...
Are dogs colour blind? Understanding how dogs see colour - BC ...
What Colors Do Dogs See? | Scientific American
Can Dogs See Color? And How Do We Know? – CattleDog Publishing
View all
Yes, dogs can see color, but not in the same vivid, full spectrum as humans. Dogs have dichromatic vision, meaning they primarily see in shades of yellow, blue, and gray, similar to a human with red-green color blindness. They struggle to distinguish between red and green, which may appear as brownish-gray or yellow.

Comparing dog and human vision is like let me think, comparing apples and oranges.

Dogs' sense of smell is far better than humans, therefore our human nose is not a sense organ.

.

 

[pood]

peacegirl said:
He indirectly proved that the eyes are not a sense organ, one being that a dog cannot recognize his master from a picture.

That is so utterly nonsensical that it is beyond funny.

The eyes do not do recognition, it happens in the brain.

Can Dogs See Color? – American Kennel Club
Are dogs colour blind? Understanding how dogs see colour - BC ...
Are dogs colour blind? Understanding how dogs see colour - BC ...
What Colors Do Dogs See? | Scientific American
Can Dogs See Color? And How Do We Know? – CattleDog Publishing
View all
Yes, dogs can see color, but not in the same vivid, full spectrum as humans. Dogs have dichromatic vision, meaning they primarily see in shades of yellow, blue, and gray, similar to a human with red-green color blindness. They struggle to distinguish between red and green, which may appear as brownish-gray or yellow.

Comparing dog and human vision is like let me think, comparing apples and oranges.

Dogs' sense of smell is far better than humans, therefore our human nose is not a sense organ.

.

Dogs do have poorer color vision than humans but they have superior night vision.

Dogs can recognize humans by sight alone and can recognize them in photos and video. This has been demonstrated again and again.

The claim that eyes are not a sense organ is perhaps the second most idiotic claim that a human has ever made.

It is exceeded only by the claim that light takes time to each the eye but that we see instantly.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl has been repeating the same things for so long she can not think any other way.

I wonder how many places on the net she posts on at the same time.

All she knows is the book.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing wrong with posting from my father's book. You're criminalizing it when there's no reason to.

I am pretty sure that @pood lacks the authority to criminalize posting from any book to which you own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder; And further that even if he did, any such attempt on his part would contravene the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

As such, your appeal to emotion here is both absurd and hyperbolic.

There's plenty factually wrong with the stuff you post from that idiot's book*. And debunking those (and similar) errors is what this forum is all about.







* Hoping that the promise not to keep talking will apply to everyone who points out that her father was demonstrably an idiot. To be safe, probably she should cease posting here altogether.

 

[bilby]

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

...as we would know if only we would read what he wrote, and accept it without question.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

 

[bilby]

Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

Mostly "under".

 

[bilby]

Let's start again.

OK.

What I meant by image is that the lightwave is believed to bounce off of an object and arrive at the eye where it is seen as a virtual image of the object in the brain.

Literally nobody I know of believes that.

Maybe you should start again again, but first get at least some education about what it is that you are actually trying to challenge.

 

[bilby]

Not the light itself, but what is believed to be happening in the brain as the lightwave reaches us in delayed time. It doesn't mean an image being carried in the light, but anyone reading this would know what I meant.

I have no clue what you meant, and having read that, I am pretty confident that you don't either.

 

[bilby]

When you cut my sentences in half, I have no idea half the time what sentence I wrote that you were referring back to.

Were that the only thing you had no idea about, I should be a happy man.