[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How will time tell who is right? Why is more time necessary to make this determination? What information is needed that won't be available until some time in the future?

The information that you feel is not enough. Therefore, it may take others to recognize the validity of these claims, or to similate a world in which proof can be verified. Time and patience are often required. How many instances has something been said to be wrong when it later turned out to be right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so inferior that it makes me disgusted that someone like you could come off like such a big shot that she could actually shut this thread down by people joining her bandwagon.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no desire or intention or power to "shut this thread down". You are just spewing sour grapes because you have been unable to convince me that Lessans was anything but a well intentioned man with a flawed idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why I am moving on to people who already have a deep intuition that man does not have free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do not believe man has free will, as I told you when you first started this thread and multiple times after. I don't think free will is a coherent or useful concept at all, actually.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then why are you fighting me on this so hard? Lessans' definition of determinism 100% accurate and useful.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to think that if someone doesn't believe in free will, that makes Lessans description of determinism more believable to them. That's why you're searching for those who accept determinism already.

He only explains it from a different angle but it means the same thing. Determinism means what it says. Our choices are not free and it doesn't matter what definition you are using.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His explanations and definition are not compelling. His reasoning was poor and fallacious.

This is humorous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you listen to the lecture I posted? This professor is very much on target. I'm finding more and more people that have come to the conclusion that compatibilism and libertarianism cannot be right, although we need to act as if free will is compatible in order to justify punishment which is the cornerstone of our civilization as it stands.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact that we have the ability to choose whether and how to act, or choose not to act at all, based on our own brain states including contemplations of the factors and possible consequences, is enough for me to conclude that we can be held responsible for our actions.

You're missing the entire concept of what having no free will actually implies.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not what it implies, what Lessans inferred from it. I am not missing anything. I understand your position I just don't find any reason to think it's the best description of reality.

No, I meant implication.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

p. 66 We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse
because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution
was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if
he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog
in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thus, you are using the word "choice" as if we actually have one, but in reality we don't have a choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we cannot be forced to do something we don't want to do, as Lessans said, we have a choice in actions based on what we don't want to do.

Of course we have a choice based on what we don't want to do, but the word choice is misleading because we must move in the direction of greater satisfaction and there is only one possible choice that can be made at each moment in time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Perhaps we don't have a choice in what we want or don't want and our desires are determined, but I can absolutely choose how and whether to act on those desires. That's enough for me.

That's very true, but just because you can choose how and whether to act on your desires does not mean your will is free. That is the conventional definition of free will, but in actuality being able to choose does not mean will is free in any sense of the term.

p. 43 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is something misguided by the idea that the eyes work like the other four.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there isn't. You have been unable to point out any rational or valid reason to think that. You have simply formed a strong belief in your father's teachings to you and desire others to share your belief. Again this is not my problem, or a problem with science, or a problem with reality.

You're right about that, but whose reality are we talking about? Science in this case is making certain assumptions, and those assumptions are inaccurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, science has offered hard evidence, not assumptions at all. That you parrot Lessans on that, and refuse to review the evidence, just indicates your dogmatic adherence to the teachings from Lessans you got your whole life.

No, science has not offered hard evidence that light is all we need to decode an image. This is a logical assumption.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure it has offered hard evidence that the eyes are a sense organ. You just refuse to study it.

It has not offered the hard evidence you think it has. You just refuse to believe it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what this whole thread has been about; the eyes. And there's no way for me to overcome it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's because Lessans was just completely and demonstrably wrong about the eyes. He said there were no "similar afferent structures", meaning similar to those found in the other senses, which is easily refuted by the fact that eyes contain millions of afferent sensory neurons...called rods and cones. Lessans didn't seem to know about them.

All he said was that there were no similiar afferent nerve endings that made direct contact from the outside world to the internal world, except for light which strikes the optic nerve. He did not say the eyes didn't contain nerve receptors.

You are concluding that his observations are flawed just because he didn't dissect the eye. His observations are accurate and they contradict the established theory of afferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am concluding he was wrong because he made a demonstrably wrong statement about the structure of the eyes.

I don't think he did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will continue to use your knowledge of what determines truth to dispell what Lessans has observed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I will, as will all people. What do you expect people to use to determine what is likely true other than what they personally use to determine what is likely true? Everyone has their own criteria for evaluating claims, I've stated mine plainly and repeatedly.

But don't you see that in this case the criteria you are using is incomplete?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would I "see" that? It isn't the case at all from my perspective.

That's what I mean when I say that you're criteria to determine what is true is incomplete. This isn't a matter of opinion LadyShea. That's like saying I don't see how one plus one is two. According to my perspective, it's 11. That doesn't mean your perspective is right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That 1+1=2 can be demonstrated to anyone at any time and even transcends language.It can be proven with a couple of apples, so that's a bad analogy.

This knowledge also transcends langauge. Just because it's more difficult to observe than one plus one equals two doesn't mean it's not part of the real world and observed by those who can see it.

“But,” you might reply, “that’s just common sense;
everyone knows that.” Well it is just this common sense; that sense
common to us all that I am making the very foundation of this book.
It is for this reason that what I write will be understood not only by
those who can read the English language, but by the entire literate
world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You will come across people with other criteria that they will use...it's how human beings are. Why do you act like this is some strange phenomena that only I display?

I didn't say it's just you that displays this strange phenomena. But what I am saying is that Lessans saw something different when it comes to the eyes based on his observations, and I believe it is worth investigating.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I disagree that they are worth investigating, because he made some very glaring mistakes, such about the anatomy of they eye as I described above. He apparently knew nothing at all about the eyes...so why are his "observations" regarding their form and function worth anything at all?

As I already said, he didn't have to dissect the eye to understand how the brain and eyes work. Dissecting the eye doesn't give us ample evidence either as to what the brain and eyes are doing. There is a lot of unmapped territory when it comes to understanding the brain, so for you to so adamantly say he made glaring mistakes is foolhardy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dissection gives us ample evidence that the eyes contain afferent receptor neurons, which he said don't exist. He made a really incorrect statement, so why should I consider anything he says about vision at all since he didn't even know the most basic thing?

To repeat: He didn't say that the eyes have no afferent receptor neurons. He said that there were no similar afferent nerve endings that make direct contact from the outside world to the inside world as is the case with sound, taste, and hearing and smell.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 116 What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, there is absolutely zero unmapped territory when it comes to photography, we know 100% how cameras work. They have no brains to worry about. They absolutely use received light to create an image, and that means the image created is subject to the light travel time delay. If photographs match what we see, that proves we don't see in real time.

You're assuming the very thing that is being argued. No one is denying that light must be at the film but to say that the image created is subject to light travel time delay long after the object or event is no longer present, remains a theory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody is fully objective in this world, because each person is an individual with a brain full of knowledge, experiences, memories, and chemistry. That's what makes evidence a much better way to evaluate claims.

It's a good way, but not all truth is found this way. How could he have gathered data when he didn't start out with a hypothesis? He never intended to make a discovery LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? Hypotheses always come after observation in science, why didn't he take the next step?

This man worked for 30 years on making his demonstration as clear as possible. For you to judge him in any way is wrong and out of bounds.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You should quit calling what he did science then if you don't want the work judged as science is judged.

This is just as much a scientific discovery as any other scientific discovery made in the history of our world. You don't like it because he didn't use the method that you believe is necessary for proof. Sorry to say that it's not the only tool in the toolbox that can be used to determine the accuracy of the observations made.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His reasoning was nothing but opinion, because he gave us nothing to review independently to see if we reached the same conclusions or even determine if his conclusions followed from his observations. We have no idea what he observed ata ll...what behaviors or what phenomena did he see with his own eyes? I followed his reasoning, but I think it was poorly thought out and he committed fallacies and huge leaps of logic. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

Oh my god, you don't know what you're talking about. There are no mistakes; and when you say it was poorly thought out, you are sounding assinine. There are absolutely no fallacies, no flaws, and no leaps of faith.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, and you sound like a dogmatic fundie talking about the Bible

That's your safety net when things get tough. Telling me that I sound like a fundie which gets you immediately off the hook is an easy cop-out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has put you on equal footing when you don't come close to his abilities. Because of the fact that he didn't have empirical data, you have called this an assertion which is the farthest thing from the truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without data, without information or facts, it is all assertion by the definition of the word assertion.

Once again, you need to stop using your criteria to judge this knowledge. It's incomplete.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who's criteria should I use then? And you keep saying "incomplete" meaning I am missing a criteria. Imagine a checklist of criteria for evaluating claims, what's missing from mine do you think?

You are missing criteria. His observations. You aren't even taking them seriously which is why you don't see their validity. Here's one: How can a person offer an excuse for what he did [which hurt another] when he's already excused and no one is questioning his conduct?