A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How could you possibly know my approach is wrong if you don't even know what I'm talking about? Does that make any sense to you?


Anyway, there are three components to my approach:

1. The general method of reductio ad absurdum (RAA), which states that anything which implies a contradiction or absurdity must be false.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


2. That your position entails that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from somewhere they were never located.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


3. That it is not possible for photons (or anything else) to ever have come from somewhere they never were.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


Please indicate which part of my approach you reject, or admit that your only objection to my approach is that you don't like it because it refutes your claims.

I never said photons are in two places at once, but the distance between the eye and the object (even if the object is millions of miles away), is no different than an object that is closer. If the object is large enough and bright enough we will see it, and if we see it, then the light that allows us to see it will be at the retina. The photons that you're talking about are going in one direction toward the Earth (when the Sun is turned on), but due to efferent vision, we don't need to wait for those photons to reach Earth in order to see the Sun. I've given this analogy before; it's like two different highways. The photons are traveling along one highway, which takes time, and the eyes are looking the opposite way. You have to work this backwards. If we see the object, light is already at the retina, not the other way around, if light travels and strikes the eye, then we will see the object. Anyway, I need a break from this, okay? I went over to the other forum to discuss his first discovery, and then you and David came online and derailed the conversation.

[Vivisectus]

Double poast

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said photons are in two places at once, but the distance between the eye and the object (even if the object is millions of miles away), is no different than an object that is closer. If the object is large enough and bright enough we will see it, and if we see it, then the light that allows us to see it will be at the retina. The photons that you're talking about are going in one direction toward the Earth (when the Sun is turned on)...

No, they aren't. The photons I am asking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is turned on. If they are also going in one direction towards the Earth at this time, then you are putting them in two places at once.

But this isn't what I asked you about at all. You have again refused to answer what I asked, which was for you to tell me which part of my approach you think is wrong:


There are three components to my approach:

1. The general method of reductio ad absurdum (RAA), which states that anything which implies a contradiction or absurdity must be false.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


2. That your position entails that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from somewhere they were never located.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


3. That it is not possible for photons (or anything else) to ever have come from somewhere they never were.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


Please indicate which part of my approach you reject, or admit that your only objection to my approach is that you don't like it because it refutes your claims.

[Vivisectus]

You believe dogs cannot recognize their master.

However, there is this group of people who take a radically different approach from the one you and your father prefer. In stead of simply deciding that dogs can or cannot do something based on what they want to be true, they actually create tests to find out what is going on. These people are called "scientists". They tend to follow the other thing neither you nor your father had much use for, called "evidence".

They all disagree.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet, once again, here you are discussing with the exact same group.

And that's why I'm not staying for long. I can't believe no one else is interested except for these few lingerers. This is such a wonderful book it still shocks me that people are so cocksure that he has discovered nothing of value that they won't even attempt to read it. It just makes me more determined to get to the right group who will give him the time of day. The reason I'm here is because I was banned from the other site probably because David said I would never leave. I think that scared the moderator. I'm not going to a new thread, and I'm waiting on my proof. I had to resubmit it again, and I'm very happy with it. When I start marketing, I won't have time to come here.

[LadyShea]

This also means that determinism cannot be proven false because that would prove free will true

Bullshit. This is another article of faith for you. It is not an either/or situation. This isn't math or the laws of physics...it's concepts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You believe dogs cannot recognize their master.

However, there is this group of people who take a radically different approach from the one you and your father prefer. In stead of simply deciding that dogs can or cannot do something based on what they want to be true, they actually create tests to find out what is going on. These people are called "scientists". They tend to follow the other thing neither you nor your father had much use for, called "evidence".

They all disagree.

Vivisectus, there is no conclusive evidence. I'm sorry to inform you.

[Vivisectus]

"when you start marketing" seems to be happening on the same kind of time-scale as this revolution that was supposed to have started in the last century.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, there is no conclusive evidence. I'm sorry to inform you.

Conclusive enough to convince people who actually know what they are talking about. But hey! Why bother with tiresome science. Too much like hard work. Far better to just make stuff up and not bother to provide any evidence at all. That way you can pretend you are an Important Discoverer without having to deal with tedious reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that's why I'm not staying for long. I can't believe no one else is interested except for these few lingerers. This is such a wonderful book it still shocks me that people are so cocksure that he has discovered nothing of value that they won't even attempt to read it. It just makes me more determined to get to the right group who will give him the time of day. The reason I'm here is because I was banned from the other site probably because David said I would never leave. I think that scared the moderator. I'm not going to a new thread, and I'm waiting on my proof. I had to resubmit it again, and I'm very happy with it. When I start marketing, I won't have time to come here.

You have completely reset your brain again. Look at your posts from 5 months ago quoted below. You have been waiting for proofs and resubmitting for years now. When do you plan on actually marketing? How are you going to market it? Did you figure out a plan yet?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to change my approach. I have to explore other ways to sell the book. I'm considering putting it online and lowering the cost of the ebook that's already online. Like LadyShea said, the more people that read it, the greater are my chances of getting the book recognized.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry, I will be leaving soon. I cannot start marketing quite yet. I am realizing that the only way I can promote this book is through social media, which I hope is not as distasteful as this thread has been. I'm not looking forward to all the nasty comments, but I don't see a way of getting around it. LadyShea was right; it comes with the territory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bullshit. This is another article of faith for you. It is not an either/or situation. This isn't math or the laws of physics...it's concepts.

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

[LadyShea]

From December

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that I've been stalling because I am waiting for my books. I told you I got the proof and ordered my first ten but the margins were way off. I decided to fix a few more things and it's in post production now. I should be getting the proof within the next week or so. Then I have to approve it in order to order more books. This has been an arduous process. I am not going to resubmit the book again, but I had to get it right before I felt confident to market it. You have to remember I did this all on my own without any help from an editor, which probably would have cost me less in the long run. See LadyShea, I learned my my experience and if I had to do it over again I may have hired an editor in the direction of greater satisfaction, based on the changed antecedent conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Reset my brain? What are you talking about LadyShea? Yes, I have been through this before. I am now waiting for another proof. Each time it takes weeks to get it. Once I get it, I have to reread it to make positively sure it's correct before buying more. I have also had problems with the printer. Some of the words were smeared, and the margins weren't set right. This time I'm pretty sure everything will be fine. I have gone over every chapter with a fine tooth comb, and there's nothing more I can add to make it clearer. You have to remember that I had to go through 7 books and compile all this information. If you haven't done it, you have no right to judge me.

I am going to change my approach. I have to explore other ways to sell the book. I'm considering putting it online and lowering the cost of the ebook that's already online. Like LadyShea said, the more people that read it, the greater are my chances of getting the book recognized.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered you adequately. I did not skirt your questions as you think.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't answer all that I asked. You did skirt my questions. You answered only the very last part of my post while ignoring the rest.

So give them to me again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to change my approach.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When will you change your approach? Have you started making the most of your time yet? Or are you still persisting with methods that you know do not work?

I decided not to use social marketing like facebook or twitter. I'm going to try to get in touch with certain celebrities by contacting their publishers. I will probably send out two or three books a month. That's all I can afford. Hopefully, someone of influence will pay attention and contact me. I may do some press releases but that gets expensive too. I am also going to give away the first three chapters, which I've already done, but I have to upload the latest version. People will get a sense of whether this book is for them without having to pay for it. That should make you all very happy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

I know free will can be neither proven nor disproven, and neither can determinism. They aren't testable in any way. I have been saying that to you for over a year.

Proving determinism false would not prove free will true...they are concepts with many possible understandings and definitions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From December

Yes, it's true, each time I thought it was the one, but it wasn't. There were things I wasn't happy with. I was not going to put out a book that wasn't my best. You have no idea how hard it has been to go through 613 pages to not only get the concepts right, but to make sure the formatting is right. I had no one to check behind me, and it's a scary feeling when you hand it in knowing that there is no turning back.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1125540]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know free will can be neither proven nor disproven, and neither can determinism. They aren't testable in any way. I have been saying that to you for over a year.

I don't care what you have been saying LadyShea for over a year. You don't get the last word on this topic. Have you ever considered that you might not know as much as you think you know? How arrogant you are. It amazes me every time you open your mouth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proving determinism false would not prove free will true...they are concepts with many possible understandings and definitions.

There could be many possible understandings and definitions, but remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You can define something any way you want, but that doesn't mean it reflects anything real, therefore it will have no usefulness.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you have been saying LadyShea for over a year. You don't get the last word on this topic. Have you ever considered that you might not know as much as you think you know? How arrogant you are. It amazes me every time you open your mouth.

So what was your point? Do you think either determinism or free will can be proven or disproven?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There could be many possible understandings and definitions, but remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You can define something any way you want, but that doesn't mean it reflects anything real, therefore it will have no usefulness.

When words represent concepts rather than concrete things definitions mean everything. You can't demonstrate or display or hold or touch free will or determinism. They are not concrete things. They aren't "real" to use your language. In this case you can only explain what you mean using words. If you have a different definition for words than the people you are talking to, then you are not conveying your meaning at all. That's not useful

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, just a couple of relavant questions for you,

"Do you believe that the 'Holocaust' actually happened during WWII?"

and, "Do you believe that America actually landed men on the Moon and brought them back?"

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong, you are using logic to justify your dismissal of this conclusion, but there is no such thing as other worlds except in your logic. It's very easy to do this, and this is no different than fundamentalism. Lessans is basing his reasoning on "this world", not other worlds, where it becomes fantasy. This is truly insane, and for you people to think that you have the edge because of this reasoning is more insane than I can handle.

You are supposed to use logic when reasoning, Peacegirl. And the possible worlds I speak of are just shorthands for speaking of possible ways that things could have been. They are not existing worlds the same as but distinct from our own. I've explained this all to you before. In this sense Lessans is not speaking only of this world, for when he speaks of what could or could not have been, he is speaking of other possible worlds too.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are a sense organ, that would mean that the light from the external world is traveling toward the eye, striking it, and sending signals to the brain. The dog should be able to recognize his master if this is true. Isn't that what all the empirical tests are trying to prove? But it is not proven to be the case. And to say that a dog's brain may have evolved to where the visual part of the brain is less developed (as Spacemonkey suggested) doesn't add up either because dogs have good vision in general (even night vision), even though their sense of smell is more acute.

If vision were efferent, the Dog's brain would be looking out through the eyes and preceving the photo directly, and the dog should recognize it's masters image. But you claim that Dogs cannot recognize their master in a photo, so all Dogs must be blind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it's a contingent conclusion that we chose X. It is impossible to prove that in another world a person could have chosen otherwise; Y instead of X. In a logically possible world (or situation) a person could have chosen Y instead of X, but the contingent conditions would not be the same since X was already chosen. There is nothing logically contradictory about him having chosen something else, but he didn't choose something else because it gave him less satisfaction under the conditions. If that person would have chosen Y, there would be no contradiction at all because that would have been the better choice at that instant. But he didn't choose Y because at that moment X was the preferable choice. You are placing the cart before the horse. If another situation the conditions were such that he chose Y, they would not be the exact contingent conditions that brought a person to choosing X, which is necessary for you to prove that choosing Y was possible at that moment. There is no false conclusion that can be had because there can only be one choice at each moment in time, rendering Y an impossibility. Again, that doesn't mean choosing Y was logically impossible until X was chosen. It also doesn't mean Y is not a perfectly logical choice in the next moment, but you cannot prove that Y could have been chosen after the fact.

I didn't say it was a contingent conclusion that we choose X. The contingent and fallacious conclusion is that we could not have chosen other than X. In the conceivable situation where I choose Y instead of X, I am still choosing in the direction of greater satisfaction but I do not choose X. Therefore his satisfaction principle alone does not prove that only the actual choice of X is possible. By saying that antecedent conditions would have to have been different you are acknowledging that it is the regular definition of causal determinism, rather than anything to do with satisfaction, which allegedly disproves free will. You are abandoning the idea that the principle of greater satisfaction disproves free will, and instead arguing that we can't choose otherwise given the same set of initial causal conditions. That means his satisfaction principle is irrelevant, and that you are again narrowly focusing only on the libertarian contra-causal kind of free will, rather than the kind of free will which we actually have.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I got the proof and ordered my first ten but the margins were way off.

Just curious, how much is 'way off' did you need to measure it with a ruler to tell. I would think that margins would be a rather unimportant detail, considering the claimed value of the book and the need to get it into peoples hands as soon as possible.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are a sense organ, that would mean that the light from the external world is traveling toward the eye, striking it, and sending signals to the brain.

If the eyes are not a sense organ, light from the external world still travels and strikes the eye, correct? The eyes still contain photoreceptors (rods and cones) to that react to light, correct? Signals still travel along the optic nerve in efferent vision, since nerves carry signals and you acknowledge that the optic nerve exists. So what is the difference between sense organ and non sense organ in this sentence?

The dog should be able to recognize his master if this is true.

Why should they? This is a huge leap that you haven't explained.

Isn't that what all the empirical tests are trying to prove?

The tests are trying to answer the question "Can dogs recognize human faces?"

And to say that a dog's brain may have evolved to where the visual part of the brain is less developed (as Spacemonkey suggested) doesn't add up either because dogs have good vision in general (even night vision), even though their sense of smell is more acute.

If the eyes are a sense organ, why does it follow that dogs would have or should have evolved the ability to visually recognize individual human faces from photographs at all? Does it help them survive or reproduce? If not, then why would this ability be selected for?

There is no reason whatsoever to think they should or should not have this ability and you are still failing to provide a reason that you think this. That they might actually have it is a separate question, I want to know why you think they should and what eyes being a sense organ has to do with recognition at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"when you start marketing" seems to be happening on the same kind of time-scale as this revolution that was supposed to have started in the last century.

He predicted it would come to light in the 20th century only if it was recognized. Unfortunately, it was not. There was no way he could know for sure.

Please note that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to
the time period when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction
that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the
conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken
place. Although it has been more than 50 years, there has been no
such investigation and, to this day, this discovery has not been
acknowledged for its contribution. Due to the time lapse since the
book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to show
how these principles apply to our current world situation, but please
be assured that the actual discovery has not been altered in any way
and is explained in the author’s own words. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the
book. No discrimination was intended.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are a sense organ, that would mean that the light from the external world is traveling toward the eye, striking it, and sending signals to the brain. The dog should be able to recognize his master if this is true. Isn't that what all the empirical tests are trying to prove? But it is not proven to be the case. And to say that a dog's brain may have evolved to where the visual part of the brain is less developed (as Spacemonkey suggested) doesn't add up either because dogs have good vision in general (even night vision), even though their sense of smell is more acute.

Facial recognition is not merely a matter of visual acuity, Peacegirl. The possibility you overlook is not that dogs could lack the ability to see faces, but rather that they could lack the ability to process and recognize what they see. But of course all of this is moot, seeing as all the evidence suggests that dogs can recognize faces.

Now if only you could recognize that photons cannot come from some place they never were.