A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Hey! When are we due for another PARTY! The last few didn't go very well. Can we get a few more people to participate?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Here is something else:

Time-of-flight camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's another thing that wouldn't work if vision was instantaneous.

What cameras like these do is nothing less than recording how long it takes the camera to see the object.

That's basically the same thing as the experiment with the photodiode, but this one involves a complete image.

What do you say, peacegirl?

You are going to have to explain that in painfully obvious detail (type very slowly) for Peacegirl, that link had more than 10 words in it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Here is something else:

Time-of-flight camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's another thing that wouldn't work if vision was instantaneous.

What cameras like these do is nothing less than recording how long it takes the camera to see the object.

That's basically the same thing as the experiment with the photodiode, but this one involves a complete image.

What do you say, peacegirl?

I don't see where this conflicts.

The simplest version of a time-of-flight camera uses light pulses or a single light pulse. The illumination is switched on for a very short time, the resulting light pulse illuminates the scene and is reflected by the objects in the field of view. The camera lens gathers the reflected light and images it onto the sensor or focal plane array. Depending upon the distance, the incoming light experiences a delay.

Time-of-flight camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where this conflicts.

Of course you don't.

The point is that these cameras definitely don't see in real time. And they record complete images, which is why you can't use that to weasel out of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it

Originally Posted by But

Of course he did. You're just making stuff up.

No I'm not.

because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement because it's the smallest unit of time; there's nothing mysterious about it)

Originally Posted by But

I don't see what's so funny.

Originally Posted by But

A nanosecond is not the smallest unit of time. Where did you get that nonsense from?

I said for all intents and purposes.

Just as we cannot register how fast light travels when we light a candle,

Originally Posted by But

As you've been told a million times, measuring devices have absolutely no problem precisely registering time intervals like that.

So no problem then.

the same goes for the Sun because we are not talking about traveling light reaching Earth even though that is occurring.

Originally Posted by But

You're making absolutely no sense.

I'm sorry this is not making sense to you, but my father said there is no dispute that light travels. Light would be traveling to Earth although we would see the Sun turned on before the light got here, due to the claim regarding vision, not light.

We are talking about efferent vision, which works just like the candle example. Imagine that the Sun and the observer are in an enclosed box. The Sun is on one end and the observer is on the other. The Sun is turned on (the candle is turned on). It takes the light a nanosecond from the Sun (the candle) to reach the observer (or the person on the other side of the box), which cannot be registered by the eye. It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away) as long as the object and the observer are within the box. All this means is that the object is within our field of view.

Originally Posted by But

You're so confused, it boggles the mind. Why on Earth do we have to put things in a box? Why should it work that way? Why should it make no difference how far apart the objects are?

It doesn't make a difference how far apart the objects are if vision works the way he claimed. When I use the term box it's just a way of explaining that having the object within one's field of view creates a closed system (the efferent account) where traveling light with the object gone (the afferent account) is an open system. I know you think this is idiotic, so believe what you want.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you think this is idiotic...

It is idiotic, and I think you know it too.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Re-read what you were replying to here and see if you can see how you just messed this up. I've used bold to help you spot the error.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but the definition fits perfectly.

pro·por·tion·al
prəˈpôrSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
corresponding in size or amount to something else.

Then you should be able to explain WHAT TWO THINGS you are saying are corresponding in size or amount to each other. Until you do, you are not using the word correctly.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said for all intents and purposes.

It's completely wrong for all intents and purposes. Scientists have no problem creating laser pulses that last less than a millionth of a nanosecond.

So no problem then.

Look above what you said. You said it can't be registered. Of course it can.

When I use the term box it's just a way of explaining that having the object within one's field of view creates a closed system (the efferent account) where traveling light with the object gone (the afferent account) is an open system. I know you think this is idiotic, so believe what you want.

What the hell do you mean by "closed system"? It's not the usual meaning. But you do that all the time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not answering these questions any more.

What do you mean "any more"? You've never answered them. You've never even tried.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't apply therefore the answers to the question of efferent or afferent cannot be found this way.

Of course they apply. I'm asking you simple Yes or No questions about the photons YOUR account says will be at the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey wants me to explain my position coming from the afferent model, which can't be done.

That's a lie. I am asking you to explain your position from YOUR efferent model. You just keep refusing to answer questions about the parts of it that are impossible and don't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it doesn't have to be huge. Is the Sun huge in relation to someone on Earth? No, it looks like a ball. The comparison has to do with the fact that both of these objects are within our field of view in the efferent account. As a result, both objects are seen by the observer and both objects can be compared even though a candle is within a room versus the Sun being millions of miles away. The proportionality remains the same, which removes delayed time from the equation.

What proportionality? What are the two values that you are claiming to be proportional to each other? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time for all intents and purposes; there's nothing mysterious about it) for the light to increase in its luminosity. Remember, it would have to be bright enough for it to be seen. I was trying to distinguish this amount of time from the 8 minutes that is believed it would take for us to see the Sun.

Why bother? What would be the point? How is a nanosecond any less problematic for you than no time at all? Photons getting from the Sun to the retina on Earth in a nanosecond is just as impossible, and remains just as unexplained, as photons getting there instantaneously. You still can't explain where these photons come from or how they get there. This whole nanosecond malarkey is just a huge red herring.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as we cannot register how fast light travels when we light a candle, the same goes for the Sun because we are not talking about traveling light reaching Earth even though that is occurring.

If it were proportional, then increasing the distance from a few meters to 90 million miles would mean that the time delay WOULD become noticeable. That is what proportional means.

And if you agree that the light is traveling from the Sun to the Earth at light speed (which takes 8min), then you are still left with no explanation at all for how it can be there at the retina on Earth a nanosecond after the Sun is ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are talking about efferent vision, which works just like the candle example.

You haven't explained how the candle example works yet. If it works by relying on light traveling from the candle to the observer's eye, then having the newly ignited Sun example work the same way means there will be an 8min delay.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Imagine that the Sun and the observer are in an enclosed box. The Sun is on one end and the observer is on the other. The Sun is turned on (similarly, the candle is turned on). It takes the light a nanosecond from the Sun (the candle) to reach the observer (the person on the other side of the box), which cannot be registered by the eye.

How big is this box? If it is normal box size, then it won't fit the Earth and Sun inside it. If the box is 90 million miles long, then it will take 8min rather than a nanosecond for the light to get from one end of the box to the other. If it covered the distance any faster it would require light traveling faster than the speed of light. So how is the addition of a box meant to help here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away)...

Of course it matters! See above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...as long as the object and the observer are within the box (a closed system). All this means is that the object is within our field of view...

Then all you are doing is yet again asserting that light can do magical things, such as relocating by millions of miles in less time than it would take to travel the intervening distance. You still aren't explaining how this could possibly be achieved. The terms "closed system" and "field of view" do nothing at all to help you here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which is deemed unnecessary in the afferent view because of the belief that light is bringing the information to the eye.

Red herring. It makes no difference how information is brought to the eye so long as you agree that the light has to be at the eye for vision to occur. THAT is the part you are failing to explain or address.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So no problem then.

Yes there is a problem, you and Lessans claimed that light is at the retina instantly so any measurable time negates that claim. You and Lessans are wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time for all intents and purposes; there's nothing mysterious about it) for the light to increase in its luminosity.

Now, see, this would be yet another example of you deliberately lying.

A nanosecond is by no means the smallest unit of time -- "for all intents and purposes" or otherwise. We have devices that can and do measure much smaller time intervals. Indeed, much of our modern technology is dependent upon our ability to measure smaller time intervals.

This has been pointed out to you before. Repeatedly.

That you continue to make such a ludicrously false claim can only be attributed to dishonesty on your part.


Why do you continue to make such ludicrously-false and easily-disproved claims such as this? It does nothing except make you look bad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It does nothing except make you look bad.

That ship has sailed.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I will support Lessans because none of these accusations prove him wrong. Why shouldn't I support him, I believe he was right.

Again, you're displaying your lack of reading ability. I'm pointing out that many of the "facts" you use to "support" Lessans are demonstrably false. Like ... oh, for example ... that a nanosecond is the smallest unit of measurable time for practical purposes. That claim is not even remotely true. Yet even after it's pointed out to you that the specific claim is false, you continue to repeat it.

That's lying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never have admitted that his claim was ludicrously false.

No one ever claimed that you did. You're either lying again here, or you're displaying abysmal reading comprehension -- again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But let me repeat that none of your accusations are true, and more importantly, none of them discredit Lessans' claim.

Really?

So you didn't spend pages insisting that cameras see in delayed time, then turn around and insist that you had never made that claim when you realized that you were contradicting Lessans? Want me to quote you doing exactly that -- again?

You didn't claim that working bionic eyes would disprove Lessans, then repeatedly insist that you had never made any such claim when it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist? Want us to quote you doing exactly that -- again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you lying now TLR? I never said Lessans was incapable of error, but I believe he was right in this case.

Actually, you have pretty-much done exactly that from time to time. And in your more lucid moments, you have even admitted that no amount of contrary evidence could ever disprove Lessans' claims in your eyes.

Which makes you not just a liar, but a fanatic.


Your problem is that you lie so often and so readily that you can't keep your own lies straight.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Your problem is that you lie so often and so readily that you can't keep your own lies straight.

Telling the truth is so much easier than lying, you only need to remember the truth. When Lying you need to remember which person you told which lie to. Can you imagine how much stress Peacegirl is under, trying to remember who she told what? It's no wonder she can't keep it straight.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not answering these questions any more. They don't apply therefore the answers to the question of efferent or afferent cannot be found this way. Spacemonkey wants me to explain my position coming from the afferent model, which can't be done.

We all know this is the confession that you see that the idea of efferent vision simply does not work. You are not able to give consistent answers on these questions. The reason they do not apply is that efferent vision is a self-refuting concept.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you forget that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality? You are using a strawman in your usage of the word "free."

Did you forget that this is a nonsensical claim? I'll come back to this in a later post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you are using a definition of freedom that does not actually mean we have freedom of the will

This is interesting: do you actually mean that free will would mean freedom from the will?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Read the 6 strawmen fallacies, especially number 1, 3, and 4. We can go over each one separately.

You start.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did you come up with the idea that we are just causal objects? Conscious creatures are a part of the causal process. Where does anyone say that just because we are caused (or compelled) to do what we do, that we are robots without the ability to think and make decisions?
<snip>
It does nothing of the sort. Having no free will does not remove our responsibility in the decisions we make. That's what this book demonstrates.

Well, we are causal objects. What else could we be in a (causal) determined world? But many free will sceptics, especially neurologists, see us as just causal objects. In one of your formulations this can easily be derived: we are compelled to do what we do. But in court, if you can proof that you were compelled to your crime, you are not culpable. How can you make somebody responsible who was compelled to his actions? So the conclusion is that we should not see people as responsible agents that under circumstances must bear the consequences of their deeds, but as objects that must be repaired; or as people with illnesses that must be treated. The free will sceptics say that it might me true that we can think and decide, but that this is not relevant for saying somebody has free will. Don't you see the absurdity of that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

..responsibility will increase, not decrease, which is what many philosophers are unnecessarily afraid of.

Responsibility when you are compelled to do what you do? Really?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I never accepted that the claim was ludicrously false.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never accepted that the claim was ludicrously false.

That wasn't my question. Did you work out what your mistake was?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you forget that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality? You are using a strawman in your usage of the word "free."

Originally Posted by GdB

Did you forget that this is a nonsensical claim? I'll come back to this in a later post.

You really don't have to. Anything can be defined even when it doesn't exist. I can define what a unicorn is, and it might be useful in describing a fictional character, but it does not mean that there is any such a thing as a unicorn. The same holds for free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you are using a definition of freedom that does not actually mean we have freedom of the will

Originally Posted by GdB

This is interesting: do you actually mean that free will would mean freedom from the will?

No. It means that you are using the term freedom that I agree with. This is a strawman because you are bringing into the discussion something entirely different than what this discussion is about in order to somehow make it appear that this kind of freedom proves that we have freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Read the 6 strawmen fallacies, especially number 1, 3, and 4. We can go over each one separately.

Originally Posted by GdB

You start.

I will later.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did you come up with the idea that we are just causal objects? Conscious creatures are a part of the causal process. Where does anyone say that just because we are caused (or compelled) to do what we do, that we are robots without the ability to think and make decisions?
<snip>
It does nothing of the sort. Having no free will does not remove our responsibility in the decisions we make. That's what this book demonstrates.

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, we are causal objects. What else could we be in a (causal) determined world? But many free will sceptics, especially neurologists, see us as just causal objects. In one of your formulations this can easily be derived: we are compelled to do what we do. But in court, if you can proof that you were compelled to your crime, you are not culpable. How can you make somebody responsible who was compelled to his actions?

You are not extending the corollary, which is what this book is about. It shows why responsibility increases tenfold by not blaming rather than blaming. But this can only be done when all parties understand the principles. This is why Vivisectus was quite surprised at the results of an experiment that showed people became more responsible for their driving habits when they were not threatened with punishment than when they were.

Originally Posted by GdB

So the conclusion is that we should not see people as responsible agents that under circumstances must bear the consequences of their deeds, but as objects that must be repaired; or as people with illnesses that must be treated. The free will sceptics say that it might me true that we can think and decide, but that this is not relevant for saying somebody has free will. Don't you see the absurdity of that?

Once again, I understand this dilemma more than you realize. The free will skeptic is correct in saying that thinking and deciding, as part of our nature, does not grant us free will. The difference that I see between the compatibilist and the free will skeptic is one of consequence. The former is holding a person responsible and punishing him with "just desert" for not heeding the consequences of his behavior knowing what the outcome will be if he's caught. The latter is still confining an individual to an institution but is trying to understand the cause in order to rehabilitate him without the "just desert" of severe punishment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

..responsibility will increase, not decrease, which is what many philosophers are unnecessarily afraid of.

Originally Posted by GdB

Responsibility when you are compelled to do what you do? Really?

Yes GdB, that's exactly right. This leads to the two-sided equation which is the core of this discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That wasn't my question. Did you work out what your mistake was?

Repeating the claim that supports Lessans even when I agreed that the claim is false. But after thinking about it, I am not convinced that the claim supporting Lessans is false.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Repeating the claim that supports Lessans even when I agreed that the claim is false. But after thinking about it, I am not convinced that the claim supporting Lessans is false.

*sigh* No, that wasn't it.

[Vivisectus]

I think your ideas are really good, but they take time to implement.

Less than it takes you to argue on here, however. Which is kind of my point: you prefer to argue here. Doing anything else is too much like work. This is interesting when you keep in mind that not believing in free will and realizing you will never be blamed makes your conscience work perfectly, making irresponsible behavior and the abdicating of responsibility impossible.

I pointed this out because that's what people would be thinking.

Indeed: it walks like a duck, talks like one, and if it leaves any more feathers I will be able to make a down pillow.

I welcome a simple, easily repeatable and effective method of spreading an idea, but it still takes time and effort which I can't give at this moment. I already told you this.

Indeed: there is no time between your preparations for attending a wedding 6 months down the road, some child minding, and your endless bickering on here.

Which is what you prefer. Nothing wrong with that: but it does lead to interesting conclusions.

I do have interest in using your ideas, but it involves writing blogs. That takes quite a bit of time and effort. I cannot concentrate on this until after November.

Revolutionaries, arise!

Next month.

Unless we have a hair appointment or something. Then it will have to wait until the new year. Because writing is hard.

Unless it is posting.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, it's like you have given up answering my questions!

Here is another one. This is an image of the moon. But it's very blurry! Is it too blurry to be real time, or do I need to make it more blurry for it to be just a result of light rather than an image? How blurry would you say it needs to be until this curious behaviour manifests?