A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The time it takes for the light to be gathered from Direct Time-of-Flight imagers is minimal. They say the farther away the object is the longer it takes to gather light, which is true using this type of camera. This camera puts out light pulses. It takes time for the pulsating light to reach the object and be reflected back. The reflected light is then gathered by the lens and an image is formed.

The object illuminated by the camera's light source is obviously bright enough to be seen.

Are you now saying that there is this kind of vision that works like everyone except you thinks it does, and this other kind that is instantaneous and happens when the object reaches some threshold of brightness?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Are you talking about solid angle?

Sort of. The Sun and the moon would appear the same size even though one is so much farther away. Obviously, the Sun would have to be much more luminous and much larger for us to be able to see it because of its great distance from Earth, but from the perspective of the observer, both would subtend (new word for me ) the same solid angle.

Solid angle: A small object nearby may subtend the same solid angle as a larger object farther away. For example, although the Moon is much smaller than the Sun, it is also much closer to Earth. Indeed, as viewed from any point on Earth, both objects have approximately the same solid angle as well as apparent size. This is evident during a solar eclipse.

Solid angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Damn! I wish I could still eat Popcorn.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The object illuminated by the camera's light source is obviously bright enough to be seen.

Are you now saying that there is this kind of vision that works like everyone except you thinks it does, and this other kind that is instantaneous and happens when the object reaches some threshold of brightness?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have always maintained that the object must be luminous enough. If it isn't, then there are not enough photons to create an image. Can you take a photograph of someone in a dark room without a flash, or in a room that has very little light? I am not saying anything that is any different than what we already know.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sort of. The Sun and the moon would appear the same size even though one is so much farther away. Obviously, the Sun would have to be much more luminous and much larger for us to be able to see it because of its great distance from Earth, but from the perspective of the observer, both would subtend (new word for me ) the same solid angle.

And how does any of this address the problem of how light gets to be at the retina within a nanosecond of the Sun first being ignited 90 million miles away from the observer? Was there any relevance at all, or has this all been yet another pointless diversion?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have always maintained that the object must be luminous enough. If it isn't, then there are not enough photons to create an image.

Well obviously, there are enough photons to create an image, otherwise the time-of-flight camera wouldn't work, now would it?

Can you take a photograph of someone in a dark room without a flash, or in a room that has very little light?

Sure you can, it just depends on how sensitive the camera is.

I am not saying anything that is any different than what we already know.

Except that you're contradicting the known and tested laws of physics and keep changing your story all the time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how does any of this address the problem of how light gets to be at the retina within a nanosecond of the Sun first being ignited 90 million miles away from the observer? Was there any relevance at all, or has this all been yet another pointless diversion?

You have a block Spacemonkey. You haven't carefully analyzed what Lessans was saying regarding the eyes. This really does change the function of light entirely, but you continue to repeat the same thing regarding traveling light, as if my agreeing with you that Lessans was wrong will make you feel better so that you can move on. You have my permission to move on without my agreement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Well obviously, there are enough photons to create an image, otherwise the time-of-flight camera wouldn't work, now would it?

Right, but the pulsar light would not create enough light for the object to be seen at that distance, therefore the light would have to travel closer so that it could be gathered by the lens of this Time-of-Flight camera. But this does not change how the eyes work. We are able to see the Time-of-Flight image on a screen, but we see this in real time just as we see everything in the external world in real time. We would be unable to see the object that the Time of Flight camera is sending pulsars to because it would not be bright enough even though it may be close enough to be within our optical range.

Can you take a photograph of someone in a dark room without a flash, or in a room that has very little light?

Originally Posted by But

Sure you can, it just depends on how sensitive the camera is.

I'm not talking about night vision cameras that have low ambient light. I'm talking about regular digital cameras that have no flash. A photograph would turn out very dark in a dim room, and would show no image at all in a room with no light.

I am not saying anything that is any different than what we already know.

Originally Posted by But

Except that you're contradicting the known and tested laws of physics and keep changing your story all the time.

Not really. The only thing that is being offered is this alternate explanation of how we see, which then creates real time vision. That's it. My father knew this claim would cause anger, but I don't think he knew to what degree.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a block Spacemonkey. You haven't carefully analyzed what Lessans was saying regarding the eyes. This really does change the function of light entirely, but you continue to repeat the same thing regarding traveling light, as if my agreeing with you that Lessans was wrong will make you feel better so that you can move on. You have my permission to move on without my agreement.

You didn't answer me. You first brought up this proportionality nonsense as if it could somehow explain how light gets to be where and when you need it. So what relevance does the concept of solid angle have for the photon problem? Any relevance at all? Or are you still at square one with no idea at all where the light at the retina comes from and how it gets there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is proportional to what? You still don't seem to understand what this word means.

How big is the box? If it is any smaller than 90 million miles in length then it won't fit the Sun and Earth inside. If it is 90 million miles long, then the time it takes for light to travel from one side to the other is 8min, which is not "virtually nil" at all. For the time to be virtually nil, the box would have to be very small, but then you are just pretending that the distance between the Earth and Sun is much smaller than it really is. That is no solution to your problem.

But it's not just like the candle. The distance is millions of times greater. For the travel time to remain the same when all relevant factors are changed is the very opposite of proportionality. The ONLY explanation we have for the very short time delay for the candle case is one that results in an 8min time delay when applied to the Earth and Sun case. So the candle case cannot help you until you can offer a DIFFERENT EXPLANATION for why we see the candle nearly instantly. You need an explanation that is not dependent on the time taken for light to travel from the candle to the observer. But you don't have one, which is why you were resorting to this daft analogy in the first place.

So HOW is the light getting from the Sun to the retina on Earth in a nanosecond, when it needs 8min to get there by traveling?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Of course it matters! See above.

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.

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.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

Bump.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a block Spacemonkey. You haven't carefully analyzed what Lessans was saying regarding the eyes. This really does change the function of light entirely, but you continue to repeat the same thing regarding traveling light, as if my agreeing with you that Lessans was wrong will make you feel better so that you can move on. You have my permission to move on without my agreement.

If you can't answer the questions, just say so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If you can't answer the questions, just say so.

The questions don't apply. That's why I'm not answering them. I spent three years talking to Spacemonkey, and he is determined to prove Lessans wrong. He doesn't realize that he needs to reconsider carefully what these claims are and why they are not non-discoveries. They are real true discoveries, all three of them. I do understand the angst people feel regarding his claim of real time vision. That's why I'm trying to work with people. It's not that mysterious. It was just a mistake by scientists that graduated into fact. It's now sacrosanct and anyone who would have the audacity to dispute this would be considered a loon that needs to be tarred and feathered. Isn't that what you all think? I forgot to mention that today is my father's birthday. He would have been 97. Happy birthday dad! I miss you!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but the pulsar light would not create enough light for the object to be seen at that distance, therefore the light would have to travel closer so that it could be gathered by the lens of this Time-of-Flight camera.

How do you know that? And how bright do you think the object has to be to be seen in real time? In any case, you're wrong. From the Wikipedia article: "For example, the illumination units in many of today's TOF cameras can provide an illumination level of about 1 watt."

1 watt is more than enough illumination to see everything clearly at a distance of several meters. Do you know how bright a 1 watt LED is?

Also, you are saying in effect that "afferent vision" works.

But this does not change how the eyes work. We are able to see the Time-of-Flight image on a screen, but we see this in real time just as we see everything in the external world in real time. We would be unable to see the object that the Time of Flight camera is sending pulsars to because it would not be bright enough even though it may be close enough to be within our optical range.

There is no pulsar in the camera. A pulsar is a star. You mean pulses of light.

Not really. The only thing that is being offered is this alternate explanation as to the direction we see, which creates real time vision. That's it. My father knew this claim would cause anger, but I don't think he knew to what degree.

Real time vision contradicts the known and tested laws of physics. Simple as that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The questions don't apply. That's why I'm not answering them.

But they do apply, as I've explained to you several times. Every time I do so you just ignore me. The questions apply. You just can't answer them.

For instance, one question - regarding the photons YOU have said that YOUR model places at the retina - is whether or not they came from the Sun. Can you explain how this question allegedly doesn't apply???

[ChuckF]

Last week I was in Chicago, and visited The International Museum of Surgical Science, which hosts an exhibit called "Windows to the World: The Science of Sight and the Ophthalmic Art," tracing the history of ophthalmology. It was not quite as engaging as the exhibits on the history of medical imaging or anesthesia, but it had some interesting items.

I also took this picture!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature.

First, pasting text from Lessans' book is not an argument: it is his ideas that are discussed. You only show that you were already just parroting your father.

Second, the talk of God shows Lessans' background idea: we are just obeying God's will. So we are not doing our own will, but God's. So laws of nature are not just descriptions of reality but are the ways that God is compelling us to do what he wants. But this is simply not what modern science and philosophy shows us: there is no compulsion in laws of nature. Compulsion has meaning on the level of agents, be it real humans, or an imaginative God. It has no meaning on the physical level: is a planet forced into its orbit by the gravity of the sun, or does it want to orbit around the sun? The uselessness of the question should show you that saying that we are forced by causality is a wrong application of the word forced.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but would somebody act differently based on the compatibilist idea of what makes him accountable?

Yes, because it is empirically based. It fits to the scientific observations that e.g. background of people plays a role in the measure of accountability of people. It shows that LFW is an incoherent concept, but that that does not mean we are not responsible agents, so that we can make people accountable for their criminal actions by punishing them, especially when it is clear the criminal has all the capabilities that humans can have concerning their moral consciousness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that the freedom that compatibilists use to determine accountability is flawed. In one breath they say we are not free because our choices are caused,

Heh? Where do they say this? Now you are using your empty definition of free will again!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we don't make the right moral choice, we are blameworthy and held responsible in a court of law which is no different than the punishment dished out by libertarians.

It is different: compatibilists do not believe in ultimate responsibility and absolute desert.

More later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But they do apply, as I've explained to you several times. Every time I do so you just ignore me. The questions apply. You just can't answer them.

For instance, one question - regarding the photons YOU have said that YOUR model places at the retina - is whether or not they came from the Sun. Can you explain how this question allegedly doesn't apply???

That question may apply, but your constant bumping of the same post in the hope that it will disprove the claim doesn't work because it doesn't apply. Both accounts of sight have the photons at the retina or film. The only difference is that one is delayed and the other the wavelength/frequency is already at the retina IF THE OBJECT CAN BE SEEN. You keep asking how can the same photons (the photons that have the wavelength/frequency of the object) be at the eye when they haven't gotten there yet? That is not applicable.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That question may apply...

Right, so kindly go through my questions and answer the ones that apply. Feel free to identify any you still think don't apply, and be sure to explain why you think this.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature.

Originally Posted by GdB

First, pasting text from Lessans' book is not an argument: it is his ideas that are discussed. You only show that you were already just parroting your father.

Um, I disagree with that. Just because I cut and paste when I think it's appropriate does not mean I am parroting my father without understanding what he is saying. That's baloney.

Originally Posted by GdB

Second, the talk of God shows Lessans' background idea: we are just obeying God's will. So we are not doing our own will, but God's.

Of course we are obeying God's will. He clarified the term God. We are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Try to go outside of the laws of nature, and see if you can do it. You are confusing the fact that our will is still our will; we decide, but this will of ours is not free because we cannot choose anything we want. We must choose the option that gives us greater satisfaction, not what gives us lesser satisfaction, in any given situation where we must weigh alternatives.

Originally Posted by GdB

So laws of nature are not just descriptions of reality but are the ways that God is compelling us to do what he wants.

It's not what he wants. It's what we want, but we are controlled by laws that were set in motion. Again, the word God can bring up connotations of something that Lessans did not intend, but it is a word that I happen to like. If you don't like it, replace it with universe.

Originally Posted by GdB

But this is simply not what modern science and philosophy shows us: there is no compulsion in laws of nature. Compulsion has meaning on the level of agents, be it real humans, or an imaginative God. It has no meaning on the physical level: is a planet forced into its orbit by the gravity of the sun, or does it want to orbit around the sun? The uselessness of the question should show you that saying that we are forced by causality is a wrong application of the word forced.

I already said that the term "forced" implies we have no control. This is not what Lessans' proposition is about. We have the ability to choose, which was explained in the tract. But the choice is ultimately not a free one which is why the word choice is misleading because it assumes we have two or more possibilities, which we don't really have. It's a delusion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but would somebody act differently based on the compatibilist idea of what makes him accountable?

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, because it is empirically based. It fits to the scientific observations that e.g. background of people plays a role in the measure of accountability of people. It shows that LFW is an incoherent concept, but that that does not mean we are not responsible agents, so that we can make people accountable for their criminal actions by punishing them, especially when it is clear the criminal has all the capabilities that humans can have concerning their moral consciousness.

No one is saying we are not responsible agents in the way you are using this term. If we caused an accident, we are responsible because we turned the wheel and hit the other car. But we are not responsible if this was the only choice we could have made at that moment. You will not understand the significance of this until you read Chapter Two, which contains the two-sided equation. I can talk myself blue in the face. All you will continue to do is defend your position, which is understandable given the fact that we must hold people accountable or our society would be in worse shape. BUT THERE IS A BETTER WAY.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that the freedom that compatibilists use to determine accountability is flawed. In one breath they say we are not free because our choices are caused,

Originally Posted by GdB

Heh? Where do they say this? Now you are using your empty definition of free will again!

No GdB, you are playing again with semantics, that's all you're doing, but I get why you will not accept the idea that man is not responsible for what he does, for then we cannot hold him accountable. Seriously though, if I am caused to do what I do by factors beyond my control, how can I be free in any sense of the word?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we don't make the right moral choice, we are blameworthy and held responsible in a court of law which is no different than the punishment dished out by libertarians.

Originally Posted by GdB

It is different: compatibilists do not believe in ultimate responsibility and absolute desert.

More later.

Right, and that's a good thing but there is still a discrepancy in how they use the term "free" to justify the blameworthiness that follows when certain behaviors are acted upon. But what if blaming people prevents the very behavior that everyone wants? Just answer the question.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that it can't be used. It can be used, but it can only go so far at rectifying the causes that lead people to crime. Compassion and rehabilitation can go a long way by allowing people to see the harm their actions have caused and to WANT to make changes. This is a much better approach than punishment. But rehabilitation no matter how good concentrates on a person after the crime is committed. This book shows how to prevent the crime in the first place. Which one would you choose?

You make the same error as classical economists: to assume that humans always act rational. But how to deal with crime is a topic that comes after we have found what kind of free will people do have. Our prevention strategies should amongst others be based on this fact. I think you would not like to prevent crime by cutting our free will down, so it is important to flesh out what kind of free will we have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not my definition; it is the standard dictionary definition.

Wiktionary:

1. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.
2. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

• the ​ability to ​decide what to do ​independently of any ​outside ​influence

Dictionary.com

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Here we see a glimpse of LFW.

Merriam-Webster

1. the ability to choose how to act
2. the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God

The free dictionary:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

Here is a clear reference to LFW.

Oxford

• The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

So: yes, there are a few references to problems with causality, but interesting enough, always in the second definition. So to say it is 'the standard dictionary definition' is definely wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The libertarian notion of free will is more consistent than CFW (even though it's completely flawed) because a person's choices can't be caused and free at the same time.

Again, you take your own definition as touchstone. In other words, you say here that I am wrong because I think something else than you do. Of course LFW seems more consistent when you think LFW is the correct definition of free will. But I already showed that LFW is inherently incoherent, so LFW simply does not exist, cannot exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say you are a determinist; that we can't choose otherwise because every choice is based on antecedent causes, so how can any choice be free?

I told you several times: you say CFW is wrong because it is not LFW.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with this, but what if a person in a similar situation doesn't want to do otherwise, then what? Is his will free to do what he doesn't want to do?

The question is nearly too stupid to answer: find for me the disctionary definition that says that having free will means that you do what you do not want to do. Good luck.
What is the case that somebody else, in nearly the same situation, did otherwise because he wanted to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am compelled, by my nature, to choose the most preferable (or satisfying) in my eyes.

I think this is an absurdity in the eyes of LFWers, CFWers, and free will sceptics. Being compelled by what I want is misuse of the word compelled.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It IS the correct definition. Free to act is contradictory if we are not free of causes.

Yeaaas... It is real magic.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um, I disagree with that. Just because I cut and paste when I think it's appropriate does not mean I am parroting my father without understanding what he is saying. That's baloney.

Just to set it straight: I saw you use exactly the same words again and again: 'Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned'. And that sentence is just bullshit as it stands.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking how can the same photons (the photons that have the wavelength/frequency of the object) be at the eye when they haven't gotten there yet? That is not applicable.

Why??

Also, Bump

Originally Posted by But

How do you know that? And how bright do you think the object has to be to be seen in real time? In any case, you're wrong. From the Wikipedia article: "For example, the illumination units in many of today's TOF cameras can provide an illumination level of about 1 watt."

1 watt is more than enough illumination to see everything clearly at a distance of several meters. Do you know how bright a 1 watt LED is?

Also, you are saying in effect that "afferent vision" works.

There is no pulsar in the camera. A pulsar is a star. You mean pulses of light.

Real time vision contradicts the known and tested laws of physics. Simple as that.

[Vivisectus]

How do you know what I'm prone to? You aren't walking in my shoes. I can accept or reject your suggestions, but to judge me as lazy is a critical judgment that isn't valid. And what double standard are you talking about? I'm not asking anyone to do something that I'm not also doing. I told you that writing a blog sounds interesting, but you are setting up a standard for me as to the time frame I should begin. Who are you to set a standard for my life?

Who am I to set a standard for your life? Well, someone who believes your book of course. As you have pointed out repeatedly, there is an objective standard for what is good and what is bad: some things constitute a harm or a hurt, others simply do not: there is no grey area here, and certainly no relative positions.

It is dealing with these objective harms, hurts or bad things that is going to solve the problem of evil. According to the book, no-one would be able to justify amusing themselves online for their own personal entertainment when they had important work around ridding the world of evil to do because they would know they would never be blamed for doing what they are compelled to do by their own free will.

And yet here you are. So either:

1: The book is wrong. This can be rejected offhand.
2: You believe you will be blamed. Hard to see how this could be true: you and I are the only people who believe the book, and how could anyone blame you for not doing anything about something they do not believe in anyway?
3: You do not believe in the book. This leads us down a bit of a philosophical maze, i think.

I think we can agree that if a person had the cure for a disease in their pocket and did not give it to a sick person, that this constitutes a harm. The sick person could justifiable retaliate, by taking it, for instance.

So what if the person who has the medicine does not really believe it will work, and the sick person does? The person holding the medicine is doing no harm: he does not believe withholding it can do any harm. The person who is sick can still justifiable take it: he believes it will save his life.

How can we reconcile this with the book?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, the problem is that this means that it now seems we have not solved the problem of evil. Apparently it is perfectly possible to simply deny responsibility and just choose whatever makes you feel good, rather than what needs to happen. This is hard to reconcile with my new-found unshakable belief that the book is right: it contradicts some of what it says about what would happen if we institute a basic wage, for instance.

I am reluctant to begin

That much is obvious.

, as I have other obligations and I don't want to overwhelm myself. Stress is not good for me. Yes, I could get off this thread and start to think about what I'm going to write, but I'm just not mentally there yet.

It is not my responsibility (no one put me in charge) to be the sole person to bring this knowledge to light (that's too much pressure); the fact is I feel compelled to share this knowledge any way I can.

But you only feel compelled to do so in ways you actually like.

I'm also happy that you are interested; all we need is a thousand more like you and we have a shot of this going viral.

Basically, all we need is a bunch of other people to do all the work.

The other reason for not rushing to blog is that this is a marathon. It is not a sprint. I don't feel that anything I do is going to make that much difference in this short span of time. Delaying blog entries by a few months is not going to stop the new world from coming about when the time is right. After all, God is never early, but he's never late.

If more people shared your idea of what constitutes rushing, then grand prix continental drift would be an exciting spectator sport.