Here are my questions for you to answer. Again, in your own words, simple and direct. Isn't this the discussion you wanted about the first chapter?
Why is human will not free?
How do you know human will is not free?
How was this observed?
Who was observed?
Do you have any logical argument (that follows some accepted logical format of premises and conclusion) to support your claim?
How do we know Lessans observations are accurate and apply to all people?
How might we go about ascertaining for ourselves that Lessans observations are accurate?
If it followed that the only way to acquire knowledge is through light transmission of all information, then, yes, I would be wrong. But that's not the case because efferent vision (which is not in competition with the speed of light) was not what SR was referring to.
Efferent vision means information is acquired instantly. SR says that information, of any kind, cannot be transferred instantly by any means (light or otherwise).
So, the onus is on you to explain the mechanism or means by which instant information acquirement happens and why the eyes and brain are somehow exempt from the laws of physics.
To do so, you either have to claim SR is wrong (which means you have to come up with a whole new theory of reality to replace it), or you have to assume magic/miracle, or you have to have found a previously unknown principle of physics that allows instantaneous information gathering but somehow remains compatible with SR (which would be most likely to come from the world of Quantum Mechanics). Which is it?
You are setting me up to fail based on your interpretation of what SR means, not because Lessans was wrong. If there is no transmission of information through light (which is what, I believe, is meant by "information cannot travel faster than the speed of light"), then this physical law does not apply to Lessans. It's not that I am asking you to make an exception. It's just that his observations don't fit into the definition. You're going to continue to say he was wrong, but it's your interpretation that's wrong.
Here are my questions for you to answer. Again, in your own words, simple and direct. Isn't this the discussion you wanted about the first chapter?
Why is human will not free?
How do you know human will is not free?
How was this observed?
Who was observed?
Do you have any logical argument (that follows some accepted logical format of premises and conclusion) to support your claim?
How do we know Lessans observations are accurate and apply to all people?
How might we go about ascertaining for ourselves that Lessans observations are accurate?
Of course there is a logical argument; dare I say mathematical argument and you won't let me live it down. The only way I can continue in here is if people meet me halfway, and commit to reading one chapter at a time. Then we can discuss the chapters as each builds on the other.
You are still using empirical critera to evaluate his work, when I said all along that this is not the way he derived his answers. Therefore, you are going to have to put aside the questions that demand empirical proof, and carefully read his observations (without judgement), giving him the benefit of the doubt so the book can be read in an unbiased way. If you are too quick to critique this work, as I told Vivisectus, you are going to miss it because your focus will be on finding flaws rather than trying to understand what is being expressed. You can't do both at the same time. If after reading the book through, and you still are not sure if his premises are 100% accurate, then it's appropriate to ask for empirical testing. But you don't give up on a book just because he didn't use empirical methodology to uncover a finding. That's crazy altogether.
If there is no transmission of information through light (which is what, I believe, is meant by "information cannot travel faster than the speed of light")
No, that is not what is meant. Are you purposefully misunderstanding?
According to relativity, and also causality FYI (so two principles of physics you are dealing with) information of any kind cannot be conveyed between two points instantaneously by any means. According to relativity there is no such thing as real time, at all. According to causality there is no possibility of simultaneity of the cause and the effect. In the case of seeing the cause is the object existing and having properties and the effect is gaining knowledge of the properties and existence of said object that is being seen.
It doesn't matter what the information is, it doesn't matter what the two points are (an object being seen and the brain doing the seeing are two points).
Here are my questions for you to answer. Again, in your own words, simple and direct. Isn't this the discussion you wanted about the first chapter?
Why is human will not free?
How do you know human will is not free?
How was this observed?
Who was observed?
Do you have any logical argument (that follows some accepted logical format of premises and conclusion) to support your claim?
How do we know Lessans observations are accurate and apply to all people?
How might we go about ascertaining for ourselves that Lessans observations are accurate?
Of course there is a logical argument; dare I say mathematical argument and you won't let me live it down. The only way I can continue in here is if people meet me halfway, and commit to reading one chapter at a time. Then we can discuss the chapters as each builds on the other.
You are still using empirical critera to evaluate his work, when I said all along that this is not the way he derived his answers. Therefore, you are going to have to put aside the questions that demand empirical proof, and carefully read his observations (without judgement), giving him the benefit of the doubt so the book can be read in an unbiased way. If you are too quick to critique this work, as I told Vivisectus, you are going to miss it because your focus will be on finding flaws rather than trying to understand what is being expressed. You can't do both at the same time. If after reading the book through, and you still are not sure if his premises are 100% accurate, then it's appropriate to ask for empirical testing. But you don't give up on a book just because he didn't use empirical methodology to uncover a finding. That's crazy altogether.
My questions make no mention of empirical data at all. I did that on purpose in the hopes to prevent you using that tired old weasel, and still, you are weaseling out of the most basic questions any intelligent person will have after reading only the section on free will.
I would like to see a logical argument in an acceptable format of premises and conclusion that does not commit any of the common logical fallacies.
So, let's see it. Put up or shut up
FYI. I know of no empirical tests that could even begin to measure "greater satisfaction" or gather any objective data about greater satisfaction. So, the best I can hope for here is a non-fallacious logical argument.
it followed that the only way to acquire knowledge is through light transmission of all information, then, yes, I would be wrong. But that's not the case because efferent vision (which is not in competition with the speed of light) was not what SR was referring to. Get over it David. You lose, and because you lose, all of us win.
No, pissgirl, you've missed the point again. Light is irrelevant to the argument. How we see is irrelevant to the argument. SR prevents instantaneous information acquisition by ANY MEANS. So, there can be no instantaenous information acquistion even if sight is "efferent," which of course it is not, since the anatomy and function of the eye rule out this possbility.
Not true LadyShea. His explanation was based on observations that were much more than a childlike response. These observations were related to years of study and analysis.
Yes, indeed, years of study and analysis hustling pool in the local beer garden after dropping out of school in the seventh grade.
The truth is "we see what we see when we see it...BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT. That is a true statement.
This sums up, more elegantly than perhaps any of us could, why Lessans' ideas, which are of course your ideas, are so completely wrong. When you start from a worthless tautology like this, ANY ideas of sight can grow from it, regardless of how flawed or how little they match reality. And, since you and he both accept what he spouts as God's Own Truth, you will never be able to understand WHY those ideas are incorrect.
You know that wasn't the full explanation Kael. It was only in opposition to the afferent model which claims we see nothing directly.
In fact, it IS the full explanation. Whenever you are pressed for details, examples, or precise mechanisms, you always come back to some form of this statement. "If it's big enough and bright enough, we can see it." You do not understand why this statement is the same as the one above. That's the whole problem. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you wouldn't be so completely invested in a set of ideas that grows entirely out of ridiculous tautologies like this.
This is not a tautology. I can only give you his careful observations, which, to everyone here, means that he had no proof, no support, no evidence, no nothing. This whole thing is stemming from the deeply held belief that his claim of efferent vision is just an assertion unless he could offer an exact mechanism as to how efferent sight works. His observations didn't require that he have an exact mechanism, although it would have offered support for his claim. Empirical proof will be the final judge. All this back and forth debate won't give us the answers; only time will.
it followed that the only way to acquire knowledge is through light transmission of all information, then, yes, I would be wrong. But that's not the case because efferent vision (which is not in competition with the speed of light) was not what SR was referring to. Get over it David. You lose, and because you lose, all of us win.
No, pissgirl, you've missed the point again. Light is irrelevant to the argument. How we see is irrelevant to the argument. SR prevents instantaneous information acquisition by ANY MEANS. So, there can be no instantaenous information acquistion even if sight is "efferent," which of course it is not, since the anatomy and function of the eye rule out this possbility.
If you want to get technical, there is no instant transfer of information because the brain has to process what it is seeing, which involves a transfer of information from one synapse to another. But we know this is not what SR means.
Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference.
it followed that the only way to acquire knowledge is through light transmission of all information, then, yes, I would be wrong. But that's not the case because efferent vision (which is not in competition with the speed of light) was not what SR was referring to. Get over it David. You lose, and because you lose, all of us win.
No, pissgirl, you've missed the point again. Light is irrelevant to the argument. How we see is irrelevant to the argument. SR prevents instantaneous information acquisition by ANY MEANS. So, there can be no instantaenous information acquistion even if sight is "efferent," which of course it is not, since the anatomy and function of the eye rule out this possbility.
If you want to get technical, there is no instant transfer of information because the brain has to process what it is seeing, which involves a transfer of information from one synapse to another. But we know this is not what SR means.
Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference.
Oh, look, she did a Google and a copy and paste! Isn't that precious!
SR places a firm limit on the ability to acquire information. When God turns on the sun, that is information: We find out that the sun is turned on, which is new information.
The speed limit of acquiring this information, regardless of HOW we see, is c.
Lessans said we obtain the information instantaneously.
SR is a well-confirmed theory. It is in direct conflict with Lessans' claim.
Here are my questions for you to answer. Again, in your own words, simple and direct. Isn't this the discussion you wanted about the first chapter?
Why is human will not free?
How do you know human will is not free?
How was this observed?
Who was observed?
Do you have any logical argument (that follows some accepted logical format of premises and conclusion) to support your claim?
How do we know Lessans observations are accurate and apply to all people?
How might we go about ascertaining for ourselves that Lessans observations are accurate?
Of course there is a logical argument; dare I say mathematical argument and you won't let me live it down. The only way I can continue in here is if people meet me halfway, and commit to reading one chapter at a time. Then we can discuss the chapters as each builds on the other.
You are still using empirical critera to evaluate his work, when I said all along that this is not the way he derived his answers. Therefore, you are going to have to put aside the questions that demand empirical proof, and carefully read his observations (without judgement), giving him the benefit of the doubt so the book can be read in an unbiased way. If you are too quick to critique this work, as I told Vivisectus, you are going to miss it because your focus will be on finding flaws rather than trying to understand what is being expressed. You can't do both at the same time. If after reading the book through, and you still are not sure if his premises are 100% accurate, then it's appropriate to ask for empirical testing. But you don't give up on a book just because he didn't use empirical methodology to uncover a finding. That's crazy altogether.
My questions make no mention of empirical data at all. I did that on purpose in the hopes to prevent you using that tired old weasel, and still, you are weaseling out of the most basic questions any intelligent person will have after reading only the section on free will.
I would like to see a logical argument in an acceptable format of premises and conclusion that does not commit any of the common logical fallacies.
So, let's see it. Put up or shut up
FYI. I know of no empirical tests that could even begin to measure "greater satisfaction" or gather any objective data about greater satisfaction. So, the best I can hope for here is a non-fallacious logical argument.
LadyShea, I have come to the conclusion that you're not going to understand this book no matter what I say, not because you aren't capable. You are very capable, but because you can't seem to get away from your method of critiquing what is true, and what isn't, you will never be able to see the validity of his work, or get anything out of it. Your method of taking sentences out of context clued me in to the way you strip a book down to where it doesn't even resemble what it stands for. And you do this in good conscience, thinking your methodology is correct. I have no way of giving you what you want; lab results from the gathering of data. If you can't put this method of analysis aside, we can't move forward. You need to accept his premises to read the book, otherwise you won't get past page 5, which you haven't. Empirical evidence is the final arbiter, but there's a long way to go before we get there.
Here are my questions for you to answer. Again, in your own words, simple and direct. Isn't this the discussion you wanted about the first chapter?
Why is human will not free?
How do you know human will is not free?
How was this observed?
Who was observed?
Do you have any logical argument (that follows some accepted logical format of premises and conclusion) to support your claim?
How do we know Lessans observations are accurate and apply to all people?
How might we go about ascertaining for ourselves that Lessans observations are accurate?
Of course there is a logical argument; dare I say mathematical argument and you won't let me live it down. The only way I can continue in here is if people meet me halfway, and commit to reading one chapter at a time. Then we can discuss the chapters as each builds on the other.
You are still using empirical critera to evaluate his work, when I said all along that this is not the way he derived his answers. Therefore, you are going to have to put aside the questions that demand empirical proof, and carefully read his observations (without judgement), giving him the benefit of the doubt so the book can be read in an unbiased way. If you are too quick to critique this work, as I told Vivisectus, you are going to miss it because your focus will be on finding flaws rather than trying to understand what is being expressed. You can't do both at the same time. If after reading the book through, and you still are not sure if his premises are 100% accurate, then it's appropriate to ask for empirical testing. But you don't give up on a book just because he didn't use empirical methodology to uncover a finding. That's crazy altogether.
My questions make no mention of empirical data at all. I did that on purpose in the hopes to prevent you using that tired old weasel, and still, you are weaseling out of the most basic questions any intelligent person will have after reading only the section on free will.
I would like to see a logical argument in an acceptable format of premises and conclusion that does not commit any of the common logical fallacies.
So, let's see it. Put up or shut up
FYI. I know of no empirical tests that could even begin to measure "greater satisfaction" or gather any objective data about greater satisfaction. So, the best I can hope for here is a non-fallacious logical argument.
LadyShea, I have come to the conclusion that you're not going to understand this book no matter what I say, not because you aren't capable. You are very capable, but because you can't seem to get away from your method of critiquing what is true, and what isn't, you will never be able to see the validity of his work, or get anything out of it. Your method of taking sentences out of context clued me in to the way you strip a book down to where it doesn't even resemble what it stands for. And you do this in good conscience, thinking your methodology is correct. I have no way of giving you what you want; lab results from the gathering of data. If you can't put this method of analysis aside, we can't move forward. You need to accept his premises to read the book, otherwise you won't get past page 5, which you haven't. Empirical evidence is the final arbiter, but there's a long way to go before we get there.
You see, LadyShea? You have to agree that The Crazy Man is correct, before you can see that he is correct. You use your brain in good conscience; you need to put aside this method of thinking and drink peacegirl's KoolAid instead.
Lessans gave his reasoning and observations in the book. It is not a tautology. My answer in here might have sounded circular, but that's because I cannot dispute what everyone believes is an established fact. .
I know what a tautology is, but Lessans gave his reasoning and observations in the book. It is not a tautology. My answer in here might have sounded circular, but that's not the answer that Lessans gave. Even you don't agree with his explanation, it was not a tautology, and neither was his explanation of determinism a tautology.
How about sharing your explanation of how it is possible to see the reflected light of the moon instantly when God turns on the sun, but not the reflected light of your neighbor until eight and a half minutes have passed?
How about sharing your explanation of how one can acquire information instantaneously without violating SR?
How about sharing your explanation of how you have said that the camera both does, and does not, take pictures in real time?
I know what a tautology is, but Lessans gave his reasoning and observations in the book. It is not a tautology. My answer in here might have sounded circular, but that's not the answer that Lessans gave. Even you don't agree with his explanation, it was not a tautology, and neither was his explanation of determinism a tautology.
Hey, at least she had the common decency to edit out "I know what a tautology is". Maybe all y'all's efforts are finally starting to bear fruit. Perhaps a smidgen of honesty has crept past peacegirl's formidable defenses.
.....
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Lessans gave his reasoning and observations in the book
Which were presented as a tautology. If they aren't tautological, then please lay out a formal logical argument for why human will is not free according to Lessans in the format
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
