A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for the clarification. We're in agreement that genes are passed from parent to offspring as children reach puberty.

Gah! No they aren't! Genes are passed from parent to offspring at conception. Puberty takes place many years later, and does not involve transmission of genes from parent to offspring.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Gah! No they aren't! Genes are passed from parent to offspring at conception. Puberty takes place many years later, and does not involve transmission of genes from parent to offspring.

Doesn't the sperm and egg carry the genetic traits that have been passed down from parent to child? We're getting off track although it's an interesting topic. This discussion came about because people were making fun of the term "germinal substance" which only means the substance contained in the male and female anatomy at puberty (spermatozoa and ovum) that allow fertilization to take place and the circle of life to continue on.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely misunderstanding this concept. I didn't say the past didn't occur, but we can only access it through our memories.

We can access it through more than memories, there is physical evidence of the past....fossils, sediment layers, photographs and other manmade records, hell even ancient bacteria, alive, but trapped in salt crystals.

We cannot go to the past.

Nobody said we can go to the past.

The present doesn't turn into the past.

Events that are happening in the present become events that happened in the past. The present is just a concept as well, it doesn't exist physically either.

There is no such thing as the past in reality because the present is where we reside at each and every moment of our lives.

There is no such thing as the present in reality either. All that can be said is that things have a state, and the state of things changes constantly.



My very perceptive father told me his astute observation years ago when he explained that the actual nature and mechanics of time is a big old mindfuck, and we have to make do with our inadequate language and models. You seem stuck on the language...the definition of dimension does not include anything about physical existence. It means a measurable extent. We can measure duration and elapsed intervals with clocks and calendars, therefore time is a dimension.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely misunderstanding this concept. I didn't say the past didn't occur, but we can only access it through our memories.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can access it through more than memories, there is physical evidence of the past....fossils, sediment layers, photographs and other manmade records, hell even ancient bacteria, alive, but trapped in salt crystals.

Of course artifacts are found from the past, but what does that have to do with the fact that we can't do anything outside of the present? These geologists and archaeologists are finding these sediment layers and fossils in the present, not the past.

We cannot go to the past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody said we can go to the past.

David said we can't yet go to the past because of technical difficulties! But we could go to the future!

The present doesn't turn into the past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Events that are happening in the present become events that happened in the past. The present is just a concept as well, it doesn't exist physically either.

Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present. I will never be able to catapult to the future and call it "now" on a timeline that doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as the past in reality because the present is where we reside at each and every moment of our lives.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such thing as the present in reality either. All that can be said is that things have a state, and the state of things changes constantly.

Wrong! We can look back at the past, or look forward to the future, but there is no state of things that move from the past to the future on a dimensional line.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My very perceptive father told me his astute observation years ago when he explained that the actual nature and mechanics of time is a big old mindfuck, and we have to make do with our inadequate language and models.

Nope, you can't blame the nature and mechanics of time on the inadequacy of language. NOW is all there is. We can't live on a timeline called "the past" or "the future" and say it is someone else's now. This is pure crackpottery.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I've no idea - you won't tell me! You just waffle word salads when anyone asks.

Any involving relativity now you've ditched it. How about we start with observed muon counts at sea level?

I never heard of muons at sea level. So what? That doesn't prove that time dilation exists. There are other possibilities for this phenomenon, but no one is looking because they've already concluded that it's due to time dilation. Einstein said so.

I hope not. It's the most drawn out unproductive thread ever. All they need to do is study the book, which is 3 times shorter than this thread.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So how many people have studied the book so far? Because all I've seen are people laughing at it.

No one who is knowledgeable on the topic of free will and determinism has actually studied this work carefully. The people in here told me that determinism is a modal fallacy, which is completely wrong and I explained why it's wrong. Do you think anyone is listening? They also said that his "greater satisfaction" principle is a tautology. Yes, whatever you choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this doesn't make this principle meaningless, especially when you understand that the change in environmental conditions will force a change in behavior which will ultimately force a change in the direction our world is traveling.

That's not my fault. People have given a false portrayal of his character and his life's work.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's half your fault - you are arrogant, ignorant and dishonest. The other half is that Lessans was arrogant and ignorant.

And you wonder why people are laughing? You're contributing to the lulz because it's easy.

Put your money where your mouth is and show me the proof. There is none.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Proof isn't for science.

That's such a cop-out. If that were true, then why the closed-mindedness? Why not wait for further evidence before you tell me he was wrong? You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So you think I'm typing in the past? It's funny how people can take a spot on observation (that all we have is the present moment) and turn it into fantasy, all because of false inferences and unsound logic.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

See what I mean people? He can't even begin to address the question because he has no understanding of the principles. You are such a

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't" and in this case I'm not going to bother to go back and find the passage in the book to copy paste for Peacegirl. I read the book and understand what Lessans was trying to say, even though his efforts were very poorly constructed and the product of very little thought. Most of the time I was at a loss to understand his connections, because one idea did not lead to the next in many cases, and that is a product of understanding the individual ideas, but there was no connection to the next.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time for some comic relief.

You are the comic relief.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't" and in this case I'm not going to bother to go back and find the passage in the book to copy paste for Peacegirl.

Because you don't have any. You're weaseling. Is that all you remember about modal fallacy? Determinism the way my father explains it does not predict what a person will choose before it's chosen. Determinism doesn't predict that someone has to necessarily choose eggs over cereal, for example. This would be very easy to disprove. But what it does prove is that whatever choice is made (even the choice to prove a point by not eating what is predicted) could not have been otherwise. There is no modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I read the book and understand what Lessans was trying to say

Sure you do; maybe in your dreams.

Originally Posted by thedoc

, even though his efforts were very poorly constructed and the product of very little thought.

I'm cracking up right now. If you were taking a course, you'd fail the exam.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Most of the time I was at a loss to understand his connections, because one idea did not lead to the next in many cases, and that is a product of understanding the individual ideas, but there was no connection to the next.

What the *#$* are you talking about? There are no non-sequiturs. Is the reason you are being vague because you have nothing to support your ridiculous comments? Give me an example of where there was no connection to the next, and I will eat my words. I compiled this work so I should know what's in it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not wait for further evidence before you tell me he was wrong? You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

If you have any evidence, produce it, bring it out into the light of day, and then I will believe that the evidence exists.

[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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$* are you talking about. Give me an example.

Dogs recognizing their master in a photograph, whether they can or cannot, proves neither afferent vision or efferent vision. Those are just two of Lessans disconnected concepts that does not prove what he thought it did. Brains don't store photographs, but both human and animal brains store memories. Brains don't project words and images onto the external world, but both human and animal brains store memories of the external world. Both human and animal brains connect words and images internally, not externally. BTY it has been demonstrated that both humans and some animals can recognize and understand words, spoken or written. Look it up, unless you are afraid of the truth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present.

An event is happening in the present...that doesn't make the present more than an immaterial concept.

Wrong! We can look back at the past, or look forward to the future, but there is no state of things that move from the past to the future on a dimensional line.

What did I say that was wrong? I said nothing like what you are refuting. I said the present is the state of things. That's what it is.

Nope, you can't blame the nature and mechanics of time on the inadequacy of language. NOW is all there is. We can't live on a timeline called "the past" or "the future" and say it is someone else's now. This is pure crackpottery.

What does living on a timeline called the past have to do with anything at all and what does it even mean? Nobody is arguing that we can live on a timeline called the past or future...what the fuck? It's not even a strawman it's so far from what anyone is talking about.

You wonder why people call you an idiot?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never heard of muons at sea level. So what? That doesn't prove that time dilation exists.

It doesn't matter - we can explain it, calculate it, predict it. You can't. Science works, Lessans fails. And you sure make a lot of pronouncement about something you've never heard of (and failed to look up).

No one who is knowledgeable on the topic of free will and determinism has actually studied this work carefully. The people in here told me that determinism is a modal fallacy, which is completely wrong and I explained why it's wrong.

You'd be surprised. But anyway, you didn't explain - you just demonstrated you don't even understand what a modal fallacy is. More laughing at you.

And you wonder why people are laughing? You're contributing to the lulz because it's easy.

I don't wonder! I know full well why people are laughing - you're an ignorant, dishonest arrogant fool making grand pronouncements. You say some very funny things. I think Lessans said funnier ones, particularly about his new world and sex.

That's such a cop-out. If that were true, then why the closed-mindedness? Why not wait for further evidence before you tell me he was wrong? You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Nope, not close mindedness - we just don't have the time to waste trying to test crackpot theories. Particularly ones that don't even explain anything. And especially ones that have already been ruled out. Or ones dogmatically lead by an emotionally invested liar who ignores any empirical evidence she doesn't like anyway.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Dogs recognizing their master in a photograph, whether they can or cannot, proves neither afferent vision or efferent vision.

That wasn't his proof and if you had read the chapter you would know that. The reason a dog can't recognize his master from a picture is because this traveling light is not being interpreted as an image in his brain. It is true that a dog's brain is different than a human's, which is the point he was making because this leads into his explanation as to why humans can recognize individuals and dogs can't.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Those are just two of Lessans disconnected concepts that does not prove what he thought it did. Brains don't store photographs, but both human and animal brains store memories. Brains don't project words and images onto the external world, but both human and animal brains store memories of the external world. Both human and animal brains connect words and images internally, not externally. BTY it has been demonstrated that both humans and some animals can recognize and understand words, spoken or written. Look it up, unless you are afraid of the truth.

I'm not afraid of the truth because I know what the truth is. You said his words don't connect. Where in this excerpt do his words not connect? I am not talking about whether you agree or not, but only about whether what he is saying connects or not since this seems to be one of your big beefs.

p. 123 Let us
get back to our discussion to observe how our brain operates.
At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.
When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.
A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.

If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking
any person who should open the fence at night were to have two
senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, he would actually
have amnesia and even though he saw with his eyes his master come
through the gate he would have no way of recognizing him and would
attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations
that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early
age.

The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words. To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. I am typing right now, in the present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

An event is happening in the present...that doesn't make the present more than an immaterial concept.

And immaterial concepts can be correct. Obviously, these concepts aren't physical.

Wrong! We can look back at the past, or look forward to the future, but there is no state of things that move from the past to the future on a dimensional line.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What did I say that was wrong? I said nothing like what you are refuting. I said the present is the state of things. That's what it is.

It is the only state of things. You are saying this as if there is another state one can be.

Nope, you can't blame the nature and mechanics of time on the inadequacy of language. NOW is all there is. We can't live on a timeline called "the past" or "the future" and say it is someone else's now. This is pure crackpottery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does living on a timeline called the past have to do with anything at all and what does it even mean? Nobody is arguing that we can live on a timeline called the past or future...what the fuck? It's not even a strawman it's so far from what anyone is talking about.

You wonder why people call you an idiot?

LadyShea, don't play these semantic games with me and then act like you're all that. I know what David was saying and it doesn't fly, okay? There is no time dimension where a person's inertial frame of reference can take him to a different "now" which is further up on the timeline.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It doesn't matter - we can explain it, calculate it, predict it. You can't. Science works, Lessans fails. And you sure make a lot of pronouncement about something you've never heard of (and failed to look up).

You'd be surprised. But anyway, you didn't explain - you just demonstrated you don't even understand what a modal fallacy is. More laughing at you.

I don't wonder! I know full well why people are laughing - you're an ignorant, dishonest arrogant fool making grand pronouncements. You say some very funny things. I think Lessans said funnier ones, particularly about his new world and sex.

Nope, not close mindedness - we just don't have the time to waste trying to test crackpot theories. Particularly ones that don't even explain anything. And especially ones that have already been ruled out. Or ones dogmatically lead by an emotionally invested liar who ignores any empirical evidence she doesn't like anyway.

If you don't like what I'm saying, then go. You're wasting a lot of time here. I can tell that you did not read any part of this book. His new world and sex? What are you talking about? You are counting on the people in here to clue you in? You are more gullible than I thought. And believe you me, what I am sharing is not dogma. It is anything but.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Dogs recognizing their master in a photograph, whether they can or cannot, proves neither afferent vision or efferent vision. Those are just two of Lessans disconnected concepts that does not prove what he thought it did. Brains don't store photographs, but both human and animal brains store memories. Brains don't project words and images onto the external world, but both human and animal brains store memories of the external world. Both human and animal brains connect words and images internally, not externally. BTY it has been demonstrated that both humans and some animals can recognize and understand words, spoken or written. Look it up, unless you are afraid of the truth.

Maybe animals can recognize and understand words, spoken or written. We know they can understand certain commands and they can also identify certain objects by their names. That still doesn't prove that dogs can identify their masters without other cues. I'd like to see a dog read and react to what it says. That would be cool!

[ceptimus]

Starts at about 1:46

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe animals can recognize and understand words, spoken or written. We know they can understand certain commands and they can also identify certain objects by their names. That still doesn't prove that dogs can identify their masters without other cues. I'd like to see a dog read and react to what it says. That would be cool!

When it comes to non sequiturs I guess the apple didn't fall far from the tree. PG definitely has a way of completely avoiding the point.

[thedoc]

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize
his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve.

Lessans is stating that the eyes are not sense organs, and that the brain looks out through the eyes to see the external world, and somehow dogs, not being able to recognize it's master in a photo, proves this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And immaterial concepts can be correct. Obviously, these concepts aren't physical.

Right, that's my point. So, why are you requiring physicality for the past and future to say they exist when you think the present exists even though it isn't physical either?

What's the difference between the present, past, and future that you say one exists and the other two do not?

It is the only state of things. You are saying this as if there is another state one can be.

The state of things is constantly changing, and we can observe the changes. Or is your current state that of a newborn infant?

LadyShea, don't play these semantic games with me and then act like you're all that.

What semantic games? I am not davidm so quit conflating my points with his. I am coming only from a pragmatic, everyday perspective here, not a physics one.

[LadyShea]

Baboons Can Learn Words (Nat Geo video)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His new world and sex? What are you talking about?

You know very well what he is talking about. Lessans spent a lot of time on the topic of sex in the New World. That's what led people to refer to him as a Horndog