“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

This modification helps the cause of determinism since the present definition is turning people away.

The truth is not a popularity contest.

At least, not for sane people.

 

[bilby]

Pi should really be modified to exactly three. That interminable string of digits after the decimal point is turning people away.

 

[peacegirl]

Why not let it go? Lessans was wrong about how sight works, and tweaked determinism. Act as an editor, delete the questionable claims and keep whatever valuable insights he had. Doing that would make it a better book.

Absolutely not DBT. Just because you don't see why he was correct regarding sight does not mean I have the right to alter his writing. That's unethical. I would never do that. You obviously have no understanding of his definition of determinism, which takes away nothing but only gives us clarification so that we can move forward. Why wouldn't you even consider his words before throwing out his 30-year work? Do you think that's fair to him? I will answer for you. IT'S NOT.

Is it not the job of a editor to make a book better by either suggesting to the author that something is removed, or in the case of posthumous publishing, deleting whatever may be wrong or unsuitable? Would that not be doing a service to the author?

Asserting that the claims are right doesn't make it so. The claims of instant vision and modified determinism are demonstrably wrong, with many examples of why the claims are wrong given.

There's no shame in being wrong, or in correcting errors.

There is if you are a cultist considering correcting errors in Holy Scripture.

The very thought that such errors might exist is heretical and blasphemous.

What we are seeing here is the still-birth of a new religion. The sole adherent is performing CPR, but the patient is doomed.

If a crazy idea gains enough traction, it can easily survive for thousands of years - A Jewish Zombie who is his own father and whose literal flesh and blood can be created from crackers and wine by magic, in order to be cannibalised by his followers, seems a bit implausible on its face, but has done quite well as a belief.

Instant vision is no more crazy; It's just far less successful. Given that the Pope gets a golden throne in a massive palace, it seems a shame that poor @peacegirl has to make do with the proceeds of selling a (very) few books on Amazon. But them's the breaks in the weird cult business.

Sometimes being enduringly faithful to the ridiculous against all odds just doesn't seem to be enough.

This is not fundamentalism, bilby. This is not a cult. You have had a deep-seated belief that this knowledge cannot be true, and this is causing you to lose your objectivity. If your very first premise is that he could not be right, then everything that follows will support your premise, even if it's unsound.

 

[peacegirl]

This modification helps the cause of determinism since the present definition is turning people away.

The truth is not a popularity contest.

At least, not for sane people.

If the truth of this knowledge were based on a popularity contest, we'd be up shit's creek.

 

[pood]

This is not fundamentalism, bilby. This is not a cult. You have had a deep-seated belief that this knowledge cannot be true, and this is causing you to lose your objectivity. If your very first premise is that he could not be right, then everything that follows will support your premise, even if it's unsound.

Ad hom.

 

[DBT]

Why not let it go? Lessans was wrong about how sight works, and tweaked determinism. Act as an editor, delete the questionable claims and keep whatever valuable insights he had. Doing that would make it a better book.

Absolutely not DBT. Just because you don't see why he was correct regarding sight does not mean I have the right to alter his writing. That's unethical. I would never do that. You obviously have no understanding of his definition of determinism, which takes away nothing but only gives us clarification so that we can move forward. Why wouldn't you even consider his words before throwing out his 30-year work? Do you think that's fair to him? I will answer for you. IT'S NOT.

Is it not the job of an editor to make a book better by either suggesting to the author that something is removed, or in the case of posthumous publishing, deleting whatever may be wrong or unsuitable? Would that not be doing a service to the author?

I would never remove one of his discoveries.

Asserting that the claims are right doesn't make it so. The claims of instant vision and modified determinism are demonstrably wrong, with many examples of why the claims are wrong given.

Seeing in real time is not wrong. You think it’s wrong. Big difference. And it’s not modified determinism. It’s determinism, not modified. I’m surprised by your response.

Tweaking the given definition of determinism is to modify the given definition of determinism. As Lessans tweaked the given definition of determinism, he modified determinism to suit his own ideas.

Tweaking a definition can only do good if it's more accurate in how it's expressed. He didn't modify it to suit his own ideas. The past does not cause the present, which is a big problem in the debate. We remember the past and use those stored memories to help us make decisions all in the present. It is the same determinism, which means that once a decision is made, it could never have been otherwise. This modification helps the cause of determinism since the present definition is turning people away.

It becomes a problem when the tweaking is wrong. Tweaking how something is defined in order to make it more palatable, or to promote a cause or support a claim, is a problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

The process that led Lessans to his conclusions is not an issue.

The issue is explaining physically how the ideas he came to actuality work in physical reality.

If he said he got his ideas from looking at a crystal ball it would not matter, as long as he could explain it physical terms.

Optical theory clearly explains how images are formed by light interacting with objects an supported with experimental demonstration. The models of image formation are experimentally predictive.

No different than annihilating else, not just science.

If you make an argument and clais in the abstract on any topic people might say it sounds fine, but how are you going to prove it or what are the details of making it work.

Politicians when campaigning generally speak in the castrate, and when asked about details of an issues they pivot away from the issue.

Here in Seattle political debate and speech on the homeless issue is generally in the abstract. Rarely specific details.

 

[bilby]

Why not let it go? Lessans was wrong about how sight works, and tweaked determinism. Act as an editor, delete the questionable claims and keep whatever valuable insights he had. Doing that would make it a better book.

Absolutely not DBT. Just because you don't see why he was correct regarding sight does not mean I have the right to alter his writing. That's unethical. I would never do that. You obviously have no understanding of his definition of determinism, which takes away nothing but only gives us clarification so that we can move forward. Why wouldn't you even consider his words before throwing out his 30-year work? Do you think that's fair to him? I will answer for you. IT'S NOT.

Is it not the job of a editor to make a book better by either suggesting to the author that something is removed, or in the case of posthumous publishing, deleting whatever may be wrong or unsuitable? Would that not be doing a service to the author?

Asserting that the claims are right doesn't make it so. The claims of instant vision and modified determinism are demonstrably wrong, with many examples of why the claims are wrong given.

There's no shame in being wrong, or in correcting errors.

There is if you are a cultist considering correcting errors in Holy Scripture.

The very thought that such errors might exist is heretical and blasphemous.

What we are seeing here is the still-birth of a new religion. The sole adherent is performing CPR, but the patient is doomed.

If a crazy idea gains enough traction, it can easily survive for thousands of years - A Jewish Zombie who is his own father and whose literal flesh and blood can be created from crackers and wine by magic, in order to be cannibalised by his followers, seems a bit implausible on its face, but has done quite well as a belief.

Instant vision is no more crazy; It's just far less successful. Given that the Pope gets a golden throne in a massive palace, it seems a shame that poor @peacegirl has to make do with the proceeds of selling a (very) few books on Amazon. But them's the breaks in the weird cult business.

Sometimes being enduringly faithful to the ridiculous against all odds just doesn't seem to be enough.

This is not fundamentalism, bilby.

Yeah, but it clearly is.

This is not a cult.

Well, it is if we allow 'cult' to apply to a single individual, or if you have recruited any idiots followers.

You have had a deep-seated belief that this knowledge cannot be true,

No, I have an observation based and a logic based understanding that this set of claims cannot be true.

To describe it as "knowledge" is question begging - knowledge is justified true belief, and these beliefs of yours are neither.

You are accusing the mirror; Either you don't understand, or don't care, that many people do not use the same deeply flawed epistemology that you use yourself.

It is quite impressive that you manage three distinct fallacies in just thirteen words here (twelve if "deep-seated", being hyphenated, only counts as one word). You begged the question, accused the mirror, and made an ad hominem, all in that single short phrase.

Although as accusing the mirror is strictly a propaganda ploy rather than a logical fallacy, maybe you only score two and a half.

and this is causing you to lose your objectivity.

It is an objective fact that your claims are false.

If your very first premise is that he could not be right,

That's not a premise. It's my conclusion. And it is a sound conclusion on the basis of simple logic from a number of demonstrably true premises.

then everything that follows will support your premise, even if it's unsound.

Well, it's a good thing I am not doing that then, isn't it?

Arguments of the form "If you were making an unsound argument, then your conclusions would be false, therefore your conclusions are false" are compelling only to somebody who is an intellectually dishonest apologist for their faith; Or a blithering idiot (or both).

 

[bilby]

This modification helps the cause of determinism since the present definition is turning people away.

The truth is not a popularity contest.

At least, not for sane people.

If the truth of this knowledge were based on a popularity contest, we'd be up shit's creek.

You might. The rest of us, not so much.

Oh, and it's "Shit Creek". The creek does not belong to shit.

Though you are up it, in a barbed wire canoe, without a paddle.

 

[bilby]

Politicians when campaigning generally speak in the castrate

Yeah, US politicians really do have the voters by the balls.

 

[peacegirl]

Reality is sometimes hard to face.

Yes it is. I hope you can face it.

The reality is that the eyes evolved to detect light, which has travel time and conveys information that the brain uses to generate a subjective mental representation of the world and self.

As that is the reality, instant vision, seeing objects before the light/ information is acquired by the eyes and brain, is impossible.

Reality falsifies instant vision/ light at the eye.

That is not what he claimed. He did not say that seeing objects are acquired before the light is at the eye. A “subjective” mental representation of the real thing would generate mismatches between what is seen and one’s “subjective” interpretation of what is seen, which doesn’t normally occur unless someone is on drugs or has other issues with his brain.

 

[peacegirl]

No one with a genuine discovery got there playing tiddlywinks. They got there through a long and winding road of voracious reading, careful thought, and astute observation.

I see. So why did he skip the last two steps? That would appear to have been a bad mistake.

You don't get to judge the process by which someone comes to a genuine finding.

I think you'll find I not only do, but just did.

You have set up a false standard that everyone must follow or in your mind, they're phonies.

Nope. I am just noting that when one reads Lessans' work, careful thought and astute observation are notable by their absence.

He was not a phony.

Well, he was; But that's not actually the point under discussion here.

He was the deepest thinker you would ever meet, so stop accusing him of being a fake.

Seems to me like he was both. That's quite common; Deep thought is a disaster, when careful thought and astute observation are eschewed, in favour of self-promotion and wild speculation.

Repeating this false portrayal of him is slander. Stop doing it!

 

[peacegirl]

Why not let it go? Lessans was wrong about how sight works, and tweaked determinism. Act as an editor, delete the questionable claims and keep whatever valuable insights he had. Doing that would make it a better book.

Absolutely not DBT. Just because you don't see why he was correct regarding sight does not mean I have the right to alter his writing. That's unethical. I would never do that. You obviously have no understanding of his definition of determinism, which takes away nothing but only gives us clarification so that we can move forward. Why wouldn't you even consider his words before throwing out his 30-year work? Do you think that's fair to him? I will answer for you. IT'S NOT.

Is it not the job of a editor to make a book better by either suggesting to the author that something is removed, or in the case of posthumous publishing, deleting whatever may be wrong or unsuitable? Would that not be doing a service to the author?

Asserting that the claims are right doesn't make it so. The claims of instant vision and modified determinism are demonstrably wrong, with many examples of why the claims are wrong given.

There's no shame in being wrong, or in correcting errors.

There is if you are a cultist considering correcting errors in Holy Scripture.

The very thought that such errors might exist is heretical and blasphemous.

What we are seeing here is the still-birth of a new religion. The sole adherent is performing CPR, but the patient is doomed.

If a crazy idea gains enough traction, it can easily survive for thousands of years - A Jewish Zombie

A Hewish zombie? What in gods name are you accusing me of? Are you an anti-Semite in disguise?

who is his own father and whose literal flesh and blood can be created from crackers and wine by magic, in order to be cannibalised by his followers, seems a bit implausible on its face, but has done quite well as a belief.

Instant vision is no more crazy; It's just far less successful. Given that the Pope gets a golden throne in a massive palace, it seems a shame that poor @peacegirl has to make do with the proceeds of selling a (very) few books on Amazon. But them's the breaks in the weird cult business.

Sometimes being enduringly faithful to the ridiculous against all odds just doesn't seem to be enough.

You are too full of yourself Billy. I cannot win when you’re making shit up trying to fit this discovery into a code that you think you’ve cracked. I cannot win because you think you found the code. You did not find anything, That’s the sad part because you are preventing progress even if that was not your intention. This saying is so true: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s gotten us nowhere. I never knew how hard this was going to be but I will never give up in spite of your disrespect!

 

[peacegirl]

This modification helps the cause of determinism since the present definition is turning people away.

The truth is not a popularity contest.

At least, not for sane people.

For the people who think popularity means anything, this claim will be destroyed before it has a chance. Help me to understand how to overcome popularity in favor of what is found to be true which has nothing to do with votes? Let me ask again: Does the majority win because they voted for something and therefore it must be true?