It should be noted that the above analysis of light and sight is undeniably true, like 2 + 2 = 4. Should anyone disagree with it, this merely means that they have not understood it. But if someone understands it and still disagree with it, then this is just pretend disagreement, because the person so disagreeing has a vendetta against Lessans. Such a person is toxic ball of internalized rage and self-loathing, dripping with the sweat of shame and fury, and angry – O, so angry! – at Lessans for toppling their precious world view.
Some bitter individuals overflowing with rage and resentment against Lessans have come up with about a hundred fifty thousand disproofs of his undeniably true conclusions of light and sight. All of these so-called disproofs are mere coincidences, or else, as peacegirl has stated many times, “Something else must be going on there.” This is because Lessans was a humble man. Because he was a humble man, he would have admitted his errors, if he had made any. Since he never admitted any errors, it follows that he never made any. Q. E. D.
From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so. Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance.Calm down David, you don't even know what this means. You are turning this into a joke, as usual. I hope people can see this. People have the absolute freedom to agree or not but when someone continually offers sarcasm, it should make people suspicious. David, you are in such upheaval over this claim that you can't see straight, so how can anyone take your word when you cannot dare hear the claim in terms that could prove you wrong? It's a complete sham.
Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.The way I explained it is confusing but even with the confusion it has merit. I will let the public decide whether there is something to this because you cannot. You are so caught up in your belief that science can do no wrong, that you cannot be objective. I'll leave it at that.
Some bitter individuals overflowing with rage and resentment against Lessans have come up with about a hundred fifty thousand disproofs of his undeniably true conclusions of light and sight. All of these so-called disproofs are mere coincidences, or else, as peacegirl has stated many times, "Something else must be going on there." This is because Lessans was a humble man. Because he was a humble man, he would have admitted his errors, if he had made any. Since he never admitted any errors, it follows that he never made any. Q. E. D.Yes, something else is definitely going on if Lessans' claim turns out to be right. This is yet to be determined, so for you to use these observations (which they are and which Lessans is being condemned for as being nothing more than assertions since observation alone can't hold weight according to you), you are going against your own standard of what makes something scientific. How contradictory is that? :grrr:
There is an effect in astronomy called "gravitational lensing" where an object is behind a very massive object, and the gravity from that object bends the light around it so that now we can see that more distant object. If efferent vision were true we would not be able to see the distant object because it is behind another object and out of the line of sight. This effect is common in astronomy and very well known, and only possible if light travels from the object to the eye or telescope. Afferent vision is true and we only need to look at the sky to see the proof.Gravitatonal lensing has nothing to do with the validity of Lessans' claims. You will be sick when you find out that these claims are true because you have committed yourself all over the internet to debasing this brilliant man.
There is an effect in astronomy called "gravitational lensing" where an object is behind a very massive object, and the gravity from that object bends the light around it so that now we can see that more distant object. If efferent vision were true we would not be able to see the distant object because it is behind another object and out of the line of sight. This effect is common in astronomy and very well known, and only possible if light travels from the object to the eye or telescope. Afferent vision is true and we only need to look at the sky to see the proof.Gravitational lensing has nothing to do with the validity of Lessans' claims. How does Lessans instant efferent vision explain Gravitational Lensing and the moons of Jupiter?
The way I explained it is confusing but even with the confusion it has merit.Tell us more about the merit of a theory that requires light to be somewhere before it's had time to get there.
Pec,
I answered on your posting] about Swartz here]. Too many photons here…
Pec, I answered on your posting] about Swartz here]. Too many photons here...Yes, I agree, too many photons, especially the ones that arrive before they have had time to get here! I'll get back to the discussion with you in a bit. In the meantime, are there moderators here? Can this light and sight twaddle be split to its own thread, maybe? Anyhow, I can't resist this ... PEACGIRL CLASSICS FROM FF You are such a bully! Bully!] :lol:
There is an effect in astronomy called "gravitational lensing" where an object is behind a very massive object, and the gravity from that object bends the light around it so that now we can see that more distant object. If efferent vision were true we would not be able to see the distant object because it is behind another object and out of the line of sight. This effect is common in astronomy and very well known, and only possible if light travels from the object to the eye or telescope. Afferent vision is true and we only need to look at the sky to see the proof.Gravitational lensing has nothing to do with the validity of Lessans' claims. How does Lessans instant efferent vision explain Gravitational Lensing and the moons of Jupiter? Do you think I'm going to talk to you like a normal person when you have caused so much harm? Your despicable display of disrespect for this man will one day come back to haunt you.
The way I explained it is confusing but even with the confusion it has merit.Tell us more about the merit of a theory that requires light to be somewhere before it's had time to get there. That's what you don't understand Spacemonkey. The eyes, being efferent get the same photons instantly on the retina in the same way they would if light traveled to the eye in the afferent account of vision. This is due to the fact that the observer is already in the field of view of the actual object, not the light that is theorized to bring the image through space/time. Distance and time are irrelevant in this account, which you don't seem to be able to grasp.
Every time you say a person should be held accountable, you are assuming that he could have done differently,No, I don't. Point me to the point where I assume somebody could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances. It is you who assumes that to be responsible CHDO must be possible, not me. You should learn to follow an argument that somebody is giving, i.e. really understand what somebody is saying. Then you can try to show where there is an error in the argument. Putting your own interpretation in concepts that the argument is using, without seeing how the concepts are used in the argument, is just another way of saying 'the argument is wrong because it doesn't fit my ideas'. So I will do it for you again in a few 'slow' steps: 1. Evaluation of possibilities of actions can be implemented in determined systems. Example: a chess playing computer. (Don't get me wrong, I do not say a chess computer has free will!)[/quote EVALUATION OF POSSIBILITIES DOES NOT GRANT ONE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE FREELY. THAT IS WHY CHOICE IS AN ILLUSION. 2. Animals have such kind of systems: they can move to other places where they are safe, where they know there is water, where they know the climate is better etc etc. OKAY 3. One kind of animal has brought this capability to 'conceptual heights': humans. Thanks to language they can transfer their experiences to peers, and do this in extreme detail. OKAY 4. Humans are aware of the suffering of others, and the potential suffering of themselves. Born from this is morality: humans abhor certain actions and/or their consequences. OKAY 5. Humans are aware of this disapproval of their peers, so they do include this (potential) disapproval when they evaluate the action they take. FOR SURE (Just to be sure you follow me: I did not introduce any form of indeterminism until here! And I also do not in the next steps.) 6. Humans who have these capabilities are called mature, and are said to be responsible persons: they anticipate the reactions of their peers, and in cases of doubt can justify their actions by giving the reasons for them. They can respond to questions of justifiability. THAT IS TRUE BUT A PERSON WHO IS BEING JUDGED IRRESPONSIBLE ALSO HAS HIS REASONS BUT WON'T ADMIT TO THEM BECAUSE HE WILL BE PUNISHED MERCILESSLY BECAUSE HIS REASONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING HIM. 7. Humans that have shown that they have this capacity, by being a fully functional member of society, but do offend moral values of this society are culpable for their actions and can be punished for their actions. THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME, AND LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE. OUR PRISONS ARE FILLED TO THE BRIM. THAT IS WHY I ASK YOU TO OPEN YOUR MIND TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO GET THE RESULTS YOU WANT. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS DEFENDING YOUR POSITION WHICH WILL ELICIT THE SAME RESULTS AS LIBERTARIANS WHO BELIEVE A PERSON HAS FREE WILL AND IS THEREFORE RESPONSIBLE. 8. If a human can show that he was coerced by others to his action, he is not culpable. Everybody who acts uncoerced is said to act from free will. I UNDERSTAND THE COMPATIBILIST DEFINITION BUT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT FREE WILL AND NO FREE WILL ARE NOT COMPATIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. YOU CAN CREATE ANY DEFINITION YOU WANT TO TRY TO RECONCILE THIS INCONSISTENCY, BUT THAT DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THIS FACT.
That's it. That is all that responsibility and free will are, and ever were. The categorical reading of CHDO was introduced by Christian theology, as an escape from the theodicy]. CHDO in the hypothetical sense is not in contradiction with determinism ('If the lightning bold would have struck 5 meters to the left, I would have been dead now.')BUT THE BLAME FOR WHAT ONE COULD NOT NOT HAVE DONE, IS. THE IRONY IS THAT WHEN WE REMOVE THE BLAME, AND CHANGE CERTAIN THINGS IN THE ENVIRONMENT SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HURT OTHERS IN ORDER NOT TO BE LOSERS THEMSELVES, THE JUSTIFICATION TO HURT OTHERS IS ALSO REMOVED. BUT YOU WON'T LISTEN. YOU ARE TOO BUSY DEFENDING YOUR POSITION AND JUSTIFYING WHY A PERSON SHOULD BE BLAMED AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THIS RATIONALE, BUT THERE IS A BETTER WAY AS WE EXTEND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT MAN'S WILL IS NOT FREE.
My father was a philosopher and a discoverer. It just so happens that the discovery was borne out of philosophical thought. This was right on the copyright page.
A self declaration is not enough. A person can usually justifiably be called a discoverer only when his discovery is recognised.NOT TRUE. TO YOU HE MAY NOT HAVE A DISCOVERY BUT HE KNEW HE DID BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGE CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF UNDENIABLE PROOF OF ITS VERACITY.
Pity enough some discoveries are not recognised before the death of a discoverer, and in rare case discoveries are not recognised at all. But before you think I am defending that your father is a discoverer: there are many more people who claim to have discovered something, than people who really have discovered something, especially in the area of philosophy and in 'explaining the world'. Such ideas are refuted easily by professionals, like physicists, academic philosophers, biologists etc etc. Which has been done obviously several times with your father's book.THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE THIS KNOWLEDGE IS GENUINE BUT TO CREATE INTEREST IS ANOTHER BALLGAME GIVEN THE OVERWHELMING SKEPTICISM THAT EXISTS, AND THE FACT THAT THIS MAN WAS AN UNKNOWN IN ACADEMIC CIRCLES.
I would like to but I don't have that much time. Maybe next weekend. I believe Perebloom would endorse this discovery if I could ever get in touch with him.
I do not think he will. But take a few words of advice: 1. Do not present the book to him as is. He will immediately reject everything because the high pretension of 'saving the world'. 2. Stick to the part of determinism, free will and the principle of satisfaction. If your groupies are right about what else is in the book (photons, light from the sun, and what more) he will laugh loudly and probably do not react at all. Do you have any idea how many people are contacting philosophers and physicists saying they solved the problems of humanity, the universe and everything, but they just need to have it published (and in many cases do the math correctly). 3. If I were you I would follow this strategy: tell Pereboom that you have this intellectual inheritance of your father, and that you want to know if it is worth to be published. Present him with a good summary of the argument. Do as if your problem is not to get it published, but that you do not understand enough of philosophy to know what the value of your father's book is. I think you have the biggest chance to get an answer if you do it this way. 4. And as personal advice: accept his answer, and draw the correct conclusions from his answer. I myself are pretty sure in what direction the answer will go: that your father is right that the believe in ultimate responsibility, in basic desert does much evil, but that your father's solution is very unworldly. If he says why, you will recognise many arguments that were already given to you in all the fora where you have been.I WOULD BE LYING IF I DID WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING. WHY SHOULD I LISTEN TO YOUR ADVICE WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE DISCOVERY IS? UNBELIEVABLE!
It is then your free choice to continue in your 'endless marsh through the internet fora', or give up at last your idle enterprise. But I am happy to discuss the Pereboom article with you.NO, I DON'T HAVE A FREE CHOICE IN HOW I WILL RESPOND IF EVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO HIM, BUT EVEN IF HE DISAGREES, THIS IN NO WAY PROVES THE AUTHOR WRONG. YOU ARE PUTTING HIM ON A PEDESTAL FOR SOME REASON. AS LESSANS EXPLAINED: Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 5 In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false, but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed, if you can. The truth is you can deny anything you want, if it's not understood. Once this discovery is understood, you will not be able to deny it. That is what he meant when he said, "deny it, if you can." I listened to you, now it's your turn to listen to me.
Peacegirl explains “sucked-up" and “non-sucked-up" light] :coolsmile:I don't think I was the first one to use "sucked up light". It sounds so silly, I am actually laughing. I was trying to answer the photon question in a way that made sense to Spacemonkey, but I realized that this was not only going to confuse people more, but this is not how proof will be established. It has to come from understanding the eye, not light. Light does what it does, and the scientists are correct regarding its properties. What they are not correct about is how the eyes function, which is what this claim is all about.
No the insurance company shouldn't pay according to the policy. But should the policy be different so that it pays out? I don't know.Yes, it is the insurance's policy to reduce costs. Do you think they cross a moral border that they oblige insurants to avoid known dangerous behaviour that is so simple as avoiding to eat something that is not too often on the menu? Perhaps.They can reduce costs by excluding others from getting paid but you'd say that's unfair. So what's fair about excluding the group we're discussing? Any one who buys the policy might be one of the ones in this group. Don't they want the insurance in case they are? And if they don't want to pay for it can that somehow be fair to the people excluded? I don't see it at the moment. I think it's fair for the insurance company to have stipulations. If someone doesn't meet those stipulations, they should know this in advance of buying the policy. If they are not capable of understanding the fine print, they would need someone to help them. There is nothing morally wrong about setting certain limitations.
Yes we are on a discussion board...Then start discussing, instead of whining and complaining that you're being harassed whenever someone asks you a question. Not someone...YOUUUUUU!! I REFUSE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT PHOTONS. IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT ONLY SERVES TO CONFUSE. YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE SPACEMONKEY, AND YOU ARE BLIND TO SEE IT.
So it's not relevant how efferent vision could possibly work? It's not relevant how the photons YOU claim will be at the retina could possibly have gotten there? Do you have an alternative definition of 'relevant' that you'd like to share with us?No, I don't have to have an alternative definition. The word is used correctly in the way I'm using it. Photons traveling are not relevant Spacemonkey. The proof that is necessary to confirm Lessans' hunch (call it whatever you want) will be from understanding the eye, not light. It's relevant because it proves efferent vision to be impossible. That's why you refuse to face up to the problem. You need photons to be at the retina before they have had time to get there. It doesn't matter what else you think may prove him right, as the photon problem has already proved him incontrovertibly wrong. Game over. You lose. When looking out at the object, not waiting for light to bring the image, the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first. You can't get this because you have failed in your understanding of this reversal in how the eyes work which causes a complete 180 degree turnaround in what was believed to be true. If you believe the game is over, then please leave. Stop harassing me. This is not harassment. It is discussion. We are on a discussion board. This is what we do here. You are free to leave at ay time. Yes we are on a discussion board, but you have already made up your mind that this account is impossible, so why are you hounding me? It's not like you're new to this thread. :-S
You say: "...the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first..."That is true but only in the efferent account which would put the object's wavelength at the eye if the requirements of brightness and size are met. It wouldn't make sense in the afferent account, which you are constantly referring to.
Wrong! The object's wave emissions (at every wavelength) has to travel from the source to the eye first. Your requirements call for opening your eyes after the light is already striking you. But that requires the sun to be shining before you open your eyes. And that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to you in a constant stream thus when you open your eyes the light that strikes the retina has already traveled 8 1/2 minutes from the sun to you.No Write4U, this is not true. I realize that what you believe makes logical sense; but you have to remember that we are seeing the actual object, not light, when we open our eyes. It is this object (or matter) that is within optical range even though the light being reflected has not gotten to Earth. This can only occur due to efferent vision. I urge you to refrain from jumping to conclusions just because it sounds counter-intuitive.
Can you see the sun for 8 1/2 minutes after it has ceased to exist?No. If the Sun were to turn into a dwarf and peter out, we would be seeing this happen in real time.
Yes, that is true and is exactly the same as observing a distant star which has since gone nova. but that is not your scenario at all. Your claim is that you can see the sun @ noon when it is turned on @ noon, and before its light has traveled 8 1/2 minutes before it strikes your retina.That is true. You can laugh along with the others but remember many discoverers were proven right long after they were dead.
Two problems. Firstly, the wavelength is not thing, but is simply a measurable property of light, i.e. photons. So if it is at the retina at 12pm then so are the photons. Secondly, the retina is on Earth, so if the photons are at the retina at 12pm then they are on Earth at 12pm. Yet you say they didn't travel there, or at least haven't traveled there yet at 12pm. So where did these photons come from, and how did they get to the retina on Earth without traveling there?
There you go again using the fact that photons travel to the eye, which is believed to be the only way we can get an image of the external world. But according to Lessans, this is incorrect. This claim needs to be tested further. If people are that upset because the claim goes against everything they have been taught, then they are more interested in being right at all costs than in knowing whether there is something to this claim.
There YOU go again, Lessans claim has been tested ad nauseam and disproved every time.It has not been tested ad nauseam. Getting angry responses from people in these forums is an accurate test? Are you kidding me?
Your claim here is not consistent with your admission that all light travels, and you are back to claiming light (photons) can be somewhere without getting there and/or before it has had time to get there. This is the kind of batshit crazy stupidity that people rightly make fun of you for.
It is consistent when it is understood that the distance between a large celestial body or object and the observer is not dependent on distance or time in this account.
It would be consistent IF it is assumed that the distance between an object and the observer is not dependent on the distance traveled or the time it takes to traverse the distance. But it has been proven that it does depend on the distance between object and observer and the time it takes to traverse this distance. Therefore, the claim that it does not is FALSE.That IS the theory Write4U. All you are doing is repeating the mistake that scientists made many years ago when they assumed the eyes worked like the other four senses. It was then an easy step to conclude that it is light bringing the image to the eye.
In science the test to prove if something is true or false is called "falsifying". All hypotheses must pass this test. Lessans hypothesis HAS been falsified by every scientist dealing with the physical functions of light and proven to be false.As I said earlier, nothing about light that scientists have discovered is false. What is false is their understanding as to how the eyes work and why it is possible, once it is proven that the eyes are efferent, to see in real time.
If you keep insisting that Lessans is correct, contrary to all of known science, you are making a fool of yourself and so far you are succeeding with remarkable persistence.I'm not making a fool of myself except to people who are ignorant as to why this claim is accurate. I am persistent because I am sure Lessans was right and he will, one day, be posthumously honored for his major contribution to humanity.
What can one say, but, :lol:
From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so. Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.This is the funniest thing I've heard yet. You sure do know how to twist things to make me look ridiculous. You have twisted everything he wrote, taking the concepts out of context to make them appear more than silly. As I have said all along, you have a vendetta against him because of this claim, but nothing you say will stop a thorough investigation eventually. I know that I made some mistakes in how I tried to satisfy Spacemonkey's questions regarding light. It failed, I admit. You are now using this as ammunition against me. Lessans never talked about light because this was not the problem. He talked about sight. That is why from here on in I am not going to talk about photons, travel time, and distance because these things don't apply under the efferent version of sight.
Please do not use argumentum per capslockium. It makes a very unpleasant read. I corrected it for you.
1. Evaluation of possibilities of actions can be implemented in determined systems. Example: a chess playing computer. (Don't get me wrong, I do not say a chess computer has free will!)evaluation of possibilities does not grant one the ability to choose freely. Yep, exactly as I wrote. Not necessary to copy that.
6. Humans who have these capabilities are called mature, and are said to be responsible persons: they anticipate the reactions of their peers, and in cases of doubt can justify their actions by giving the reasons for them. They can respond to questions of justifiability.That is true but a person who is being judged irresponsible also has his reasons but won’t admit to them because he will be punished mercilessly because his reasons are not acceptable to those who are judging him. If somebody is seen as irresponsible, he will be put under guardianship, if there is a chance on healing he will get therapy. But somebody who is not able to be responsible is definitely not punished. Or are mentally handicapped or ill people put into prison in the US of A?
7. Humans that have shown that they have this capacity, by being a fully functional member of society, but do offend moral values of this society are culpable for their actions and can be punished for their actions.That has been going on since the dawn of time, and look at where we are. Our prisons are filled to the brim. That is why i ask you to open your mind to the fact that there is a better way to get the results you want. All you are doing is defending your position which will elicit the same results as libertarians who believe a person has free will and is therefore responsible. Sure. Depending on the circumstances there might be better ways, and I think at least here in Europe we are trying them, e.g social work as kind of punishment and education. Therefore our prisons are not so much filled up as those in the US of A. The free will of the compatibilists is another one as the libertarian one: and therefore also its responsibility.
8. If a human can show that he was coerced by others to his action, he is not culpable. Everybody who acts uncoerced is said to act from free will.I understand the compatibilist definition but it does not address the fact that free will and no free will are not compatible under any circumstance. you can create any definition you want to try to reconcile this inconsistency, but that does nothing to change this fact. Of course, 'free will' and 'no free will' are incompatible. But your definition of free will, i.e. libertarian free will, is an empty, meaningless concept, whereas the compatibilist version of free will depends on determinism being true. We should not punish people on basis of the idea that they have LFW, and are therefore ultimate responsible. We should punish them on the basis that they did what they did based on the fact they knew that society abhors their doings.
That's it. That is all that responsibility and free will are, and ever were. The categorical reading of CHDO was introduced by Christian theology, as an escape from the theodicy]. CHDO in the hypothetical sense is not in contradiction with determinism ('If the lightning bold would have struck 5 meters to the left, I would have been dead now.')But the blame for what one could not not have done, is. the irony is that when we remove the blame, and change certain things in the environment so that people don't hurt others in order not to be losers themselves, the justification to hurt others is also removed. but you won't listen. You are too busy defending your position and justifying why a person should be blamed and be held accountable. I understand the need for this rationale, but there is a better way as we extend the knowledge that man's will is not free. What is? Lightning could have struck 5 meters to the left in the hypothetical sense, but for people CHDO suddenly can only be read in the categorical sense? In both we speak about determined processes! You are too busy defending your position and justifying the book of your father. I understand the need for this rationale, but there are better places to get justified knowledge, like science, and many more philosophers who thought deeper than your father ever did.
A self declaration is not enough. A person can usually justifiably be called a discoverer only when his discovery is recognised.Not true. To you he may not have a discovery but he knew he did because the knowledge contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. I think it was already denied by many people. You just do not accept it. And you make a clown of yourself defending the theories about eyesight of your father. Don't say I did not read the book: your reactions on questions asked here are enough.
I would be lying if i did what you are suggesting. Why should i listen to your advice when you have no idea what the discovery is? Unbelievable!You should listen because I know how academia works. I want you to be successful in contacting Pereboom, and get a reaction from him. It might be healthy for you. (Might...)
No, i don't have a free choice in how i will respond if ever given the opportunity to talk to him, but even if he disagrees, this in no way proves the author wrong. you are putting him on a pedestal for some reason.:lol: I put somebody on a pedestal!?!? Sorry, all pedestals are already filled with statues of your father! No. The real reason is that you said you wanted to get in touch with Pereboom, because he has a pretty radical standpoint on free will, and, just as your father sees negative consequences of seeing people free (in the 'libertarian free will sense'). So I that is my reason to be interested in what you think of his article.