Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
He's entitled to argue anything he wants, but he needs to back it up convincingly. Which in my opinion, he totally fails to do. I am profoundly unconvinced about his idea that sight is a sense unlike the others.
And I think his reasoning is wrong. I'd love to see the empirical tests that prove that the light of the sun that reaches Earth didn't take 8 minutes to do so.
I'm a trained musician and I studied in electroacoustics, which is a branch of experimental music which tries to go beyond the traditional language of pitch and rhythm based music. I can hear things that you probably can't. And I don't mean that I hear frequencies that you don't hear. What I mean is that I have a way of listening to things that makes me able to analyze a sound and hear its different components. A single piano note strikes you as being one pitch but in reality, it's a fundamental pitch with a nearly infinite number of higher pitches called harmonics that your brain interprets as timbre. Those harmonics are mathematically arranged. I can hear those harmonics when I focus my concentration but most people simply cannot do that. And that is because my brain is trained to hear with more depth and focus.
A good painter is able to look at objects with such clarity and depth that he'll be able to render them in 2 dimensions, which I simply can't do, because my brain hasn't been trained to do it.
Lessans is trying to argue that there is a difference between audio and visual stimuli but there really isn't as far as the brain is concerned. I don't see how the skilled painter's brain is any different than the skilled musician's brain. And I especially don't see how the sense of sight is any different from the sense of hearing as far as the brain is concerned.
He also states that a baby who would have all his other senses cut off but not his eyes would not develop the capacity to visually distinguish objects. There's no reason for thinking that because I don't think the experiment has ever been made (which is a good thing), and a brain needs stimuli, there would be no reason for it to ignore visual stimuli if it's the only one it had.
I agree that values don't exist in the external world. But within the internal world, values are also shared by other human beings. So in that sense, it's not true there can be no standards of beauty.
I don't like unfriendly people either. But most people in this thread are friendly people. Realize it is also insulting to be told ''you simply don't understand''... or ''you simply can't see the truth''.
Last edited:
He didn't say that s_lone. He said that, if sight is efferent, we would see the sun explode immediately, even though it would take 8 minutes for the light to reach the earth. I know this sounds crazy to people who never gave the definition of sense a second thought, but this in and of itself doesn't make it unworthy of further investigation.
s_lone said:
That is so cool. This must be a special gift. I was just listening to a t.v. show yesterday and they said that a professional basketball player can predict with accuracy whether a person is going to make a certain basketball shot. This is based on their ability to put themselves in the place of the shooter, as if they were making the shot. This can't be done by either the spectators or the coaches. Isn't that interesting?
s_lone said:
Because the other senses are afferent; sight is efferent. Nothing impinges on the eyes except light. It's the brain that looks through the eyes, as a window, to see what is out there. Without the stimulation from the other senses, we would never develop the ability to see because it is this very stimulation that causes the electrical circuitry needed to focus the eyes.
s_lone said:
A brain could not focus the eyes without the other sense experience. The eyes can't depend on itself for it's own stimulation, in other words.
s_lone said:
It doesn't matter how many people like something, or agree to liking some feature over another. This does not create a standard of beauty for everyone. It is still just a personal value shared by those particular individuals.
s_lone said:
That's why I don't say it. But I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. What am I supposed to say if I really don't think they grasped the knowledge? If I don't say anything then the conversation ends because they believe their refutation is right. But their refutation is not right. So what am I supposed to do? :-(
You might take a clue from your other experiences at Internet discussion boards. I found several discussions where you're flogging this book at other sites, going back to 2007, and I'm sure there are others, there were many more Google returns than I felt inclined to look at. In every case the same thing happens, often a good deal less politely than it happened here: nobody believes you or Seymour Lessans, you've convinced nobody. What you're supposed to do is reflect on what that might mean, and instead of simply insisting that you're right, learn some critical thinking skills and rethink it, because in fact you are not right. The one reviewer at Amazon.com, where the book is available for one cent (which tells you how valuable the seller thinks it is) is right. Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Decline and fall of all evil
All right. Let's analyze his claims. I'll put them in red!
The dictionary states that the word sense is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’
So far so good... But just to make sure, I'll also include this definition from the Canadian Oxford Dictionnary
Sense: Any of the special bodily faculties by which sensation is roused.
But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
And how is light not a stimuli? When light reaches the retina, it is converted in electro-chemical impulses. Similarly, when vibrations reach the cochlea, they are converted in electro-chemical impulses.
Light and vibrations are both stimuli and it all ends up as electro-chemical impulses in the brain. How is sight any different from hearing?
Let's move on...
It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the eyes function like the other four — which they do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ.
Yes... We are eagerly awaiting this proof!
Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is?
Words are signifiers and there is a very clear difference with what a word signifies and the word itself. The word "dog" evokes the 4 legged canine in your mind, but to someone who doesn't know English, it means absolutely nothing. Words are arbitrary and yes they sometimes fail at accurately symbolize what exists. But this does nothing to prove eye sight is different from the other senses.
In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.”
As I already said, it's obvious the sense of sight is not well developed in a new born because it doesn't have the opportunity to develop it in the womb. Beyond a very dim reddish ambient light, there is nothing for the baby to see. (in the womb of course)... Once the baby comes out, it's an explosion of light.
“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”
“That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.
There is a big problem in this last sentence. Sound is not carried to our eardrums, air vibrations are. The concept of sound is a subjective one. The air vibrations are converted into what the brain will experience subjectively as sound. The concept of a ''picture'' is also a subjective one.
Air vibrations are the stimuli---The stimuli is converted and the brain interprets data---The data is experienced as sound by the human mind.
Light is a stimuli---The stimuli is converted and the brain interprets the data---The data is experienced as a picture by the human mind.
So he's right in saying there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves if light. All there is is a heck of a lot photons.
And he's wrong in saying a sound is carried to our eardrums. All there is is a heck of a lot of vibrating air molecules.
He's confusing the issue with fuzzy thinking.
This is somewhat equivalent to a baby sleeping with his eyes wide open who does not awaken when objects are placed in front of him, although a loud noise which strikes the ear drum can easily do the job. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?”
“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”
“And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth.
When we sleep, our brain filters out a lot of external stimuli. I don't see any proof yet... And yes, I think a baby can't focus because he's simply not used to doing it. He's also struggling to decode what he is seeing but that is true of hearing too.
In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a newborn infant was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain is not looking. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.
Absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause sight? How about light? Photons?
The author has no evidence at all! All he has is a hypothetical scenario which can't be tested. How is he proving anything? He could at least mention some case histories that could support his point but there is absolutely nothing.
We need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars.
Have you ever been in contact with very young babies? They often just sit there, staring at the strongest source of light available even though no sound is coming out if it... I wonder why? Could it be that they actually have the sensation of seeing light? (sorry for the sarcasm here)
The eyes are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses.
It goes both ways. Once the brain starts decoding all the data, it can start to choose what it wants to look at through the eyes. But that doesn't mean there is no visual sensations before the mind can consciously start looking at things precisely. Similarly, a new born baby probably can't distinguish many sounds beyond the sound of his mother's voice. It's only with time that he'll learn to focus his concentration on aspects of the ''sound scenery'' that is constantly felt but most of the times, unconsciously processed. The baby does hear the dog barking but simply can't process the information yet. It's irrelevant to the baby.
As I sit here, typing this, cars are rushing by on the street I live on, the fridge is humming its boring old tune and I hear the upstairs neighbour having a chat... she's probably on the phone. Yet, when I'm really concentrated on what I'm trying to communicate, all this is filtered out by my conscious mind and I don't even think of it. I ''don't'' hear it because I am not listening to it. But my ears still do their job. So does my brain. Every single car that passes by is processed by my brain, but not sent to my consciousness because it is of no interest.
My point here is that sensations are relatively independent of our conscious intentions. There is an important distinction between hearing and listening. Similarly there is important distinction between seeing and looking.
What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception — in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato, a fruit.
In order for there to be a desire to see, there has to be seeing. Right? It's impossible for a baby to desire to see an object if it never experienced seeing in the first place. Seeing comes first. The desire to look at objects comes second. Consequently, Lessens is wrong in saying that sight is different from the other senses.
Last edited:
That's not true because what creates the seeing is the desire to see. It is the stimulation of the senses that alert the brain that something is out there to be seen, which causes the focusing of the eyes to begin working together as one unit. I am surprised you brought nothing up about the projection of words onto a screen. This is an observation of how words can get confused with reality. This also indirectly proves that the eyes are not a sense organ.
You don't even realize what you are doing Dexter. Your looking me up on the internet proves nothing. You are trying to discredit me and Lessans, but you are doing a poor job. Most of the people on these forums never even looked at the book. They did exactly what you are doing, and all of you together add up to one big zero. I put the book online in 2007, and not many people know about it. The Amazon review was given by someone who had a grudge against me because he didn't believe the author was right about the eyes. He snuck out of the forum and wrote a horrible review. It's not even accurate. There is no force mentioned in this book, yet that's what he wrote. I don't know how they allowed him to write a review because they had no inventory. BTW, I'm taking the book off of Amazon and selling it directly from Trafford and eventually my own website, so eventually this review will be taken down.
I know exactly what I'm doing, I'm telling you that you and Seymour Lessans have not proven your case, and looking you up on the Internet (though really it wasn't you I looked up, it was the book and its author) proves that you've been flogging this book for years and getting nowhere. And you're getting nowhere because the book does not successfully make the case it claims to make. It's exactly that simple, it makes claims without providing evidence adequate to justify them. That's the bottom line, and that's why I dismiss it.
Really? So this has all been a sales pitch for your unsolicited advertising? Am I understanding this correctly?
You did see this: Terms of Service when you created your membership here, right?
....and 38 posts of gobbly-gook & insults in your attempt to flog your wares?
You've heard of that "catching more flies with honey than...." thing, right?
The bottom line Dexter is that no one has studied this work carefully. They are doing exactly what you are doing, running around the internet trying to prove that he has nothing to offer because no one agrees. You're trying to prove a false case against him. It is not that simple Dexter. As far as the eyes go, only time will tell through more testing. He makes that claim only because of how words are projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. If it's not true, then so be it, but I think that this does challenge the concept of the eyes being a sense organ. As far as man not having free will, he doesn't. I bet you don't even understand his reasoning, and I'm sure you have no concept of the two-sided equation. I find that there is a real problem with philosophers in particular, not because they don't have the capacity to understand, but because they are not open minded at all. They jump to premature conclusions. It's incredible. I guess their brains are so cramped with knowledge (some true, some not), that they get defensive when anyone would dare to challenge that knowledge. I know I know, where is the empirical proof, right? Empiricism is one way to prove something true, but it is not the only way. There is something to be said for astute observation and accurate reasoning.
How am I advertising when I'm giving the book away for free? I am not the one hurling insults. I am having insults hurled at me. I don't like the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey" because that implies I am trapping people. Yes, it's nice to be friendly, but how can I be friendly when I am being attacked. They are not even letting me explain this knowledge and they have no questions (except s_lone). It has been a waste of time because this whole thread has been about how wrong the author is without reading the book. This has happened before, which is very disheartening. This does not make the discovery wrong; it makes the venue in which the discovery is being introduced, wrong. I have tried to be very careful how I explain things, but it doesn't seem to matter. If I don't agree with them that the book has flaws, then I am looked at as 'a believer' and am hanged and quartered (in a figurative sense). Thank goodness we're in this day and age, because years ago people were literally hanged and quartered for their 'unusal' ideas.
That's true, and that is what the author explains. But it goes much deeper than just acting responsibly. There will be no choice for people not to act responsibly under the changed conditions. You all have no conception of the value of this knowledge. It's really sad, but my hands are tied.
Last edited:
I knew there was something fishy going on when she tried to make the analogy to 2 + 2=4 and trying to justify philolosphy with science and mathematics yet. I lost all interest right there. I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night. Time to put this clunker to sleep. :smile::smile::lol::lol:
I am glad others took the time to look up Peacegirl's habituation regarding the fixation she has on the author "Seymour Lessans" scattered throughout the internet.
Such a huge amount of time and space used by generate nonsense coming from what appears to me to be a very
bright person who has been clinging to one writer(?) and his focus(?) however misaligned with reality.... to the
detriment of experiencing personal reality in her endowed life for many years.
I write this with all sincerity Peacegirl - you are spending far too much time in your quest to promote the beliefs of the author - and I beg you to seek help to separate yourself from your desire to find a collective
to believe what you apparently have found to be "your truth".
Come back to real life and enjoy the world around you - even its simplistic style of sharing activities and/or friendships and live your days in expanding your own mind which no doubt is capable of many new ideas yet
unwritten and unborn, instead of wasting your good mind on the pseudo-brain Lessans claims to have.
You deserve far more than Lessans has given you.
Such a huge amount of time and space used by generate nonsense coming from what appears to me to be a very
bright person who has been clinging to one writer(?) and his focus(?) however misaligned with reality.... to the
detriment of experiencing personal reality in her endowed life for many years.
I write this with all sincerity Peacegirl - you are spending far too much time in your quest to promote the beliefs of the author - and I beg you to seek help to separate yourself from your desire to find a collective
to believe what you apparently have found to be "your truth".
Come back to real life and enjoy the world around you - even its simplistic style of sharing activities and/or friendships and live your days in expanding your own mind which no doubt is capable of many new ideas yet
unwritten and unborn, instead of wasting your good mind on the pseudo-brain Lessans claims to have.
You deserve far more than Lessans has given you.
This discovery is not philosophy. It was born out of philosophical thought but it is factual in nature. That actually gives credit to philosophy because without studying philosophy in depth, the author would never have been able to make such a discovery. I agree, you need to put this thread to sleep.
Curiosity, I do enjoy real life and I also live in real life. I have three grandchildren. In fact, I am babysitting for them today. I do volunteer work. I also read a lot of different subjects. I have friends. I garden. I enjoy my walks with my dogs. You are assuming so many things about me that are wrong. I'm not in a dreamworld wasting my life away. You have no understanding whatsoever about this discovery, so how do you know whether it is valid or not? You are not in the position to diagnose me because you don't even know me. I am asking you to kindly go about your own business and leave mine alone. I think you mean well, but you are doing harm.
Last edited:
You are wrong. In order for there to be a desire to see an object brought to awareness by the other senses, there needs to be seeing in the first place, which there is. Newborn babies do see, but they don't react to objects for the same reason that a 2 years old doesn't react to written words. The 2 year old can't read and is too young for doing so. Written words are outside his frame of reference and are irrelevant and uninteresting to him. Similarly, a newborn baby can't decode the visual stimuli... and yes it is stimuli because it's new to him and doesn't know what to think of it. The baby is much more interested in sucking on his mother's breast and on feeling warm and safe. That's all a newborn baby needs.
I already mentioned how young babies tend to stare at lights. They're not staring at the lights because that light is making a sound and they have a desire to see what is there. They're staring at the light because they experience it directly, the other senses are not involved. There is no need for the other senses to alert the brain that there is something interesting to look at (lights). They wouldn't be fascinated by the light if they didn't see it in the first place.
Here's a mothering forum where this is discussed. And simple observation of a young baby will confirm this.
baby stares at lights - MotheringDotCommunity Forums
The fact that we project words onto a mental screen proves nothing about eyes not being a sense organ. I'm not tackling what he has to say about that because I want us to settle this issue first (sense of sight).
So far, I've tried the best I can to really give this guy a chance because he speaks of a subject that is of great interest to me. I've discussed all the main points that the author has been making so far and shown that I have a sound understanding of what he means.
But with the ''Sight is not a sense'' discussion, his claim is so outrageous that I can't go on before we settle that issue. I've debunked the only so-called evidence he's got, which is claims about young babies that have no basis in reality and you refuse to acknowledge that he's wrong on that issue.
It's an important issue because you seem to have adopted this book as your own personal Holy Bible and made a dogma out of everything that is in it. If you're not willing to reconsider that Lessans is wrong on some issues, than this discussion truly is futile. I'm not looking for a new religion and am not interested to being converted to anything. I'm looking for a good discussion and reflection on free will and determinism. But you have a theological attitude, where you don't even open the door to the possibility that he's wrong on some issues, which he clearly is.
The baby can see (the apparatus is there) but his eyes are not focussed.
s_lone said:
I was not referring to the lights. I thought you understood that. It has already been established by science that babies are unable to focus their eyes at birth. That's why they appear cross-eyed. But it was believed that the muscles of the eyes were undeveloped. Lessans is offering a different explanation. I am sorry you are so upset about this.
peacegirl said:
s_lone said:
s_lone, I believe he is right about the senses but maybe he is wrong. Unless there is further investigation (empirical testing based on his "theory") we won't know one way or the other. I really don't care whether we have five senses or four senses and a pair of eyes. The main point is that certain words are not symbolic of reality, and have a negative impact on people's lives. I want to stay off of the subject of the senses because it will push you away, and that would be unfortunate. I never wanted this issue to be brought up because people automatically assume his work is flawed and won't read any further.
Last edited:
I think we can agree to disagree about the senses. His work is flawed but I'll keep on reading (when I have the time). The next chapter is on marital relations and I'm curious to see what he has to say about that.
Main article: True Will
According to Crowley, every individual has a True Will, to be distinguished from the ordinary wants and desires of the ego. The True Will is essentially one's "calling" or "purpose" in life. Some later magicians have taken this to include the goal of attaining self-realization by one's own efforts, without the aid of God or other divine authority. This brings them close to the position that Crowley held just prior to 1904.[48] Others follow later works such as Liber II, saying that one's own will in pure form is nothing other than the divine will.[49] Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law for Crowley refers not to hedonism, fulfilling everyday desires, but to acting in response to that calling. The Thelemite is a mystic.[48] According to Lon Milo Duquette, a Thelemite is anyone who bases their actions on striving to discover and accomplish their true will,[50] when a person does their True Will, it is like an orbit, their niche in the universal order, and the universe assists them.[51] In order for the individual to be able to follow their True Will, the everyday self's socially-instilled inhibitions may have to be overcome via deconditioning.[52][53] Crowley believed that in order to discover the True Will, one had to free the desires of the subconscious mind from the control of the conscious mind, especially the restrictions placed on sexual expression, which he associated with the power of divine creation.[54] He identified the True Will of each individual with the Holy Guardian Angel, a daimon unique to each individual.[55] The spiritual quest to find what you are meant to do and do it is also known in Thelema as the Great Work.[56]
I am glad you are not giving up on the book. I just want to say one thing on Lessans' behalf. If he had found out he was wrong, he would have been the first to admit it. That's the kind of person he was.
Thank you for sharing this. It was interesting.
- Status