New Discovery

[Atla]

You're wrong. All of his reasoning was based on observations that were not in violation of physics. Keep trying.

So he didn't tell an example where we don't have to wait 8 minutes to see the Sun?

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.

Light doesn't bounce off the Sun, it gets emitted. And yes light and all information has a speed limit, it's called lightspeed. If he contested this then the reviewer is right, your father the scientist disagrees with every (proven) scientific observation ever about light.

[Atla]

If you feel like it, you can explain his third discovery in your own words about the "I". Seeing how the book is just a bunch of random claims that don't actually build on each other, we can just skip forward to the third one. And I'm quite familiar with the topic about the "I" (beyond both Western and Eastern philosophy) so I can tell you quickly if your father went wrong somewhere.

I'm not getting sucked into this. I will copy and paste the first few paragraphs for your viewing pleasure.

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirely new world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which is demonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of human relation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is my favorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well, my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.

“But there is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There are people who have suffered and died to develop this world who will not be around when the fruits of their labor have ripened to maturity. No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can God be a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’t the thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make the man of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for the man of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be born again and again and again. This does not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you are at this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric Johnson refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free, or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be skeptical but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my discovery after you have studied the relations, not before. I would like to share a conversation I had with my friend regarding my final discovery in the hope of making these difficult principles easier to understand.”

“Boy does that word ‘death’ give me the creeps! I can’t stand the thought that one day I’ll be gone from this earth; I won’t see the sun, the moon, and the stars; I won’t enjoy eating, sleeping, making love. What a horrible thought! And above all, I might not even be here when the Golden Age gets officially launched.”

“Your thinking is typical of the majority of mankind.”

“But a lot of religious people don’t think that way. They believe that when they die, they are going to heaven or some such happy hunting ground and, consequently, have no fear of death whatsoever.”

"Yes, I know that. There are all kinds of explanations about the hereafter, this spiritual world of souls, but I am not interested in words, just the flesh. You are in for quite a pleasant surprise but because man’s mind has been so filled with words such as afterlife, soul, spirit, metempsychosis, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which have been used to explain death — although they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever — we were unable to extract the pure unadulterated mathematical relations that existed when these words were removed. Theologians and other philosophers received intuitive incursions that man was truly immortal, but they had no way of communicating or translating their feelings into language that could not be denied simply because they were completely confused with words and beliefs. It will be proven, conclusively, that there is nothing to fear in death, and when all the facts are in you will see that there is justice for those who have gone before us. You will gain a better understanding as you read and reread this chapter."

“This is quite confusing. You just said that I would be born again and again and again, and now you say there will be no connection between me now and me then.”

“I realize that, but before I explain the proof I shall begin by asking you a very important question. Doesn’t it seem strange that of all the millions of years the earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the words through which you see this relation are clarified) you, of all people, should be born at this time to see the wonders of this world and the inception of the Golden Age? Why weren’t you born back in the days of Socrates, or why did you have to be born at this time instead of a thousand years hence? Think again of this fantastic phenomenon with the earth perhaps billions and billions of years old, here we are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time.

“I’m conscious now, and I know nothing of a consciousness in another life. I was born now, at this time, because my father met my mother, fell in love, got married and had four children, and I am the third. My grandparents gave birth to my parents, and so on. Furthermore, I have seen many people die and they never return as new babies or in any other form. Therefore, since I, too, must die, why should I be an exception and return? The elderly who have lost many loved ones and know that their own death is near cannot help but think about what Durant referred to as the Great Enemy because you see and cannot deny that when someone gets buried in the ground he never rises again except in your imagination, as did Christ into heaven.”

I see nothing here. Flesh dies and rots, memories die with it. Individual consciousness dies, only the first-person-view of existence itself is eternal. Your father lived and died before the supposed Golden Age too, he didn't get to see it. He wasn't born at the "right time". Whenever you are alive, it's the present from your perspective.

Even humanity's Golden Age would probably be irrelevant to the totality of the cosmos, so that argument probably wouldn't hold anyway. If we are here, or someone is here, because this time has special significance, then that significance must probably be infinitely greater than humanity's Golden Age, the significance of that alternative event should be universal, absolute.

[Atla]

The question is more like, did your father get anything right?

[peacegirl]

So he didn't tell an example where we don't have to wait 8 minutes to see the Sun?

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.

Light doesn't bounce off the Sun, it gets emitted. And yes light and all information has a speed limit, it's called lightspeed. If he contested this then the reviewer is right, your father the scientist disagrees with every (proven) scientific observation ever about light.

Either way, it is theorized that light brings the image to us in delayed time. He refuted this but his refutation did not violate physics in any way. Light has to be at the eye.

[Atla]

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.

Light doesn't bounce off the Sun, it gets emitted. And yes light and all information has a speed limit, it's called lightspeed. If he contested this then the reviewer is right, your father the scientist disagrees with every (proven) scientific observation ever about light.

Either way, it is theorized that light brings the image to us in delayed time. He refuted that but his refutation did not violate physics in any way. Light has to be at the eye.

Theorized by whom? The standard scientific view is that light hits the eyes, which triggers optic nerves to transmit signals to the visual cortex and other parts of the brain, and an internal image is constructed in the brain.

Light doesn't literally "bring an image", light is light. However light does arrive with a delay.

We have mirrors on the Moon, you can test the delay yourself with a laser. Whatever.

[peacegirl]

The question is more like, did your father get anything right?

How do you know when I didn’t post his observations? You did this with his first discovery too. You did not prove that you were moving in the direction of dissatisfaction or you would not have lent your coworker the money. Now, you are so cocksure of yourself here as well that I have no desire to engage with you.

[Atla]

The question is more like, did your father get anything right?

How do you know when I didn’t post his observations? You did this with his first discovery too. You did not prove that you were moving in the direction of dissatisfaction or you would not have lent your coworker the money. Now, you are so cocksure of yourself here as well that I have no desire to engage with you.

Well your father did not prove either that it's impossible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. According to determinism, it's possible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction when that's what is determined to happen in a person's mind.

[peacegirl]

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.

Light doesn't bounce off the Sun, it gets emitted. And yes light and all information has a speed limit, it's called lightspeed.

I wanted to clarify a few things. For all intents and purposes this is true. We have to travel to get from here to there, and there is a speed limit, but to then equate this to how we receive information from light is a leap that appears logical, but it's incorrect. Light is a condition of sight only. We cannot see without light's presence, but this does not mean light is bringing the image to us. I know this is hard for people to even contemplate. It's like he was committing blasphemy.

If he contested this then the reviewer is right, your father the scientist disagrees with every (proven) scientific observation ever about light.

He didn't disagree with proven scientific observations about light. The only thing he disagreed with is the theory that light brings images of whatever it strikes to us, which we then receive in delayed time, but his refutation did not violate physics in any way. Light has to be at the eye. How this occurs is due to the workings of the eye, not light.

[peacegirl]

The question is more like, did your father get anything right?

How do you know when I didn’t post his observations? You did this with his first discovery too. You did not prove that you were moving in the direction of dissatisfaction or you would not have lent your coworker the money. Now, you are so cocksure of yourself here as well that I have no desire to engage with you.

Well your father did not prove either that it's impossible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. According to determinism, it's possible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction when that's what is determined to happen in a person's mind.

You're not understanding what is meant by "dissatisfaction." We cannot choose something that is more dissatisfying when something that is less dissatisfying is available. Again, you can be dissatisfied, but that only means your choice was the lesser evil, so to speak. You did not prove him wrong in your example. Moreover, what is determined to happen does not mean that we are at the mercy of determinism, as if it can make us do things against our will. IOW, it does not remove our agency. For example, you can't say, "I was determined to shoot that person, therefore I was not responsible." No wonder why many people don't like the thought that will is not free and why this debate has gone on for thousands of years.

[Atla]

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.

Light doesn't bounce off the Sun, it gets emitted. And yes light and all information has a speed limit, it's called lightspeed.

I wanted to clarify a few things. For all intents and purposes this is true. We have to travel to get from here to there, and there is a speed limit, but to then equate this to how we receive information from light is a leap that appears logical, but it's incorrect. Light is a condition of sight only. We cannot see without light's presence, but this does not mean light is bringing the image to us. I know this is hard for people to even contemplate. It's like he was committing blasphemy.

If he contested this then the reviewer is right, your father the scientist disagrees with every (proven) scientific observation ever about light.

He didn't disagree with proven scientific observations about light. The only thing he disagreed with is the theory that light brings images of whatever it strikes to us, which we then receive in delayed time, but his refutation did not violate physics in any way. Light has to be at the eye. How this occurs is due to the workings of the eye, not light.

Again:

The standard scientific view is that light hits the eyes, which triggers optic nerves to transmit signals to the visual cortex and other parts of the brain, and an internal image is constructed in the brain.

Light doesn't literally "bring an image", light is light. However light does arrive with a delay.

We have mirrors on the Moon, you can test the delay yourself with a laser. Whatever.

Where did you get this idea that people think light brings an image to us? Are you stupid?

[Atla]

How do you know when I didn’t post his observations? You did this with his first discovery too. You did not prove that you were moving in the direction of dissatisfaction or you would not have lent your coworker the money. Now, you are so cocksure of yourself here as well that I have no desire to engage with you.

Well your father did not prove either that it's impossible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. According to determinism, it's possible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction when that's what is determined to happen in a person's mind.

You're not understanding what is meant by "dissatisfaction." We cannot choose something that is more dissatisfying when something that is less dissatisfying is available. This is not hard to test. You did not prove him wrong at all. What is determined to happen does not remove your agency in making a choice. That is why this debate is so unproductive and has been for centuries.

I understood what you and he meant by dissatisfaction all this time. I think you have an IQ of 80 or so that you don't get it.

And no, you can't truly test it as you can't fully know what's truly going on in someone's head. How stupid do you have to be to not even understand this much? You think the neat childish examples your father listed are scientific proof?

[peacegirl]

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.

Light doesn't bounce off the Sun, it gets emitted. And yes light and all information has a speed limit, it's called lightspeed.

I wanted to clarify a few things. For all intents and purposes this is true. We have to travel to get from here to there, and there is a speed limit, but to then equate this to how we receive information from light is a leap that appears logical, but it's incorrect. Light is a condition of sight only. We cannot see without light's presence, but this does not mean light is bringing the image to us. I know this is hard for people to even contemplate. It's like he was committing blasphemy.

If he contested this then the reviewer is right, your father the scientist disagrees with every (proven) scientific observation ever about light.

He didn't disagree with proven scientific observations about light. The only thing he disagreed with is the theory that light brings images of whatever it strikes to us, which we then receive in delayed time, but his refutation did not violate physics in any way. Light has to be at the eye. How this occurs is due to the workings of the eye, not light.

Again:

The standard scientific view is that light hits the eyes, which triggers optic nerves to transmit signals to the visual cortex and other parts of the brain, and an internal image is constructed in the brain.

Everything remains the same. The optic nerve transmits signals to the visual cortex. What he disagreed with was that the delayed image was being constructed in the brain rather than seeing the object in real time. This occurs due to the eyes being efferent, not afferent. He explains what is actually going on in that chapter and why he came to this conclusion. It didn't come out of thin air.

Light doesn't literally "bring an image", light is light. However light does arrive with a delay.

Light does not literally bring an image. That's why I said a wavelength from the object that was reflected or emitted. Light is light, true.

We have mirrors on the Moon, you can test the delay yourself with a laser. Whatever.

Where did you get this idea that people think light brings an image to us? Are you stupid?

This is not what he was referring to. His finding only relates to what we see with our eyes, or for that matter a telescope, not that lasers don't work. The speed of light has been determined through experiments. He wasn't refuting that.

[peacegirl]

Well your father did not prove either that it's impossible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. According to determinism, it's possible to move in the direction of dissatisfaction when that's what is determined to happen in a person's mind.

You're not understanding what is meant by "dissatisfaction." We cannot choose something that is more dissatisfying when something that is less dissatisfying is available. This is not hard to test. You did not prove him wrong at all. What is determined to happen does not remove your agency in making a choice. That is why this debate is so unproductive and has been for centuries.

I understood what you and he meant by dissatisfaction all this time. I think you have an IQ of 80 or so that you don't get it.

You obviously don't understand because you still think your little example somehow proves that you can choose what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available. You can't do it, and your example did not disprove this in any way, shape, or form. Whatever your reason was, you found it to be more satisfying to lend her the money rather than not. Only you know what was going on in your head when you thought it was a bad move but you decided to lend it anyway knowing it was risky. The reason for doing something is not as important as the direction that every one of us is compelled to move. This is an immutable law of nature. There are no exceptions.

And no, you can't truly test it as you can't fully know what's truly going on in someone's head. How stupid do you have to be to not even understand this much? You think the neat childish examples your father listed are scientific proof?

It wasn't childish as much as it was an effort to make it easy for people to grasp. Look, he invited anyone who thinks they can make the writing better. If you think you can, be my guest. But to just criticize him for his 30+ year work is being a little unfair, don't ya think? Believe you me, he knew what he was up against.

CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit.

Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.

[Atla]

I wanted to clarify a few things. For all intents and purposes this is true. We have to travel to get from here to there, and there is a speed limit, but to then equate this to how we receive information from light is a leap that appears logical, but it's incorrect. Light is a condition of sight only. We cannot see without light's presence, but this does not mean light is bringing the image to us. I know this is hard for people to even contemplate. It's like he was committing blasphemy.



He didn't disagree with proven scientific observations about light. The only thing he disagreed with is the theory that light brings images of whatever it strikes to us, which we then receive in delayed time, but his refutation did not violate physics in any way. Light has to be at the eye. How this occurs is due to the workings of the eye, not light.

Again:

The standard scientific view is that light hits the eyes, which triggers optic nerves to transmit signals to the visual cortex and other parts of the brain, and an internal image is constructed in the brain.

Everything remains the same. The optic nerve transmits signals to the visual cortex. What he disagreed with was that the delayed image was being constructed in the brain rather than seeing the object in real time. This occurs due to the eyes being efferent, not afferent. He explains what is actually going on in that chapter and why he came to this conclusion. It didn't come out of thin air.

Light doesn't literally "bring an image", light is light. However light does arrive with a delay.

Light does not literally bring an image. That's why I said a wavelength from the object that was reflected or emitted. Light is light, true.

We have mirrors on the Moon, you can test the delay yourself with a laser. Whatever.

Where did you get this idea that people think light brings an image to us? Are you stupid?

This is not what he was referring to. His finding only relates to what we see with our eyes, or for that matter a telescope, not that lasers don't work. The speed of light has been determined through experiments. He wasn't refuting that.

It's proven that we always see the past, he disagrees with every scientific experiment ever.

[Atla]

You're not understanding what is meant by "dissatisfaction." We cannot choose something that is more dissatisfying when something that is less dissatisfying is available. This is not hard to test. You did not prove him wrong at all. What is determined to happen does not remove your agency in making a choice. That is why this debate is so unproductive and has been for centuries.

I understood what you and he meant by dissatisfaction all this time. I think you have an IQ of 80 or so that you don't get it.

You obviously don't understand because you still think your little example somehow proves that you can choose what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available. You can't do it, and your example did not disprove this in any way, shape, or form. Whatever your reason was, you found it to be more satisfying to lend her the money rather than not. Only you know what was going on in your head when you thought it was a bad move but you decided to lend it anyway knowing it was risky. The reason for doing something is not as important as the direction that every one of us is compelled to move. This is an immutable law of nature. There are no exceptions.

And no, you can't truly test it as you can't fully know what's truly going on in someone's head. How stupid do you have to be to not even understand this much? You think the neat childish examples your father listed are scientific proof?

It wasn't childish as much as it was an effort to make it easy for people to grasp. Look, he invited anyone who thinks they can make the writing better. If you think you can, be my guest. But to just criticize him for his 30+ year work is being a little unfair, don't ya think? Believe you me, he knew what he was up against.

Look, you're insulting my intelligence for the 10th time or so. I FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE HAVE TWO DISSATISFYING OPTIONS, ACCORDING TO YOU WE CAN ONLY CHOOSE THE LESS DISSATISFYING ONE. If you can't pay attention to what people say then don't come here.

No, it's not unfair to criticize someone who spent 30 years on a grand lie. Such scammers only make things worse, not better.

Can you or can't you comprehend that your father hasn't proven that your law is immutable? Anyone who is half-intelligent will immediately see that he hasn't proven it, and it's not possible to prove it even in 2025, let alone 60-70 years ago. He just gave some examples, that's not proof. Do you understand that giving a few examples for an idea doesn't constitue proof?