Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
I do know what it means, and you are, once again, trying to deflect the truth. I will stand up against this nonsense.  |
If you did you would see that it makes no sense. A mirror image is a term that only has meaning in conventional optics. It is meaningless in the framework of efferent sight, as a mirror image is what happens when light is reflected off a surface, creating the illusion that the objects behind the observer are behind the mirror.
Unless you can deliver a mechanism by which mirror images work in efferent sight (you already admitted you just do not know by the way) and can then show how this same mechanism is at work in regular efferent sight where no mirrors are involved at all, the term "Mirror Image" is a piece of meaningless waffle you regurgitate every now because you think it sounds good.
Why do you never actually stop to examine anything?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Point b: even if it wasn't, it still contradicts causality. Something has an effect on the retina from 8 light minutes away instantly, with nothing travelling over to do actually cause that effect. This is practically the definition of something that contradicts causality.
|
I will say for the thousandth time that this is why science never saw the truth. I'm not blaming science but it was hidden behind the premise that information is in the light itself. All you're doing is going back to the old premise, and I can't win if that's what you're doing, but this does not make Lessans wrong.
|
This has nothing to do with light. In your model, nothing travels, and the sun being switched on instantly has an effect on the eyes. This contradicts causality.
One of the reasons this book will always be laughed at is that Lessans was completely unaware of this, and nevertheless felt perfectly entitled to make broad, sweeping statements about it.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
If causality does not apply, then determinism does not hold. At its basis, it states that all things are caused by other things. Lessans determinism relies on it too: according to him we are compelled by our own free will to do the things we do. Without causality that is not the case: we could just choose something random, as causality no longer dictates that thought, too, must be caused.
|
Quote:
|
As I said, this does not contradict causality in any way.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
It rather does, as I have clearly shown above. It is just that it is one of the great many things that you lack a basic understanding of. How on earth did you ever manage to get through college?
|
Oh shut up already and stop using ad hominems to discredit this work when you have nothing else to lean on.
|
The facts remain the facts: in your model the sun causes an effect in the eyes without anything travelling between the two. That is the very definition of something that contradicts causality.
And I am genuinely surprised that you would be able to make it through any sort of formal education if you have this much difficulty understanding new concepts, even if they are carefully explained. Perhaps it is merely that you display wilful ignorance when it suits you, and that you are dishonest rather than stupid. But it has to be one or the other.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The book contradicts itself here: on the one hand it relies on causality, but then cheerfully makes statements that reject it later on. It is another example of Lessans just not thinking it through.
|
Either efferent sight has to go, or determinism. They are utterly incompatible, and with it the book contradicts itself. No amount of waffling is going to make that any less of a fact.
|
You're so confused I can't work with you. I'll have to stick with certain people who are a little open minded. That way you may glean the information from them. I'm sorry to say that a direct conversation with you will only lead to results that reflect (no pun intended) your truth, not reality.
|
Once again you are simply unable to admit you are wrong, despite not being able to refute what I say. The fact remains that the book is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with reality.
In order to hang on to your belief, you need to avoid this particular discussion, which very clearly shows that it is wrong. Since you cannot refute the fact that it IS wrong, you deal with it by claiming bias, even though you cannot show where my reasoning is flawed.
Bias does not work that way: Bias leads to an illogical statement. You can point to an illogical statement, and then say that a person made that mistake because of bias. You cannot simply dismiss a statement and claim it is biased: you must ALSO show why it is illogical or unrealistic. You can do neither. |
I will say it again: Unless you understand why the brain, looking through the eyes, ALLOWS THIS PHENOMENON, we are at odds. I CANNOT KEEP THIS CONVERSATION GOING WHEN ALL I GET ARE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AS A RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO GRASP THE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT VISION WHICH I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE TIME.  |
LOL
Quote:
|
Unless you understand why the brain, looking through the eyes, ALLOWS THIS PHENOMENON
|
You still do not understand that it makes no difference if I believe in direct, instant sight or not.
If direct sight occurs, then
by definition causality no longer holds, and Lessans version of determinism is invalid. Well,
more invalid, as it is already pretty much a fallacy-sundea.
Either direct sight can be true, or any version of determinism. They cannot both be true, as they contradict one another, as I have painstakingly explained.
You can throw hissy-fits all you want, but that remains a fact, whether you run away from the point while hysterically crying about ad hominem attacks or not.
Either refute my point or admit you are wrong. These are your only
honest and honourable options. Let's see how honest you really are?