A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't recall attacking you personally. Just disagreeing with you and pointing out what seemed to be to be the obvious. You of all people should know that even though the common human response is to perceive a personal threat when there is disagreement with a personally held idea it is not a personal threat. It isn't necessarily personal at all.

I have a hard time taking your word on you being a mental health professional.

Again, another unprovoked attack on my professional credentials. You're demonstrating exactly my point.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Sorry, I though both your comment and mine were both humorous and sarcastic. I'll try to do it better next time.

Yes I've often said that humor and sarcasm are difficult in the printed word, I know I have had problems and have often been misunderstood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You might add that we think efferent vision is wrong because nobody can do it. If I could see efferently then I would say that peacegirl is right about it. But not even peacegirl appears to be able to see efferently and as far as I can tell Lessans was only able to do it once, as described as one of the "keen observations" alluded to by peacegirl. Because I guarantee you, if he could do it all the time he would have had no trouble at all getting a meeting with the president.

I don't know what this guy is talking about folks. I appear to be the only one to see efferently, like this is a special characteristic that some people have and not others? Does anyone say we see afferently sometimes, but if we could see this way all the time we would have access to the president? It's my guess that he is on some kind of mind altering drug.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.

Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what this guy is talking about folks. I appear to be the only one to see efferently, like this is a special characteristic that some people have and not others. Does anyone say we see afferently, but only sometimes, or maybe even once in awhile and if we could we would have access to the president? It's my guess that he is on some kind of drug.

peacegirl, I have no doubt that it appears as gibberish to you. But if you can see efferently and you want a meeting with the worlds leaders then you are wasting your time here. All you need to do is go to an observatory someplace and demonstrate that you can visually spot the actual positions of Jupiter's moons with no time delay. That would do it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Again, another unprovoked attack on my professional credentials. You're demonstrating exactly my point.

That's exactly what he's been doing to me ThreeLawsSafe. I'm glad someone else is calling him on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive?

I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time.

So we're back to mysterious unknown factors again. Are you starting to notice yet how many things efferent vision has absolutely no answer for, but which afferent vision explains without trouble?

Do you think you could answer my other questions now?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Again, another unprovoked attack on my professional credentials. You're demonstrating exactly my point.

It wasn't an attack on your credentials. You post like a mental health idiot.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It wasn't an attack on your credentials. You post like a mental health idiot.

Another purely antagonizing post. Are you beginning to see the pattern here?

I suggest this. Go and look at your last 100 posts. Count how many are primarily antagonistic, and count how many are substance-oriented. By antagonistic, I mean this last post. By substance-oriented, I mean your posts, for example, on artificial intelligence and computer programming (which are nothing short of brilliant, quite frankly). What do the percentages look like? Why are they that way? What's going on in your life, naturalist.atheist, that drives your antagonism so out of proportion with your substantive posts? What's driving that?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Another purely antagonizing post. Are you beginning to see the pattern here?

I suggest this. Go and look at your last 100 posts. Count how many are primarily antagonistic, and count how many are substance-oriented. By antagonistic, I mean this last post. By substance-oriented, I mean your posts, for example, on artificial intelligence and computer programming (which are nothing short of brilliant, quite frankly). What do the percentages look like? Why are they that way? What's going on in your life, naturalist.atheist, that drives your antagonism so out of proportion with your substantive posts? What's driving that?

Actually the last hundred posts were in this thread. I'm sure by all accounts except peacegirl's (and of course she sees everyone as being against her, but the mental health professional says she ain't crazy) I haven't had any complaints except from you. And you are a mental health professional. Watsamatter, never learned how to deal with my supposed personality type? You need to get some retraining.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time.

It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.

If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.

What's the problem? Can you not see efferently?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Actually the last hundred posts were in this thread. I'm sure by all accounts except peacegirl's (and of course she sees everyone as being against her, but the mental health professional says she ain't crazy) I haven't had any complaints except from you. And you are a mental health professional. Watsamatter, never learned how to deal with my supposed personality type? You need to get some retraining.

More unprovoked attacks -- "you need to get some retraining." Why?

Why do the attacks against peacegirl somehow not count for you? If peacegirl is truly mentally crazy, then what does it say about you that you continually attack her? What kind of person kicks crazy people around?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

More unprovoked attacks -- "you need to get some retraining." Why?

Why do the attacks against peacegirl somehow not count for you? If peacegirl is truly mentally crazy, then what does it say about you that you continually attack her? What kind of person kicks crazy people around?

Actually I usually don't attack her. I usually tell her she needs to get help. I was hoping that the "mental health professional" might be able to help her. But instead we got a mental health idiot that is trying to treat the person trying to get peacegirl some help.

You said you read both threads, but I am beginning to see a pattern of lying. If you read the other thread you would have known that originally I entered the other thread defending peacegirl from everyone else. They tried to warn me. I eventually figured out that peacegirl was incapable of learning much of anything. Everybody tried to teach her and it was a total waste of time. At that point in time I tried to figure out what was going on in her head, not to hurt her but to figure out a way that she would get help herself.

Frankly your presumptions are very insulting. They have been insulting from your very first posts in this thread. You also appear to be a liar. I doubt you have the credential you claim to have. And if you do, what ever you think you are in the mental health area, you suck at it.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Actually I usually don't attack her. I usually tell her she needs to get help. I was hoping that the "mental health professional" might be able to help her. But instead we got a mental health idiot that is trying to treat the person trying to get peacegirl some help.

You said you read both threads, but I am beginning to see a pattern of lying. If you read the other thread you would have known that originally I entered the other thread defending peacegirl from everyone else. They tried to warn me. I eventually figured out that peacegirl was incapable of learning much of anything. Everybody tried to teach her and it was a total waste of time. At that point in time I tried to figure out what was going on in her head, not to hurt her but to figure out a way that she would get help herself.

Frankly your presumptions are very insulting. They have been insulting from your very first posts in this thread. You also appear to be a liar. I doubt you have the credential you claim to have. And if you do, what ever you think you are in the mental health area, you suck at it.

You can't resist insulting me, can you? What did I do to you to infuriate you so much? If you truly want to help peacegirl, then why all the attacks, name-calling, and negative psychologizing?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

You can't resist insulting me, can you? What did I do to you to infuriate you so much? If you truly want to help peacegirl, then why all the attacks, name-calling, and negative psychologizing?

If you were an actual health professional you would not give a rats ass what someone on the internet thinks of your credentials. Peacegirl needs help and all you care about is a non-professional questioning your credentials.

You are a quack.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If you were an actual health professional you would not give a rats ass what someone on the internet thinks of your credentials. Peacegirl needs help and all you care about is a non-professional questioning your credentials.

You are a quack.

More attacks. Why? Have you asked yourself why, naturalist.atheist? I never said peacegirl needed help -- that's your contention. I never said that I cared about what you think of my credentials - that's your contention. Why the continual attacks? -- that's my question.

[thedoc]

Well, at least we are not all preocupied with Peacegirls nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So we're back to mysterious unknown factors again. Are you starting to notice yet how many things efferent vision has absolutely no answer for, but which afferent vision explains without trouble?

Do you think you could answer my other questions now?

I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina. How many times do I have to repeat that the (P) reflection is a mirror image, not blue before red. It doesn't work that way in efferent vision. It works that way coming from an afferent position.

This is about circumstantial evidence which could be wrong. What appears to be a calculation from one thing might be correcting a miscalculation from somewhere else. I really don't know. What I do know is that Lessans had a solid basis for his claim, and it deserves further investigation.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

More attacks. Why? Have you asked yourself why, naturalist.atheist? I never said peacegirl needed help -- that's your contention. I never said that I cared about what you think of my credentials - that's your contention. Why the continual attacks? -- that's my question.

An attack would imply that somehow I am trying to hurt you. I don't know you so frankly I don't care what you think. Perhaps it never occurred to you that letting everyone know that you were a healtcare professional and then lying about what you have read and making assumptions about what's been posted that are wrong would lead people to think you are a quack.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

An attack would imply that somehow I am trying to hurt you. I don't know you so frankly I don't care what you think. Perhaps it never occurred to you that letting everyone know that you were a healtcare professional and then lying about what you have read and making assumptions about what's been posted that are wrong would lead people to think you are a quack.

Name-calling and calling people liars are attacks. That's fairly simple. The question is, why do you continue to do it? What are you gaining in the process? What in your life directs you to keep attacking on an internet forum?

You're very angry about my credentials -- you keep coming back to that. Has something happened in your life that makes you react negatively to people with professional licenses and degrees? Were you kept from pursuing something you wanted?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.

No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that the (P) reflection is a mirror image, not blue before red. It doesn't work that way in efferent vision. It works that way coming from an afferent position.

Who's talking about "blue before red"? That's not part of my questions at all. Why do you keep trying to bring up an example from several months ago as if it's still what I'm asking you about now? It isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is about circumstantial evidence which could be wrong. What appears to be a calculation from one thing might be correcting a miscalculation from somewhere else. I really don't know. What I do know is that Lessans had a solid basis for his claim, and it deserves further investigation.

The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Name-calling and calling people liars are attacks. That's fairly simple. The question is, why do you continue to do it? What are you gaining in the process? What in your life directs you to keep attacking on an internet forum?

it's not name calling if the person is lying and they suck at their profession. The brilliant health care professional thinks it helps his credibility to lie about what he's read on a forum where it is trivial to check his statements and then spend his time defending his credentials with a non-professional, which is a stupid thing to do because I got nothing to loose. Meanwhile peacegirl has been denying reality for at least a decade and you think she is sane.

Nope, those are not insults. Just obvious observations.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time.

MAGIC!

Another mysterious magical reason you can't even specify!

So either, there are lot of unknown, magical reasons that stop Lessans being ruled out...

Or Lessans is wrong, and there are no magical mysterious reasons required.

What do you think, peacegirl?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

it's not name calling if the person is lying and they suck at their profession. The brilliant health care professional thinks it helps his credibility to lie about what he's read on a forum where it is trivial to check his statements and then spend his time defending his credentials with a non-professional, which is a stupid thing to do because I got nothing to loose. Meanwhile peacegirl has been denying reality for at least a decade and you think she is sane.

Nope, those are not insults. Just obvious observations.

More attacks -- "you suck at your profession," "a stupid thing to do." Sarcasm -- "the brilliant health care professional"

When did I "defend" my "credentials"? More importantly, why do you keep attacking?

I noticed that you expressed resentment about "bad teachers" in the education thread as well. So has the resentment toward professionals with degrees been a pattern for you, naturalist.atheist? Did a teacher or a therapist hurt you at some time?