A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WHO ARE YOU SPACEMONKEY TO COME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ME??? YOU ARE NOT GOD AND YOU ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING SOMEONE WHO CAN EVALUATE THIS KNOWLEDGE, SO PLEASE ZIP YOUR LIP UNTIL YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT CAN EITHER REFUTE OR SUPPORT THIS KNOWLEDGE. AS OF NOW, YOU HAVE NEITHER. I AM NOT YELLING, I AM JUST UPSET.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, from what you just wrote I believe there is no point in our communicating. You have grabbed onto a definition that supports your position, and you've got the audience to applaud you. I AM NOT DELUSIONAL!! I DON'T FIT INTO ANY ONE OF THOSE POINTS. HOW EASY IT IS TO MISCONSTRUE SOMEONE'S INTENT AND GET EVERYONE TO RALLY ON YOUR BEHALF. I AM NOT PUTTING UP WITH THIS MISREPRESENTATION OF WHO I AM!!!! SORRY!

As a rational person, I base my conclusions upon the available evidence. And the evidence of your posts suggests that unless you are faking all of this then you meet at least 8 of the 10 listed indicators for delusional disorder. I am not making a diagnosis, but simply reaching an informed opinion based upon your behavior. I judge that you are likely delusional because you act like someone who is delusional.

I told you I'd end up losing interest in discussing vision rather than your condition if you kept ignoring my posts and refusing to answer questions, and that is what has happened. You've shown absolutely no interest in working with me to develop a consistent model, and have ignored my relevant questions at every opportunity. It simply isn't worth the effort of trying to force you answer questions you lack both the willingness and ability to answer.

You could change your behaviour if you wanted to. You could answer questions as they are asked rather than on the 10th or 20th posting. You could address people's responses instead of ignoring them and then claiming no-one answers your questions. You could answer what is asked instead of constantly whining and blaming your audience for your own failures.

But you don't. You just ignore, avoid, and whine, and then throw a hissy fit when called out on your delusions. As I've repeatedly said, I'm only here because interacting with you has been entertaining. But there's no entertainment here in being constantly ignored. Frankly, I'd rather see what happens now if everyone were to stop giving you the attention you crave but do not at all deserve.

[LadyShea]

Bump. You failed to respond to the majority of points made in this post

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you have yet to answer how the photons GET THERE to the film to touch the atoms in the matter that makes up camera film.

Until you can answer this, you are talking nonsense.

How can the photons be absorbed by the atoms in camera film on Earth AT NOON, if the photons are at the newly ignited Sun AT NOON and therefore no photons have arrived on Earth. There must be a physical process of some kind involved for that to happen. What is it?

I have been using the same example, of Lessans, for weeks. The newly ignited sun at noon, camera film on Earth at noon.

The only object is the camera film on Earth. The only photons are from the newly ignited sun 93 million miles away.

If the mirror image is not duplicated physical matter consisting of atoms it cannot be interacted with by photons. You can't shake hands with a mirror image.

HOW? How do the photons and camera film come to share the same physical location?

This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

You're the camera film on Earth at noon, I am the photon at the just ignited Sun at noon. How can we shake hands?

This is a weasel. It doesn't answer my very clear and precise questions regarding physical interactions between photons at the newly ignited Sun simultaneously touching camera film on Earth.

You keep forgetting that it is no different than two people shaking hands. They must physically exist in the same location in order to touch.

Focusing lenses cannot warp or fold space to bring two objects together at the same location

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I fixed your quote tag, I didn't post that.

However, I do want to know the truth. That's why I am a skeptic. I would rather know the truth, no matter how hard or cold it is, than believe comforting, wish fulfilling falsehoods. The truth isn't always what I want it to be. You need to check your own biases, peacegirl.

Your emotional attachment to Lessans and wishful thinking for world peace are clouding your objectivity and rational judgment of the facts

My emotional attachment has nothing to do with the veracity of these principles, and until you see that you will use this as an excuse to give up on this discovery. A person like you who wants to know the truth is going to miss out on the truth because of your bias, not mine.

[LadyShea]

My biases are based on hard evidence, your biases are based on emotional attachments.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump. You failed to respond to the majority of points made in this post

I have answered these questions more than once. A focused lens and the reality of efferent vision (which is key and can be empirically proven), produces real time vision. That is why you keep reverting back to (N) light traveling at a finite speed which must travel through space/time to reach the film/retina for their to be an interaction. Until you can see the plausibility of "efferent vision" (which does involve an interaction between the photons and the film/retina), you will fail to understand how this is possible and, as a result, you will blame Lessans for violating the laws of physics, which is false.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My emotional attachment has nothing to do with the veracity of these principles...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Indicators of a delusion:

8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I AM NOT DELUSIONAL!! I DON'T FIT INTO ANY ONE OF THOSE POINTS.

Contradiction #82654

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It will be a testament to my determination to bring this discovery to light, as well as the detractors who will be clearly identified in neon lights.

Wherever you turn, reality just plays jokes on you doesn't it? Did you really not realize that chances are that these messages will not even be there to be read in a few years time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm not begrudging you a thing. If the histrionic martyr narrative gets you through the day, then so be it. That doesn't make it any less silly.

If this is the general consensus, then I'm not going to continue here. It's taking too much of my energy if there's no genuine interest.

[Vivisectus]

I have answered these questions more than once. A focused lens and the reality of efferent vision (which is key and can be empirically proven), produces real time vision. That is why you keep reverting back to (N) light traveling at a finite speed which must travel through space/time to reach the film/retina for their to be an interaction. Until you can see the plausibility of "efferent vision" (which does involve an interaction between the photons and the film/retina), you will fail to understand how this is possible and, as a result, you will blame Lessans for violating the laws of physics, which is false.

So photons can interact with film that is lightyears away... how?

And you do realize that photons being able to interact with a film from a distance contradicts causality? Which in turn would make determinism impossible, as it would mean that thoughts and actions can be simply uncaused?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is the general consensus, then I'm not going to continue here. It's taking too much of my energy if there's no genuine interest.

Hasn't it been abundantly clear? I thought I've specifically said this more than twice.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is the general consensus, then I'm not going to continue here. It's taking too much of my energy if there's no genuine interest.

Personally I find the nonsense you generate amusing, and I think the pompous ignorance in the book is very funny too. I think that believing this nonsense makes you feel special, and that you don't have a lot of other things to focus on. That is why you keep coming back here: we are the only people on the planet that are aware of it and that will even discuss it.

I don't think there is anyone here who takes this book seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Agreed. peacegirl, it is not premature to conclude that Lessans ideas about sight and time are false. They have been falsified in hundreds of ways.

Optics has never failed to explain or predict the properties and behaviors of light consistently across all examples, from viewing microscopic life to getting an image of galaxies billions of light years away. It's really a beautiful model in that way. It is consistent, always, 100%.

You are positing "Maybe it's a coincidence", "Maybe there is a consistent hidden, unknown factor in NASA's calculations that allows them to successfully land spacecraft on Mars even though their conscious calculations are completely wrong" and "There is some hidden, unknown property of camera film, which we invented and manufacture, that allows it to physically absorb photons at a distance".

Basically it all amounts to "I don't know how these things work, and I can't explain anything in a way that is consistent with both my belief and observed reality, but I am sure I am right anyway".

That. Is. A. Faith. Statement.

Then let it go LadyShea. I have tried until I'm blue in the face why we are able to see in real time across millions of miles. It is true that I can't explain the time/light correction that they say is always made, and how much of a difference it would make; or could there be a miscalculation in another area that corrected itself through this calculation. All I can tell you is that optics supports efferent vision, and until there is further empirical proof you will believe that I'm in a fantasy world. So be it. I'm really tired of this discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Personally I find the nonsense you generate amusing, and I think the pompous ignorance in the book is very funny too. I think that believing this nonsense makes you feel special, and that you don't have a lot of other things to focus on. That is why you keep coming back here: we are the only people on the planet that are aware of it and that will even discuss it.

I don't think there is anyone here who takes this book seriously.

Actually, you're wrong again. I have not distributed this work AT ALL. I told you this already, have you already forgotten? This was the last stomping ground as far as online philosophy groups. It's just too difficult to break through a belief that has become hardened into fact and will not be shaken loose any time soon. No matter how hard I try this stubborn resistance comes back with equal force.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered these questions more than once.

You haven't answered them at all. You've made some assertions about mirror images and weaseled about retinas and vision and haven't explained the physical mechanism causing photons to be in physical contact with camera film and absorbed by the silver halide molecules on that camera film at a distance of 93 millions miles, nor shown how this is possible within the laws of physics.

A focused lens and the reality of efferent vision (which is key and can be empirically proven), produces real time vision.

I am asking about photographing the sun at noon when it was turned on at noon and therefore according to Lessans, the photons have not arrived on Earth to touch the camera film.

This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

You're the camera film on Earth at noon, I am the photon at the just ignited Sun at noon. How can we shake hands?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, you're wrong again. I have not distributed this work AT ALL. I told you this already, have you already forgotten? This was the last stomping ground as far as online philosophy groups. It's just too difficult to break through a belief that has become hardened into fact and will not be shaken loose any time soon. No matter how hard I try this stubborn resistance comes back with equal force.

To you, irony just means "Kind of like iron" doesn't it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let it go LadyShea. I have tried until I'm blue in the face why we are able to see in real time across millions of miles. It is true that I can't explain the time/light correction that they say is always made, and how much of a difference it would make; or could there be a miscalculation in another area that corrected itself through this calculation. All I can tell you is that optics supports efferent vision, and until there is further empirical proof you will believe that I'm in a fantasy world. So be it. I'm really tired of this discussion.

Your efforts have been pathetic. You refuse to answer concise questions without weaseling and avoiding the obvious contradictions between your "model" and observed reality. You don't even understand optics, yet feel assured they support your claims?

If you're tired, then let it go and leave. As long as you're here, I will attempt to get a straight answer out of you.

[Spacemonkey]

If Peacegirl was serious about developing a consistent and coherent model she would have made some attempt to reply to these two posts. Instead she just completely ignored them. She has no idea how her own model is meant to work, and she has no interest in working it out.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your present answers to my questions do posit stationary light. You told me you understood that this is the case, and yet chose not to change those answers. At the moment you have light hitting the ball and staying there stationary at the ball's surface, and you have light at the film which has been sitting there stationary at the surface of the film.

If you don't want to be positing stationary light then you need you give different answers to my questions.

There are two ways you might avoid the prediction problem, but you haven't chosen either with your above response which just flatly denies the problem. One solution is to have the same photons floating there stationary at the film the whole time, but constantly changing their wavelengths to match the real-time qualities of the object. The other is to have the light previously at the film be a different set of photons from those there now such that the photons at the film are constantly being refreshed and replaced by new photons.

Which of these two options are you choosing? (The second option avoids stationary light, but requires different answers to my questions from what you've previously given.)

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you. With this response it at least looks like you've now read what you are replying to. But you appear to be applying the analogy to the wrong place. I'm not suggesting that the sunlight hitting the object is constantly refreshing like the river (although we can both agree this is happening). I'm talking about the (P)reflected light forming the image at the film constantly refreshing itself. Do you agree or disagree with this?

And as per my previous post, there are two ways this light at the film might be constantly refreshing itself. The same light might be sitting there stationary at the film and constantly changing wavelengths to match the object. Or the light itself might be constantly being replaced such that the light at the film is always different light to what was there just before. This latter case is what I was suggesting with the analogy. Which option do you prefer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As a rational person, I base my conclusions upon the available evidence. And the evidence of your posts suggests that unless you are faking all of this then you meet at least 8 of the 10 listed indicators for delusional disorder. I am not making a diagnosis, but simply reaching an informed opinion based upon your behavior. I judge that you are likely delusional because you act like someone who is delusional.

Anybody can do what you're doing, and diagnose someone as irrational, mentally ill, or delusional only because their ideas disagree with the mainstream.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I told you I'd end up losing interest in discussing vision rather than your condition if you kept ignoring my posts and refusing to answer questions, and that is what has happened. You've shown absolutely no interest in working with me to develop a consistent model, and have ignored my relevant questions at every opportunity. It simply isn't worth the effort of trying to force you answer questions you lack both the willingness and ability to answer.

But you seem to be repeating yourself. From my vantage point I can see that the reason you are doing this is because you have not grasped the efferent model. Because you haven't, you believe that photons must be teleporting. They are not. They are interacting as a mirror image at the film/retina. This is due to efferent vision which is why you can't visualize it. Because we are looking out at the world instead of anything coming in, the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us. The only requirement for this interaction to take place is for light to be surrounding the object and for it to be in one's visual range. The lens of the film/retina focusing on the object is what creates the mirror image. It does not matter whether it's a camera or the eye since they both have a lens and work the same way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You could change your behaviour if you wanted to. You could answer questions as they are asked rather than on the 10th or 20th posting. You could address people's responses instead of ignoring them and then claiming no-one answers your questions. You could answer what is asked instead of constantly whining and blaming your audience for your own failures. But you don't.

I'm trying to answer as many questions in one sitting as I can, but with no support from any of you, this has become a major burden.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just ignore, avoid, and whine, and then throw a hissy fit when called out on your delusions. As I've repeatedly said, I'm only here because interacting with you has been entertaining. But there's no entertainment here in being constantly ignored. Frankly, I'd rather see what happens now if everyone were to stop giving you the attention you crave but do not at all deserve.

I would probably feel relief. I could then leave knowing I did not desert the thread, but stayed the course until there were no more questions.

[Vivisectus]

They are interacting as a mirror image. This is due to efferent vision and the fact that the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us. The way this occurs is due to the fact that all that is necessary for this interaction to take place is for light to be around the object and the object to be in range where the lens of the film/retina can focus on the object whereby a mirror image is formed.

But then you deny causality, on which the determinism in the book relies. Something cannot interact with another thing at a distance without sending some sort of signal, and these signals cannot travel faster than light.

Once again you resort to meaningless word-salad because you are unable to admit that you haven't got a clue. At least by now you could have at least learned something about REAL physics.

[LadyShea]

They are interacting as a mirror image. This is due to efferent vision and the fact that the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us. The way this occurs is due to the fact that all that is necessary for this interaction to take place is for light to be around the object and the object to be in range where the lens of the film/retina can focus on the object whereby a mirror image is formed.

This is not an explanation, it is a series of assertions and goalpost movements. Let's break it down.

They are interacting as a mirror image.

Standard Mirror images can't be interacted with physically (can't shake hands with a mirror image), so you are positing something else. What is it?

This is due to efferent vision and the fact that the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us.

Begging the question. You are saying "We see with efferent vision because of efferent vision".

The way this occurs is due to the fact that all that is necessary for this interaction to take place is for light to be around the object and the object to be in range where the lens of the film/retina can focus on the object whereby a mirror image is formed.

Assertion. Again, all this says is "We can see because we can see it due to things allowing us to see. VOILA WE SEE!"

There is no explanation of the mechanism, there is no description of the physical interaction such as where and how it takes place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If Peacegirl was serious about developing a consistent and coherent model she would have made some attempt to reply to these two posts. Instead she just completely ignored them. She has no idea how her own model is meant to work, and she has no interest in working it out.

That's not what I meant.

It's number two, because light is constantly in motion, but this does not mean we would see blue before red (which you say you're not questioning anymore) due to the fact that there is no travel time between the object and the mirror image.

If the object is always absorbing certain wavelengths, then the (P) wavelengths are also being refreshed. The only difference between the two models is that the (P) wavelength is a mirror image on the film/retina due to the object's presence. If the object goes, so goes the (P) reflection and then all we would get is white light.

True, it's different light at the film, but please remember that this new light is a mirror image due to (P) reflection and efferent vision. (P) reflection can only exist when the object is present (which I've tried to explain 100 different ways since this thread started). This is completely different from (N) reflection which is light that travels through space and time at 186,000 miles per second.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To you, irony just means "Kind of like iron" doesn't it?

Or could it have been how she used to make her daddys shirts nice and smooth, and from the sounds of her pile of laundry, she souuld be doing it right now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Contradiction #82654

I demand a re-count, that sounds a bit low.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not an explanation, it is a series of assertions and goalpost movements. Let's break it down.

They are interacting as a mirror image.

Standard Mirror images can't be interacted with physically (can't shake hands with a mirror image), so you are positing something else. What is it?

That's true. How can we interact with a mirror image when that light is at the film/retina. You're thinking in terms of an actual mirror, where I'm trying to explain that when I use this term I mean that there is no travel time between what we see through a lens and what shows up on our retina or the film of a camera. In other words, the mirror image is the (P) reflection on the film/retina when the lens is focused on the object. That is where the interaction takes place in the efferent vision model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is due to efferent vision and the fact that the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Begging the question. You are saying "We see with efferent vision because of efferent vision".

I've explained efferent vision plenty of times. I even gave you the entire chapter. If you don't understand the 180 degree difference between afferent and efferent, it's no wonder you're failing this course.

The way this occurs is due to the fact that all that is necessary for this interaction to take place is for light to be around the object and the object to be in range where the lens of the film/retina can focus on the object whereby a mirror image is formed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assertion. Again, all this says is "We can see because we can see it due to things allowing us to see. VOILA WE SEE!"

There is no explanation of the mechanism, there is no description of the physical interaction such as where and how it takes place.

I'm sorry LadyShea. Some people are just not going to understand what I'm talking about because their minds are already filled with certain concepts and they can't separate them in order to look outside of the conventional box for even a second to see what may be out there.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let it go LadyShea. I have tried until I'm blue in the face why we are able to see in real time across millions of miles.

And failed to do so, because we do NOT see in real time across millions of miles.

It is true that I can't explain the time/light correction that they say is always made, and how much of a difference it would make; or could there be a miscalculation in another area that corrected itself through this calculation.

Of course you can't explain it. But the explanation is simple. The example of the moons of Jupiter, and how NASA corrects for light speed delay to send probes to Mars and other celestial bodies, and the dozens of other concrete examples you have been given, are explained by the fact that we don't see in real time. That IS the explanation for the listed phenomena.

All I can tell you is that optics supports efferent vision,

In no way, shape or form does optics support efferent vision. All of our optical instruments are made precisely on the empirically verified premise that vision is afferent and we see in delayed time. NONE of our optical devices would work outside this premise.

So sorry!