A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just curious, how is that observed?

Communication with the Mars rovers via radio waves, millisecond laser pulses to the moon, using mirrors to redirect light around corners, astronomy in general.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's fundamental law of physics, or if you prefer God

Fundamental law, what does that mean? I am just trying to understand the fundamental principles that are untouchable. It doesn't mean I'm refuting them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have, many many times. You just said it again

No, it's just that you believe the wavelength/frequency of the photons that are now in place of the old photons are bringing a new pattern.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Human interaction? What's that got to do with anything? Should and ought are synonyms, so what did you mean when you used should? Can you rewrite the sentence more clearly without the word should?

How about all the people at all the forums you have visited....representative of the general population or not? In your market research, have you identified a representative group?

Are you kidding me LadyShea? These forums are not representative of all civilization. They are philosophy forums, which have their own agenda. They follow the same exact rules, which is okay, but if one forum says these principles are wrong, and another forum agrees that these principles are wrong (without having read the book, mind you) , how does this prove Lessans is wrong in a manner that is conclusive? This thread has gotten so out of hand that it's not worth saving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Maybe it would be good to take a step back for a moment and figure out who your target audience will be at first since "everyone" is too broad for a new effort. This part is easy and fun. Just start to make a list and write down everything that you think of without over-thinking it yet or editing it. Afterwards we can look at it with you and see what else people might think of. They can be very broad descriptions at first like "people who are interested in philosophy but not formal philosophers because they nitpick", "people who are open-minded to new and creative solutions to world problems", "people who don't accept conventional wisdom as an absolute", "people willing to consider new age ideas", "people who believe in alternatives to the scientific method", "people who question medical science" and stuff like that. Don't worry about where to find them yet.

I think it's a great idea, but the problem is reaching these people. I can't list everyone I can think of at this moment, but for starters: Wayne Dyer is one, Deepak Chopra is another (the very people who this group would look down upon; ironic isn't it?), Marianne Williamson, Mike Adams, Bono, Orprah (although that's a longshot), radio talk show hosts who are open to new ideas, to name just a few. The problem that I may encounter is that when someone has their own philosophy of how peace will come about, it might be difficult bringing to them a new way of thinking. That being said, there are plenty of people out there who would like to give their serious attention to this book, by reading it more than once and deciding for themselves.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Maybe it would be good to take a step back for a moment and figure out who your target audience will be at first since "everyone" is too broad for a new effort. This part is easy and fun. Just start to make a list and write down everything that you think of without over-thinking it yet or editing it. Afterwards we can look at it with you and see what else people might think of. They can be very broad descriptions at first like "people who are interested in philosophy but not formal philosophers because they nitpick", "people who are open-minded to new and creative solutions to world problems", "people who don't accept conventional wisdom as an absolute", "people willing to consider new age ideas", "people who believe in alternatives to the scientific method", "people who question medical science" and stuff like that. Don't worry about where to find them yet.

Let me add some to the list.

"People who are total and utter dumb asses," "People who think Obama is putting chemicals into our orange juice to make us gay," "people who can't find their ass with both hands," "people who dropped out of the school in the seventh grade and have fantasy wet dreams of sexually submissive wives who put out on the dinner table in a world in which gays no longer exist," and etc.

Hey, peacegirl, you really should check out the Coast to Coast program. Did you know that when Art Bell used to host it, one of his big things was "remote seeing," in which the people he interviewed claimed we could see over immense distances instantaneously, without waiting for the light to arrive? This radio program geared at morons is right up your alley!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's just that you believe the wavelength/frequency of the photons that are now in place of the old photons are bringing a new pattern.

That is an amasing statement.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's a great idea, but the problem is reaching these people. I can't list everyone I can think of at this moment, but for starters: Wayne Dyer is one, Deepak Chopra is another (the very people who this group would look down upon; ironic isn't it?), Marianne Williamson, Mike Adams, Bono, Orprah (although that's a longshot), radio talk show hosts who are open to new ideas, to name just a few. The problem that I may encounter is that when someone has their own philosophy of how peace will come about, it might be difficult bringing to them a new way of thinking. That being said, there are plenty of people out there who would like to give their serious attention to this book, by reading it more than once and deciding for themselves.

Nope, nope, nope . You're getting ahead of yourself. Don't put any specific names on the list yet, just general interest groups. I think that you're absolutely right though - people who are pushing their own philosophy are very unlikely to want to lend credibility to a competing world view because either they're true believers or it hurts their bottom line.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fundamental law, what does that mean? I am just trying to understand the fundamental principles that are untouchable. It doesn't mean I'm refuting them.

They're called the conservation laws. Why don't you get an education before you presume to lecture others on anything?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You just said it again! After lying by denying that you had said this! You just said, again, that the photons are at the eye, even though the photons have not reached the eye yet. IOW, the photons both are, and are not, at the eye -- a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction!

You wonder why people hold you in contempt and regard your father as a buffoon, do you?

LIGHT TRAVELS DAVID, BUT THE IMAGE DOES NOT (THE PATTERN DOES NOT), HOW MANY WAYS DO YOU NEED ME TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LESSANS IS SAYING? YOU ARE THE BAFFOON DAVID, NOT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Nope, nope, nope . You're getting ahead of yourself. Don't put any specific names on the list yet, just general interest groups. I think that you're absolutely right though - people who are pushing their own philosophy are very unlikely to want to lend credibility to a competing world view because either they're true believers or it hurts their bottom line.

That is exactly what I'm saying, The groups I wish would read this book, which is not an exhaustive list by any means, are the scientists, but that's ruled out because they wouldn't look at it. Maybe psychologists, maybe artists, maybe celebrities, maybe new age groups, maybe sociologists, maybe health advocates, maybe human rights activists, maybe peace activists, maybe the leaders of other nations (if I could only get to them). How's that for a start?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what I'm saying, The groups I wish would read this book, which is not an exhaustive list by any means, are the scientists, but that's ruled out because they wouldn't look at it. Maybe psychologists, maybe artists, maybe celebrities, maybe new age groups, maybe sociologists, maybe health advocates, maybe human rights activists, maybe peace activists, maybe the leaders of other nations (if I could only get to them). How's that for a start?

That's exactly the kind of list that I was hoping for and that's a great start. I agree that for now I would just forget about the scientists because they aren't going to ever agree with his ideas about vision. Trained and formally educated philosophers are going to want to fit the work into established constructs and ideas. Please don't take this the wrong way but people who are less well-versed in science and philosophy will be more likely to at least give it a chance. For example, my gut reaction to the free will stuff was that it didn't make sense but it would have taken me far longer to articulate exactly why than it does for philosophers on forums to do it because I'm starting from a much lower level of familiarity with the subject. Unless you actually know a celebrity or leader of a nation that's probably aiming too high right now. Most of those are creative thinkers in soft disciplines that don't rely on the scientific method.

OK, you're really going to hate the next step and it won't be easy but you've just got to come up with a one-page introductory summary that sums up the book. I know that you think that it's too hard and that people have to read the book to understand it but the problem with that is that they've never heard of the book before, it's very long and people like to have a better sense of what they'll have learned and gained if they read it. Just saying that it's an amazing discovery that will change the world isn't enough because it's so general that it could apply to anything from a self-help book to a way to end global warming. If it's longer than a page then people won't read it on a first contact email. This step is worth the work because you'll use this summary over and over. I know that you don't want to give away the end but maybe you could start by looking at the title of each chapter, make some bullet points and then start turning it into a few paragraphs. You can leave out all of the stuff about how hard it was for him to get this knowledge out there because you won't have a lot of space and that isn't the important part at first. You'll want to think about it from the point of view of the person reading it who probably gets a lot of these sorts of requests because they're going to be asking themselves why they should be interested and how this is different from the other requests for endorsements that they get.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LIGHT TRAVELS DAVID, BUT THE IMAGE DOES NOT (THE PATTERN DOES NOT), HOW MANY WAYS DO YOU NEED ME TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LESSANS IS SAYING? YOU ARE THE BAFFOON DAVID, NOT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem is not that DavidM, or anyone else, does not understand what Lessans was saying, that is clear. DavidM and others just disagree that it is correct and are trying to correct your faulty understanding of light, optics, and vision. But you refuse to accept anything but complete agreement as comprehension of these ideas. You have given this as an explaination several times, and each time someone has disagreed and tried to correct you, and you see in as not understanding because to you, if someone understands, they must agree.

Photons do bring something to the eye, but it is not something that they carry that is seperate from the photon itself. Each photon is a particular frequency of the source, or the object it reflected from, and this frequency corrosponds to the color of the particular spot it reflected from or originated from. That is all that a photon brings to the eye, it does not carry something that is not the photon itself, no image or pattern, the photons themselves are the image or pattern. If you can imagine a picture on a screen made up of pixels, each tiny pixel is a particular color and if mant of the pixels in one area are lit up it will be the brightness of the image. Each photon is a paticular color and if there are many photons in one ares that area will be bright, if there are few photons the ares will be dim. In one sense the photons do not bring an image, the photons, in combination, are the image.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

OK, you're really going to hate the next step and it won't be easy but you've just got to come up with a one-page introductory summary that sums up the book. I know that you think that it's too hard and that people have to read the book to understand it but the problem with that is that they've never heard of the book before, it's very long and people like to have a better sense of what they'll have learned and gained if they read it. Just saying that it's an amazing discovery that will change the world isn't enough because it's so general that it could apply to anything from a self-help book to a way to end global warming. If it's longer than a page then people won't read it on a first contact email. This step is worth the work because you'll use this summary over and over. I know that you don't want to give away the end but maybe you could start by looking at the title of each chapter, make some bullet points and then start turning it into a few paragraphs. You can leave out all of the stuff about how hard it was for him to get this knowledge out there because you won't have a lot of space and that isn't the important part at first. You'll want to think about it from the point of view of the person reading it who probably gets a lot of these sorts of requests because they're going to be asking themselves why they should be interested and how this is different from the other requests for endorsements that they get.

One other point that would help, is to be modest with your claims about the book, don't make a lot of grandiose statements. Lessans did that in the book and it put a lot of people off. Give people a hint, and let them discover the concepts for themselves, if you try to shove it down their throat they will fight you, if you lay it in front of them and let them find it for themselves you will have more success. Don't talk down to anyone, even about your father, it doesn't help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what I'm saying, The groups I wish would read this book, which is not an exhaustive list by any means, are the scientists, but that's ruled out because they wouldn't look at it. Maybe psychologists, maybe artists, maybe celebrities, maybe new age groups, maybe sociologists, maybe health advocates, maybe human rights activists, maybe peace activists, maybe the leaders of other nations (if I could only get to them). How's that for a start?

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

That's exactly the kind of list that I was hoping for and that's a great start. I agree that for now I would just forget about the scientists because they aren't going to ever agree with his ideas about vision. Trained and formally educated philosophers are going to want to fit the work into established constructs and ideas. Please don't take this the wrong way but people who are less well-versed in science and philosophy will be more likely to at least give it a chance.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

For example, my gut reaction to the free will stuff was that it didn't make sense

What didn't make sense? How can you make such a statement without giving a reason? It is so clearly written that I'm just wondering whether you are just imitating what other people are saying. That's my gut reaction.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

but it would have taken me far longer to articulate exactly why than it does for philosophers on forums to do it because I'm starting from a much lower level of familiarity with the subject.

That is actually a better position to be in. I have found that the more information a person possesses at a university level, the more difficult it will be for him to understand any new knowledge that challenges what he has been taught, even when others who don't have this immense reservoir of book knowledge, find it easy to understand.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Unless you actually know a celebrity or leader of a nation that's probably aiming too high right now. Most of those are creative thinkers in soft disciplines that don't rely on the scientific method.

I hope you're not humoring me by saying that I need to find people who " don't use the scientific method" (as if to say these inferior intellectuals types will be the only ones to give this knowledge the time of day), and are truly seeing my predicament.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

OK, you're really going to hate the next step and it won't be easy but you've just got to come up with a one-page introductory summary that sums up the book. I know that you think that it's too hard and that people have to read the book to understand it but the problem with that is that they've never heard of the book before, it's very long and people like to have a better sense of what they'll have learned and gained if they read it. Just saying that it's an amazing discovery that will change the world isn't enough because it's so general that it could apply to anything from a self-help book to a way to end global warming. If it's longer than a page then people won't read it on a first contact email. This step is worth the work because you'll use this summary over and over. I know that you don't want to give away the end but maybe you could start by looking at the title of each chapter, make some bullet points and then start turning it into a few paragraphs. You can leave out all of the stuff about how hard it was for him to get this knowledge out there because you won't have a lot of space and that isn't the important part at first. You'll want to think about it from the point of view of the person reading it who probably gets a lot of these sorts of requests because they're going to be asking themselves why they should be interested and how this is different from the other requests for endorsements that they get.

I appreciate that. I have to write a summary for the flap of the hardcover, so that may give me an incentive to do that exact thing. I may just focus on the chapter headings, which I've never done before, or list the four sections of the book. I'm not sure yet, but I'm going to have to sit down and really put my attention on this so that people will get a clear picture of what the book is about. Thanks for your input.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

One other point that would help, is to be modest with your claims about the book, don't make a lot of grandiose statements. Lessans did that in the book and it put a lot of people off. Give people a hint, and let them discover the concepts for themselves, if you try to shove it down their throat they will fight you, if you lay it in front of them and let them find it for themselves you will have more success. Don't talk down to anyone, even about your father, it doesn't help.

I agree that when you say something is undeniable, people will fight it and try to find loopholes. But I felt the need to explain what he went through in the introduction. Giving hints is another very good idea, especially on the flap. I think all in all I've done as best as I possibly can. There will always be people who will not look at the book under any circumstance, and there will be others who will be curious and give him a chance. I hope there will be more of the latter than the former.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that when you say something is undeniable, people will fight it and try to find loopholes. But I felt the need to explain what he went through in the introduction. Giving hints is another very good idea, especially on the flap. I think all in all I've done as best as I possibly can. There will always be people who will not look at the book under any circumstance, and there will be others who will be curious and give him a chance. I hope there will be more of the latter than the former.

What your father went through is only relevant to you and your father, it is not relevant to the substance of the book. Lessans trials and tribulations would be better served in a biography, not in a work attempting to present these ideas as working principles to be applied to society. The concepts would be best served cleanly and accurately, without pumping them up before people can read them for themselves. Lessans made a lot of grandiose statements before he even got to any of the ideas he was trying ot present, and it made him look arrogant and pompous. He seemed to be compairing himself to other accepted great thinkers of history and if he was a great thinker, he is not known. This would make people wonder if they were his ideas or is he trying to ride the coat-tails and the fame of others?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you say stuff like that Angakuk? And you tell me you're not sarcastic? All you've been for the last year is sarcastic, with a couple of legitimate questions in between.

How in the world did you come up with that idea? I have never, ever, ever claimed that I am not sarcastic. I have, in fact, in this very thread, acknowledged that I am often sarcastic. I love sarcasm. Sarcasm makes my heart sing. You are entirely free to ignore the sarcasms. However, I am not always sarcastic and you are right, I do sometimes ask legitimate questions. When I do, I expect legitimate answers in return.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you're playing games with me, and I'm not interested.

This happens to be one of those non-sarcastic, serious questions. So, please give it serious consideration. Why do you think it is the case that we cannot see the back of another person's head when we are standing face to face with that person in full daylight?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This happens to be one of those non-sarcastic, serious questions. So, please give it serious consideration. Why do you think it is the case that we cannot see the back of another person's head when we are standing face to face with that person in full daylight?

Peacegirl, you have stated that in efferent vision the object is surrounded by non-absorbed photons that is not carrying the image away from the object, this implys that the photons are not traveling away from the object. Then you state that when we look at the object those photons are instantly at our retina. If the photons are not traveling and are instantly at the retina, why is it only the photons that are on the side facing the eye? Why do all the photons not arrive at the eye instantly? I don't understand why "Line of Sight" should have any effect on efferent vision? The brain looks out through the eyes and contacts, with the retina, the photons surrounding the object.

[The Lone Ranger]

The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round ...

I liked how she spent pages arguing that cameras see differently than eyes do, because cameras don't have brains. She spent page after page insisting this was so, ignoring the repeatedly-made point that this would mean we'd be able to see distant objects that we couldn't photograph. When it was pointed out that pictures of such things as supernova explosions flatly disprove the claim, she fell back on her favorite excuse: "something else must be going on." She even suggested that the measured speed of light must be wrong somehow, and that therefore the supernovae are really quite close. (And she repeatedly ignored the fact that we don't use the speed of light to determine the distance to astronomical objects.) She continued to make the claim even though it was pointed out that if supernovae were as close as she claimed, they'd necessarily be inside the solar system, and so would destroy the Earth.

No matter: Lessans had declared it to be so, and so it must be.

Except ... oops! Upon reexamination of the sacred tome, she discovered that, actually, that's not what Lessans had claimed. So, after pages of insistence that cameras don't see in "real time," she instantly switched to insisting that they do -- just like our eyes.

And when confronted by her change of mind -- one that clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with actual evidence, but was driven entirely by her absolute faith in Lessans' infallibility -- she lied and insisted that she'd never claimed that cameras and eyes work differently. Even though she'd just spent many pages doing exactly that.

Ah, we were so young and naive then. ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What your father went through is only relevant to you and your father, it is not relevant to the substance of the book. Lessans trials and tribulations would be better served in a biography, not in a work attempting to present these ideas as working principles to be applied to society. The concepts would be best served cleanly and accurately, without pumping them up before people can read them for themselves. Lessans made a lot of grandiose statements before he even got to any of the ideas he was trying ot present, and it made him look arrogant and pompous. He seemed to be compairing himself to other accepted great thinkers of history and if he was a great thinker, he is not known. This would make people wonder if they were his ideas or is he trying to ride the coat-tails and the fame of others?

I get your point and to some people he may seem arrogant. I hope that others will see beyond that. I can't rewrite the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Human interaction? What's that got to do with anything? Should and ought are synonyms, so what did you mean when you used should? Can you rewrite the sentence more clearly without the word should?

How about all the people at all the forums you have visited....representative of the general population or not? In your market research, have you identified a representative group?

No, they may be representative of what happens in philosophy forums. Because I introduced the book in a venue that just doesn't work, it caused a problem that I don't see happening with the general population.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've just put the light in two places at once again. You've just said light which is not yet at the Earth is also at the eye... on Earth! That's flatly contradictory. Also, how can you maintain both that all photons travel and that your account involves "the polar opposite of traveling photons"? That also is flatly contradictory. Plus you are describing photons getting from one place to another without traveling or taking time - which is the very definition of teleportation. These are all exactly the same problems you've run into every single time you've tried to explain this account. When will you admit to yourself that it makes no sense?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Regarding the light instantly at the eye in Lessans' newly ignited Sun scenario...

1) Where did this light come from?

2) When was it located at wherever it came from?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Strawman. There doesn't have to be anything in the light itself or which the light is bringing. All you need is the light. As I explained to you in a previous post which you have completely ignored several times already...

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.