A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No no, you are not going to get away with this. This knowledge has nothing to do with the free will environment we are living in. Yes, it can help to understand man's nature, but it cannot change a small segment of society without changing the whole. Once again, you are grasping at straws in an effort to prove him wrong, which you cannot do, because he isn't wrong.

Why didn't your share the book and principles with your kids? Why would you not start at home getting the word out?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why didn't your share the book and principles with your kids? Why would you not start at home getting the word out?

I already answered this question. My kids know about the book, and if I die tomorrow, they will carry the ball. But they have other responsibilities and one of the first principles of this book is not to push your desires on anyone. My father never expected anything of me, and I don't expect anything of my kids, unless they choose this of their own free will. I'm sure David will think what I just said is a contradiction. That's how ignorant of this subject he really is.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to be smart here Ceptimus. If sight is efferent, it's universally efferent. Just because animals can detect light has no bearing on what the brain is doing in more evolved creatures.

Yeah, but there is a slippery slope argument here. You say that some animal species, A, that can just detect light ISN'T seeing efferently, and another one, B, that can see pretty well, is.

We can then choose a new animal species C with vision better than A but worse than B and ask you to decide again between B and C. There are so many species with differing amounts of vision that we can keep on doing this almost indefinitely.

Sooner or later we're going to get to the position where you claim that one animal, perhaps some kind of beetle, IS seeing efferently, and another almost identical beetle species, but with very slightly worse vision, ISN'T.

It's the same argument we can use on some religious believers who claim that people have souls but that (say) earthworms don't - you keep asking them about different animals 'in-between' until you can pin them down to perhaps two sorts of hedgehog, one with a soul and one without. This makes their initial claim seem fairly ridiculous, but of course they won't usually play along with the game anyway.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compensation is a large part of making up for something that isn't working correctly. So what Angakuk? What does this prove? You are grasping at anything that you think will be the final nail in the coffin.

I am not grasping at anything. I am just sharing a personal anectdote about a cross-eyed cat. An anectdote which just happens to address your preoccupation with cross-eyed babies.

Clarence The Cross-Eyed Lion

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is too much investment in science being right (even though people say that evidence is constantly changing) to have a fair discussion. Even TLR claims that the ciliary muscle is a voluntary muscle, which is clearly not true according to more than one source.

You liar.

I explained to you, hundreds of pages ago, what "voluntary" and "involuntary" mean in this context. Not only did you agree that you'd misunderstood and you had been wrong in claiming that we have no voluntary control over the ciliary muscles, you thanked me for the correction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My kids know about the book, and if I die tomorrow, they will carry the ball.

They know about it? That's a strange choice of words regarding their feelings of the answer to war, crime, and poverty.

Have they each read it in its entirety and asked the kinds of interested questions you seem to expect from readers? Did they understand the principles and agree that Lessans reasoning and conclusions were undeniable?

What responsibilities could be bigger than world peace, if one truly believed they had an answer for all of mankind? They seem smart and able, the perfect vehicle for spreading the word, yet they've chosen not to help? Why would they want to wait until you're dead before "picking up the ball"?

Really this makes no sense. ANY non insane person who read this book and believed it contains the knowledge of how to achieve world peace would be helping you in some capacity. If I believed it, I would be helping you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you're ready to go over his keen observations, I will post them again. If you don't see the validity of those observations, that's too bad. It does not mean Lessans is wrong. The more likely possibility is that you dont' have the capacity to see that Lessans wasn't wrong. Look, I am not into arguing, and if this is going to continue, let this thread die already. I will not spend my time in defense without one person truly interested other than making Lessans some kind of scapegoat. It's getting very old.

You have an awfully strange notion of probability.

Pop quiz: What's more probable?

Option 1: Lessans was right, meaning that pretty-much everything we know about the physiology of sight is wrong, not to mention a great deal of the neural anatomy associated with the eye; in addition, pretty-much all of information theory is wrong; so is Relativity Theory.

Option 2: Lessans -- who clearly had no relevant knowledge of physics, neural or visual anatomy and physiology, nor information theory, and who did not conduct controlled experiments -- was wrong.

Take your time ...

[Angakuk]

Is this an open-book test?

[Vivisectus]

If the current, afferent (lol) theory of where babies come from contradicted what Lessans was saying, she would call the evidence for it inconclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Naturalist.Atheist

And no matter how long people spend trying to get you to understand this, it is a completely wasted effort. Because you are just not capable of comprehending the idea.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not incapable, in my opinion. Unwilling. I suspect that if you wanted to deconvert her, you would have to find an emotional reason for her to change her mind. Rational ones are ignored, because they threaten a belief that yields a great deal of emotional satisfaction.

This is not based on emotion Vivisecus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right now, she has it All Sorted Out. She has a simple system that purports to be the answer to anything.

This is no more simple than the system we are already using. It's called the criminal justice system.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It carries in itself an explanation for why it does not work in the world we see around us: it only works if everyone believes in it.

This has nothing to do with whether everyone believes in it. It's like saying the justice system doesn't work unless everybody believes in it. They don't have to believe in it; they know that if they do the wrong thing they will get punished, if caught. These principles work because conscience forces the issue of responsibility. It has no bearing on whether someone believes in it or not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It promises a happy eternal life. It promises simplicity in a complicated world.

It promises that by applying these principles on a global scale, we can achieve a far better world than the one we have now. This is not a simplistic solution by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It doesn't require a lot of work - you do not have to spend years learning difficult science, only to find out you know have more questions that you started out with.

These are difficult relations, which is why it's becoming almost impossible to get you all to understand them in a forum venue. Believe me, he was a deep thinker and spent most of his adult life analyzing and reanalyzing what he had discovered. He was just as shocked as anyone else that behind the door of determinism there was a huge storehouse of untapped knowledge. He burned up his first set of books (there is one left), because he wasn't satisfied but continued on until he was able to express these difficult concepts in a way others could comprehend.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just need to agree with Lessans, and has the answers to everything. Also it allows her to believe that her father was the wise, humble, saintly scholar that he liked to portray himself as, and not just a rather eccentric man who fancied himself a philosopher and scientist, but was not very good at either of those two things.

I have never said you just need to agree with Lessans. He found the answer to an insurmountable problem, but not to everything. As long as you want to portray him as someone he was not, you will make no effort to study the book...which is your loss.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Typically, any criticism of it is met with the standard approaches: first it is called a lack of knowledge, then it is called a lack of open mindedness - at this stage you are treated in a slightly condescending but friendly way.It is not the doctrine that is at fault, but people's lack of understanding.

I don't mean to be even slightly condescending. I don't want this to be a win/lose discussion, but you're turning it into one. I'm stating it as I see it and I don't see anybody taking him seriously. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If people persist to criticize, they are accused of malice and the reactions become more hostile. You are frequently accused of persecuting the author and the religion. You are a part of the establishment that just refuses to accept the "undeniable" truth because of bias and interest in maintaining the status quo.

There is a palpable hostility toward Lessans because of his claims that go against the Establishment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It gets interesting when you use logic or empirical evidence. It is approached in several ways:

One is to unilaterally decide it is inconclusive. The realm of the inconclusive is a rather large one in her mind. If in Peacegirls view, the idea that exposure to extreme radiation can cause cancer would contradict Lessans, then she would insist that the link is not at all conclusively proven. In effect, a written affidavit from God would only just be acceptable to satisfy her. The reasoning is, and I quote, "There is a chance that he was right".

Contrary to your ridiculous analysis of who Lessans was, he would have been the first to admit the things he didn't know or wasn't sure of. That's why I have, and will always have, complete trust in him.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And so there is. It is about as large as the very real but also infinitely small chance that I stand of spontaneously floating towards the ceiling right now, for instance. For practical purposes we can rule it out.

Another one is to move the goalposts. This is where sight is not information, or that since nothing moves in direct sight (actually an even bigger contradiction of physics that faster-than-light sight, but that aside) information has not travelled and therefor there is no breech of causality. Also, apparently that what babies see is not real sight. The vague shapes and shadows we can generate using a camera and a specialized chip attached to the retina is not real sight either.

You are trying to be a good prosecutor, but you have nothing that bears out what you're convicting him of. Each one of your arguments can be thrown out because they can't be supported. It is you who is stuck on definitions that don't describe reality, but because science says they are "fact" (based on empirical evidence) you accept them hook, line, and sinker. Why can't you accept that generating patterns and shadows is not real sight and until scientists can get more than this, they can't say for sure that the eyes are afferent. Finally, what babies see is not what is considered normal sight because true sight involves focusing the eyes. Yes, one can learn to compensate if they have an organic problem, but this is not the same thing as newborns first learning to focus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is relatively easy to do things like this all the time, because you simply start with the preconceived notion that Lessans was absolutely right about everything, and then work back from that, re-arranging or plain ignoring reality as you see fit. The amazing fact that cameras are completely afferent machines (a weird way of putting it, I know, but it is a useful shorthand) and yet show us the same image as the human eye is one of the points that is completely ignored and waved away with some vague blather about objects and fields of view.

I believe the only way to resolve this is to create a bionic eye or some other experiment that would "prove", not just theorize, how the eyes actually work. So far that hasn't happened.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is absolutely fascinating. It is like seeing a fundamentalist, only without the benefit of thousands of years of glib apologism to draw on: Peacegirl has to make all hers up herself. It is amazing to see how large the chunks of reality she denies can get, as long as they are perceived to threaten her fairytale.

Who is actually the one denying reality is yet to be seen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The stratagems are the same as those of bible-literalists. They are impervious to rational arguments, because rationality has nothing to do with why they believe what they do. They believe it because it feels good. Which would be fine, if they didn't then tried to project their irrational beliefs onto reality.

I have been very rational. I have stated the premises as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, the more rational I become, the more threatened you become which compels you to become more aggressive in your attack.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

PG is the same. She believes what she believes because it feels good. Which is fine by me, really. I just wish she would stop trying to pass it off as scientific or rational, because it is neither, and just say "Well, it is what I believe and it works for me", which is honest and fine.

I won't do that because this is not just "Well, it is what I believe and it works for me." If that was the case then this whole thread would be a total sham.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

For me the question is - "Do you challenge the irrationality in literalist religion" - to me the answer is "Yes, when they try to pass it off as rationality or science, because it is neither."

I am not a fundamentalist no matter how hard you try to peg me as one. What I am offering is rational and undeniable and you can yell "foul" until the cows come home; but it doesn't make it so.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain needs the lens to focus the light on the retina at just the right angle. If not, the brain cannot see clearly, through the eyes, because the shape of the eye, and the lack of refractive correction, is causing the problem.

OK.

How light and the retina work together as a necessary function for clear vision does not shed light on this subject matter (no pun intended).

Oh, of course it does. It has to. If you say that it is a necessary condition, you have to know why. Seymour's efferent vision has to explain it at least as well as current theory does if it is to be taken seriously. The standard theory explains why the light from each point on the object the eye is focusing on has to arrive at a corresponding point on the retina, and not be distorted into some other shape. Your / Seymour's theory has to explain that.

[Vivisectus]

This is not based on emotion Vivisecus.

Yes it is, very clearly

This is no more simple than the system we are already using. It's called the criminal justice system.

The whole idea is a gross oversimplification.

This has nothing to do with whether everyone believes in it. It's like saying the justice system doesn't work unless everybody believes in it. It works because of how conscience works and it has no bearing on whether someone believes in it or not.

Yes it does - hence the free will environment. If this was not the case than all that is said in the book would work now. It doesn't - you said so yourself! You even intimated that this is why your kids don't believe in it either.

It promises that by applying these principles on a global scale, we can achieve a far better world than the one we have now. This is not a simplistic solution by any stretch of the imagination.

That, and reincarnation. Because of personal pronouns and the way we describe time using language. If you follow the simple rules of the book.

These are difficult relations, which is why it's becoming almost impossible to get you all to understand them in a forum venue. Believe me, he was such a thinker and spent most of his adult life reading and analyzing and reanalyzing what he had discovered. He was just as shocked as anyone else that behind the door of determinism there was a huge storehouse of untapped knowledge. He burned up his first set of books (there is one left), because he wasn't satisfied but continued on until he was able to express these difficult concepts in a way others could comprehend.

It is not difficult at all, and you have no idea what "relations" actually means.

Despite all his analyzing he left fallacies, unsupported claims, and downright nonsense in the book he kept. If the ones he burned were worse, he probably did the right thing.

I have never said you just need to agree with Lessans. He found the answer to some very important things, but not to everything. As long as you want to portray him as someone he was not, you will make no effort to study the book...which is your loss.

Actually he found a classic logical error and built a system on top of it that got more and more fantastical as he went on. If only he could have attended a first-years course in philosophy, he would have saved himself a lot of embarrassment.

And it IS a requirement that we all believe that Lessans was right and assume there is no free will. Based on "An acute observation" that is not shared with us, not based on evidence.

There is a palpable hostility toward Lessans because of his claims that go against the Establishment.

You are responding to a claim that you falsely claim persecution by falsely claiming persecution. Well done!

Contrary to your ridiculous analysis of who Lessans was, he would have been the first to admit the things he didn't know or wasn't sure of. That's why I have total trust in him.

Oh yeah I forgot that gem of logic, worthy of a daughter of Lessans! "Lessans could not have been wrong, because if he would have been, he would have noticed and stopped being wrong, so he could not have been"

On top of that you have just admitted that you rely on the authority of Lessans alone, an authority that you deem infallible and 100% trustworthy. You have just demonstrated my point, so I assume we are now in agreement that this is a religious belief.

You are trying to be a good prosecutor, but it's not working. You know that each one of your arguments can be scrapped. It is you who is stuck on definitions that don't describe reality, but you accept them hook, line, and sinker. Why can't you accept that generating vague shapes and shadows is not real sight and until they can achieve real sight using a prosthetic eye that sends impulses from a camera to the brain, we won't know for sure. Finally, what babies see is not real sight because real sight involves focusing the eyes. Yes, one can learn to compensate if they have an organic problem, but this is not what I'm referring to.

If my views were so wrong I would not have to move the goalposts as you just did. I am not the one doing so - I am merely presenting more and more evidence that backs up my point of view. I am not struggling, waffling, ignoring, re-defining and hand-waving: you are. Because you are unwilling to doubt Lessans - something you just admitted to!

I believe the only way to resolve this is to create a bionic eye or some other experiment that would allow images to be interpreted in the brain from electro-chemical signals and normal vision to take place. So far that hasn't happened.

Any sight information gained by a bionic eye completely disproves the book, and this has been done. You are just moving the goalposts again.

Who is actually the one denying reality is yet to be seen.

No, that is just what you keep telling yourself so you can deny reality. Reality, however, remains the same.

I have been very rational. I have stated the premises as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, the more rational I become, the more threatened you become which compels you to become more aggressive in your attack.

More emotive language, claims of persecution. You have not been rational at all. If you had, you would have at least made a good case for your position that does not conflict heavily with reality.

I won't do that because this is not just "Well, it is what I believe and it works for me." If that was the case then this whole thread would be a total sham.

No, the book is a sham. The thread is more of a case-study in how someone who is emotionally invested in a fairytale will warp reality to great extents if they feel this fairytale is threatened by it.

I am not a fundamentalist no matter how hard you try to peg me as one. What I am offering is rational and undeniable and you can yell "foul" until the cows come home; but it doesn't make it so.

I would not dream of pegging you as anything. Not after what Erimir told me that means.

But all the No! U!'s int he world will not change the fact that because something happened, that does not mean it had to happen, that babies can see, that dogs can recognize people on photographs, that camera's do not record something different from the human eye, that we can stimulate the retina and create visual information in the brain, that good and evil cannot be broken down into a simple yes/no statement, that the transfer of information cannot occur faster than light, that sight is not instant, that we have no reason to believe that blame is what allows justification, ect. etc. etc.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure David will think what I just said is a contradiction. That's how ignorant of this subject he really is.

Hey, Ditzhead, you admitted hundreds of pages ago that your children had not even read this pile of codswallop that Lessans wrote. Why, then, would they carry the ball, for something they had not even read?

In reality, if your kids had a decent education, which Lessans did not and evidently you did not, of course they've looked at the book, and whenever your broach the topic they pat you on the head and secretly roll their eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To find a flaw in the current scientific ideas of light and sight, you have to understand it pretty thoroughly.

Lessans extraordinary claim is unsupported by equally extraordinary evidence, and he failed to leave you a description of the mechanism, so you're stuck trying to defend it from a place of ignorance.

He is not coming from a place of ignorance just because he didn't explain the exact mechanism. He explained what the brain is doing when he described the ability of the brain to project onto reality a non-existing value which takes on the appearance of reality through conditioning. The brain could not do this if sight was afferent. By the same token, just because science describes what is believed to be the mechanism behind afferent vision doesn't make it so.

[LadyShea]

You are coming from a place of ignorance because he failed to tell you the mechanism

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the ability of the brain to project onto reality a non-existing value which takes on the appearance of reality through conditioning.

The brain could not do this if sight was afferent.

Sure it could. No reason in the world to think otherwise. The brain is capable of all kinds of things, much more than we even understand. I have no idea where you get these coulds and shoulds wrt sight and the brain and stuff. How would you or Lessans know what the brain can/cannot or should/should not do?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By the same token, just because science describes what is believed to be the mechanism behind afferent vision doesn't make it so.

As has been repeatedly explained to your sorry ass, this mechanism is both observed and explained. The Lone Ranger describes the process in some detail in the article that you dishonestly refuse to read.

You are as stupid someone gong around ranting that the world is flat, and saying shit like, "just because science describes what is believed to be a round world, doesn't make it so." That is really how ridiculous and infantile you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not incapable, in my opinion. Unwilling. I suspect that if you wanted to deconvert her, you would have to find an emotional reason for her to change her mind. Rational ones are ignored, because they threaten a belief that yields a great deal of emotional satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is not based on emotion Vivisecus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes it is, very clearly

No explanation given, of course.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right now, she has it All Sorted Out. She has a simple system that purports to be the answer to anything.

This is no more simple than the system we are already using. It's called the criminal justice system.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The whole idea is a gross oversimplification.[/qutoe]

Not at all.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation p. 92

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt
— was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to
melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only
necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed
wherein this new law can effectively operate.

It was impossible for any
previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper
factors involved which was necessary for an adequate solution, just as
it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an
earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that
stage of development; but at last we have been granted understanding
which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in
every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we
are in for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire
existence which must come about as a matter of necessity the very
moment this knowledge is understood. Although this book only
scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for scientists to take over
from here.

The undeniable knowledge I am presenting is a blueprint
of a new world that must come about once this discovery is
recognized, and your awareness of this will preclude you from
expressing that this work is oversimplified. Because it would take
many encyclopedias combined to delineate all of the changes about to
occur, it would have been much too long for a book that was written
for the express purpose of providing mankind with a general outline.
It will be up to future scientists to extend these principles in much
greater depth.

We are compelled to respond to an environment in a completely different way than we respond to this environment. It is 180 degree turnaround. And I never said my kids don't believe in it.

They aren't the rules of the book; they are the rules of keen observation and sound reason.

I know exactly what "relations" mean.

I refuse to continue this conversation if this is all you're offering. You aren't even giving valid reasons for your point of view. You're just telling me he's wrong because that's your belief.

You give no explanation; just more of the same. You have no idea what logical error you believe he committed.

There is no evidence that discredits Lessans' observations that man's will is not free.

I feel hostility toward Lessans and me. I didn't claim persecution.

Contrary to your ridiculous analysis of who Lessans was, he would have been the first to admit the things he didn't know or wasn't sure of. That's why I have total trust in him.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh yeah I forgot that gem of logic, worthy of a daughter of Lessans! "Lessans could not have been wrong, because if he would have been, he would have noticed and stopped being wrong, so he could not have been"

I've said this before but you must have conveniently forgotten. I studied this knowledge for myself. I did not just depend on what Lessans said, although in his defense I know he thought in mathematical terms and would never have made such huge claims if he wasn't sure that his premises were correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On top of that you have just admitted that you rely on the authority of Lessans alone, an authority that you deem infallible and 100% trustworthy. You have just demonstrated my point, so I assume we are now in agreement that this is a religious belief.

You must have missed an earlier remark that sharing this knowledge is strictly due to my own understanding. Get it?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And so there is. It is about as large as the very real but also infinitely small chance that I stand of spontaneously floating towards the ceiling right now, for instance. For practical purposes we can rule it out.

Another one is to move the goalposts. This is where sight is not information, or that since nothing moves in direct sight (actually an even bigger contradiction of physics that faster-than-light sight, but that aside) information has not travelled and therefor there is no breech of causality. Also, apparently that what babies see is not real sight. The vague shapes and shadows we can generate using a camera and a specialized chip attached to the retina is not real sight either.

You are trying to prosecute with nothing to back you up. You know, don't you, that each one of your arguments can be scrapped? It is you who is stuck on definitions that don't describe reality, but you accept them hook, line, and sinker. Why can't you accept that generating vague shapes and shadows is not real sight and until they can achieve real sight using a prosthetic eye that sends impulses from a camera to the brain, we won't know for sure. Finally, what babies see is not real sight because real sight involves focusing the eyes. Yes, one can learn to compensate if they have an organic problem, but this is not what I'm referring to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If my views were so wrong I would not have to move the goalposts as you just did. I am not the one doing so - I am merely presenting more and more evidence that backs up my point of view. I am not struggling, waffling, ignoring, re-defining and hand-waving: you are. Because you are unwilling to doubt Lessans - something you just admitted to!

I did not move any goalposts; nor am I waffling, struggling, ignoring, re-defining [incorrectly], or handwaving. Once again, no explanations given, just accusations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is relatively easy to do things like this all the time, because you simply start with the preconceived notion that Lessans was absolutely right about everything, and then work back from that, re-arranging or plain ignoring reality as you see fit. The amazing fact that cameras are completely afferent machines (a weird way of putting it, I know, but it is a useful shorthand) and yet show us the same image as the human eye is one of the points that is completely ignored and waved away with some vague blather about objects and fields of view.

I believe the only way to resolve this is to create a bionic eye or some other experiment that would allow images to be interpreted in the brain from electro-chemical signals and normal vision to take place. So far that hasn't happened.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Any sight information gained by a bionic eye completely disproves the book, and this has been done. You are just moving the goalposts again.

No goalposts have been moved, and no sight information gained by a bionic eye that uses a camera to send images to the brain has been perfected. You are now beginning to blather.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is absolutely fascinating. It is like seeing a fundamentalist, only without the benefit of thousands of years of glib apologism to draw on: Peacegirl has to make all hers up herself. It is amazing to see how large the chunks of reality she denies can get, as long as they are perceived to threaten her fairytale.

Who is actually the one denying reality is yet to be seen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is just what you keep telling yourself so you can deny reality. Reality, however, remains the same.

Can't argue that reality remains the same. The question is whose?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The stratagems are the same as those of bible-literalists. They are impervious to rational arguments, because rationality has nothing to do with why they believe what they do. They believe it because it feels good. Which would be fine, if they didn't then tried to project their irrational beliefs onto reality.

I have been very rational. I have stated the premises as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, the more rational I become, the more threatened you become which compels you to become more aggressive in your attack.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More emotive language, claims of persecution. You have not been rational at all. If you had, you would have at least made a good case for your position that does not conflict heavily with reality.

Again and again all you do is argue with no concrete refutation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

PG is the same. She believes what she believes because it feels good. Which is fine by me, really. I just wish she would stop trying to pass it off as scientific or rational, because it is neither, and just say "Well, it is what I believe and it works for me", which is honest and fine.

I won't do that because this is not just "Well, it is what I believe and it works for me." If that was the case then this whole thread would be a total sham.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, the book is a sham. The thread is more of a case-study in how someone who is emotionally invested in a fairytale will warp reality to great extents if they feel this fairytale is threatened by it.

Um, I don't think so. You have decided that this book should be trashed, and all this has been for you is a case study to support your belief that I'm invested in a fairytale. So much for objectivity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

For me the question is - "Do you challenge the irrationality in literalist religion" - to me the answer is "Yes, when they try to pass it off as rationality or science, because it is neither."

I am not a fundamentalist no matter how hard you try to peg me as one. What I am offering is rational and undeniable and you can yell "foul" until the cows come home; but it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would not dream of pegging you as anything. Not after what Erimir told me that means.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But all the No! U!'s int he world will not change the fact that because something happened, that does not mean it had to happen

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that babies can see, that dogs can recognize people on photographs,

No they can't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that camera's do not record something different from the human eye,

Never said they did.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that we can stimulate the retina and create visual information in the brain,

That is yet to be determined.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that good and evil cannot be broken down into a simple yes/no statement, .

No one said good and evil can be broken down into a simple yes/no statement.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that the transfer of information cannot occur faster than light,

No one said it could.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that sight is not instant,

Only time will tell.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

that we have no reason to believe that blame is what allows justification, ect. etc. etc

We have very much reason to believe that advance blame allows for advance justification.

If you are in such complete disagreement, why are you here? I really am clear on your take of me and this book. I don't need to hear more of the same. Unless you have a valid question, I am afraid that I will be skipping over any more of your posts because they offer nothing to the conversation and are taking up too much of my time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are coming from a place of ignorance because he failed to tell you the mechanism

You still don't get it LadyShea. Explaining a mechanism does not make it valid. There needs to be more "proof" to determine if the mechanism behind afferent vision is valid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the ability of the brain to project onto reality a non-existing value which takes on the appearance of reality through conditioning.

The brain could not do this if sight was afferent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure it could. No reason in the world to think otherwise. The brain is capable of all kinds of things, much more than we even understand. I have no idea where you get these coulds and shoulds wrt sight and the brain and stuff. How would you or Lessans know what the brain can/cannot or should/should not do?

It's interesting to observe how quick you are to handwave away anything I have to say if Lessans said it. In order to project something onto a screen, the brain has to have this capability. You are so use to disagreeing regardless of what the disagreement is, that you sound like Vivisectus. This is really getting nowhere fast.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No goalposts have been moved, and no sight information gained by a bionic eye that uses a camera to send images to the brain has been perfected. You are now beginning to blather.

You expect perfection from cutting edge experimental technologies? Early organ transplants were 98% fatal, the idea was sound and they learned how and where to improve, were they not "true" transplants?

The concept is sound, blind people are seeing something.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know how the idea you are promoting (efferent vision) works, nor the idea you are refuting (afferent vision). You are in a place of ignorance.

The brain could not do this if sight was afferent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure it could. No reason in the world to think otherwise. The brain is capable of all kinds of things, much more than we even understand. I have no idea where you get these coulds and shoulds wrt sight and the brain and stuff. How would you or Lessans know what the brain can/cannot or should/should not do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's interesting to observe how quick you are to handwave away anything I have to say if Lessans said it.

I find it interesting how you pull these modal fallacies out with everything and don't even recognize you are doing so.

You have nothing on which to base the assertion "The brain could not do this"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order to project something onto a screen, the brain has to have this capability.

lol Surely Lessans meant screen and projecting metaphorically? Are you telling me he meant it literally?? LOL that's even more ridiculous.

Okay, so explain why vision must be efferent for the brain to be conditioned?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I never said my kids don't believe in it.

You never said they did believe it either. What is their opinion, other than they're busy?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I find it interesting how you pull these modal fallacies out with everything and don't even recognize you are doing so.

It's the hole in her brain. You can point it out as many times as you like, but like the eye's blind spot, peacegirl's brain has a blind spot. Among other things.

There also appears to be paranoid delusions, narcissism as well is basic logic processing failure.

I sure hope peacegirl is either on her meds or will get help soon. Maybe someone should let her son know just how sick his mom is.

It's pretty sad. Here is this poor woman going from forum to forum flogging a dead horse and getting flogged in the process. It does nothing but feed her delusions.

[davidm]

What a nasty little liar she is. After all the conclusive evidence presented to her that dogs can not only recognize their master by sight alone, but can recognize them on photographs, and all the conclusive evidence that newborns can indeed see, what does the dumbbell say?

"No, they can't."



Dishonest and dumb. Quite an unattractive comination.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not grasping at anything. I am just sharing a personal anectdote about a cross-eyed cat. An anectdote which just happens to address your preoccupation with cross-eyed babies.

I'm not preoccupied at all with cross-eyed babies or cross-eyed tomcats, but you seem to be. What does Clarence the cross-eyed lion prove? That he can still see even though he's cross-eyed? If that's what you think, you've missed the entire discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You never said they did believe it either. What is their opinion, other than they're busy?

They have nothing to do with whether this discovery is genuine. Why are stooping so low LadyShea? What is it with you that you would judge this book by my children's interest? This has nothing to do with anything. You are so off track that I am without words. My children are busy people. They were not there when my father made this discovery so they are once removed. It's not that they aren't interested, but they have their own personal goals, and they deserve to work toward them. That being said, they would never let this discovery fall by the wayside if something happened to me, but they are not responsible for what only God (a force beyond our individual wishes) can do. I can vouch for that. That should be enough to quell your angst that my family doesn't support me, or believe in this knowledge.