A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been a lapse in enough time to get a grip on the attitude in here. Not even one person has come forward to say they are interested in this discovery, and I believe I have given people enough food for thought to get them interested if they ever will be. That tells me something. I refuse to continue unless someone (is that asking too much?)... just one person comes forward to let me know they are interested in what Lessans has to say. That would make it worthwhile for me to continue. If not, the gig is up.

Well then I guess you should give up. Because you have presented no discoveries. All you presented were a few unsubstantiated claims, a lot of hubris, a great deal of chapped ass and a very large dollop of misinformed word salad. All the while exhibiting all the symptoms of someone with advanced cognitive impairment and obsessive compulsive disorder.

Not a very attractive presentation. Frankly if you were to try this in person you should expect to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you serious, do you think the people who post on this thread are hanging on 24/7 just to see what comes up. You waited 20 min. thinking everyone was going to jump up and say "please continue."

Twenty minutes may not have been enough time (I didn't check to see how many people were viewing the thread), but my feelings haven't changed. No one seems to genuinely want to hear what this man has discovered. Instead they treat him with utter disrespect. I could understand this in the beginning, but by now I thought things would have gotten easier, but they haven't.

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you are ready to explain the ideas in the book, other than vision, in your own words without posting sections of the book and telling people they need to go back and read the book again and explain it to you, I'm ready to listen to what you have to say.

You can't set the conditions thedoc. I have to use my judgment when it comes to using my own words or Lessans' words to explain a certain concept.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Don't tell me I didn't read the book, just because I disagree with you, because that is insulting and a lie on your part. You have no way of knowing who has read it and who has not, and disagreement is not a valid test.

You can't tell me what to say when I've been verbally attacked and have had tomatoes thrown at me from day one. You don't know how hard this has been especially knowing that this knowledge is genuine. If people weren't telling me he was wrong, I wouldn't have had to tell them they don't understand.

Originally Posted by thedoc

When you are willing to listen to and understand other peoples ideas there may be room for dialogue, but if you come off like some master who is disseminating true knowledge to uninformed diciples, you are going to get shut down pretty quickly.

I have listened to everyone, and I've tried to hear their point of view, but if they think I am going to admit that Lessans is wrong and I'm just a follower, I'm going to shut everyone down pretty quickly. It works both ways.

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are not talking to a bunch of fools who don't know anything, these people are educated as is evidenced by their posts. If you try to talk down to people it's going to get shoved right back up your's. Grow up, and you may be able to have a conversation with members here, but when you act like a spoiled, bratty child you're going to get called on it.

I don't think anyone actually thinks I'm a brat who is spoiled and just wants my way. And I certainly don't think people are fools. I wouldn't be here if I believed that. But at this juncture I need to see genuine interest, not just people who are using me as a whipping board. When people make a commitment to try to understand something, they seem to have a better chance at actually understanding it. That's also the reason why people who buy something with their own money treat what they buy with more respect than when they get it for free. I realize that I was the one who came to this forum; people didn't search me out, which has caused a problem from the get go. I was viewed as a troll. I hope people don't still believe that. That's why I'm saying it's time for everyone to really take Lessans seriously. I don't mean that people have to agree with him unless they understand the undeniable relations involved, but in order to do this they need to be committed which requires a change in attitude.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl did state once that Lessans wore out several dictionaries, it seem he couldn't retain an accepted definition for long, so he just made up his own as he went along.

Or maybe he didn't find any definitions he liked.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since when is the Sun, of all things, a point source of light?

For the purposes of determining the focal length of a converging optical element it is often considered to be a point source of light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Instant lightwave.

Instant reflection.

What do these words mean?

Just add water?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I'm saying it's time for everyone to really take Lessans seriously. I don't mean that people have to agree with him unless they understand the undeniable relations involved, but in order to do this they need to be committed which requires a change in attitude.

NO, it's time for you to provide the answers and explinations that people have been asking for. It's time for your attitude to change from one of an arrogant superior to one of an equal partner in this conversation. It's time for you to stop making demands of everyone else, seriously I've had enough of you telling others what they need to do or think or to give Lessans the respect that you think he deserves. If he deserves any respect it's time for you to step up and demonstrate that he had something of value to say, respect is earned, not just given. You need to go a long way to earn any respect and trust on this forum, so you'd better get started and loose the attitude, it's unbecomeing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think anyone actually thinks I'm a brat who is spoiled and just wants my way.
But at this juncture I need to see genuine interest,

I think that is exactly what you will find that people think of you.

At this juncture it is time for you to demonstrate that you are genuine.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think anyone actually thinks I'm a brat who is spoiled and just wants my way.

That is exactly what people think of you, because that is what you are.

That's why I'm saying it's time for everyone to really take Lessans seriously. I don't mean that people have to agree with him unless they understand the undeniable relations involved, but in order to do this they need to be committed which requires a change in attitude.

On the contrary, you little charlatan, it's time for YOU to take SCIENCE seriously, and to take seriously what you have been SHOWN in this thread by people many orders of magnitude more intelligent and more informed than either you or Lessans. You continue to have the unmitigated gall to preach what WE should do, what WE should take seriously, while you continue to dishonestly evade the questions put to you and while you make NO effort to learn what science actually says about the issues at hand. Have you, or have you not, read the essay by The Lone Ranger on light and sight? Of course you have not; so don't you DARE have the hypocrisy to preach to us what WE must do.

Oh, and Lessans did not make any discovery, so there is nothing to look at here.

[LadyShea]

That's why I'm saying it's time for everyone to really take Lessans seriously. I don't mean that people have to agree with him unless they understand the undeniable relations involved, but in order to do this they need to be committed which requires a change in attitude.

Count the arrogancies!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Count the arrogancies!

Breathtaking, isn't it?

Let's translate more clearly: Nobody needs to agree with him UNTIL they understand the UNDENIABLE relations involved; then, of course, everyone must agree with what he said because, well, it's fucking UNDENIABLE. But first, to see the UNDENIABLE, we must change our attitude.

Hey, everyone, let's change our attitude and be STUPID like she is! Then we can understand that UNDENIABLY, we see in real-time, even though, like, duh, we don't.

Arrogant, obnoxious little fool.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What else do you imagine a lens can do, beyond receiving incoming light? You claimed the lens acts efferently, but if nothing comes outwards from the lens then this is simply false.

Unless the lens can change the actual physical distance between the object and the camera, or the actual speed at which light travels between them, then I'm afraid your suggestion changes absolutely nothing. When an object first changes color to begin absorbing non-blue light and reflecting only blue light, any blue light just beginning to be reflected from the surface of the object will still take time to get from that surface to the camera and its lens.

Yes, and I can see you trying to move it. The problem is not that anyone is assuming afferent vision, or looking at it only from that perspective. The problem here is coming purely from your account of efferent vision and nowhere else. Your account still makes no sense even on your own terms. Afferent vision has nothing to do with it. You still have absolutely no explanation for how blue light can be instantaneously at the camera at the very moment a distant object begins to absorb non-blue light to bounce only the blue light towards the camera.

I am not relying upon afferent vision to set up this problem. It follows purely from your own statements about what is happening on your account of photography. The only assumptions involved are your own.

No, that the light at the film has arrived and previously took time to travel there is what you have already agreed to. This is not originating from the afferent model. It is coming from your own answers.

But when was it doing this? Not at the time this light left the surface of the object, because then the object was absorbing blue light and reflecting only red light. That the light now at the camera is blue can only be explained by the absorptive properties of the object at the time it reflected the light in question.

How can the fact that the object is just now begining to absorb non-blue light and send only blue light towards the camera explain the color of the light which is already at the camera? This light is blue, and yet left the surface of the object back when the object was red. So you haven't explained why the light now at the camera is blue.

The problem is that you are now claiming that just before the picture was taken, there was blue light in transit between the red ball and the camera. Why on Earth would that light be blue? Does the light somehow know in advance that the object is about to change color?

Then what specifically would that problem be? (And don't just say because then efferent vision would be impossible. That would be wrong.)

But I'm not. I'm using only your own answers and your own reasoning. The problem here in your own account has nothing to do with the afferent model. The problem is that you are making inconsistent and nonsensical claims, and this is being demonstrated without any reliance upon the afferent model. Why can't you own up to your own inconsistency without trying to shift the blame elsewhere?

Bump.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think that is exactly what you will find that people think of you.

At this juncture it is time for you to demonstrate that you are genuine.

Well I'm sure by now everybody knows what I think. peacegirl is a cognitively dysfunctional, obsessive, delusional basket case. Just being a brat would be an improvement for peacegirl.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

woomeisters

That's a keeper right there!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people weren't telling me he was wrong, I wouldn't have had to tell them they don't understand.

Yes, yes. We know Lessans wrote that disagreement with him necessarily means lack of understanding. He was simply wrong about that. We know that you're incapable of recognizing even the possibility of Lessans being wrong, but your shortcomings in that regard are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I certainly don't think people are fools. I wouldn't be here if I believed that.

Like many religious folk, you look at people who don't adhere to your belief system as the intellectual and spiritual equivalent of children. You think we're in need of the stability that only Special Knowledge will provide. It's paternalistic horseshit, and it's quite insulting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When people make a commitment to try to understand something, they seem to have a better chance at actually understanding it.

Again, it's entirely possible for someone to understand Lessans without agreeing. We know Lessans claimed otherwise, but he was wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't mean that people have to agree with him unless they understand the undeniable relations involved, but in order to do this they need to be committed which requires a change in attitude.

You've been presenting Lessans' work over the Internet for the better part of a decade. You've passed this stuff along to thousands of people across multiple forums. So far as we know, you're the only person in the entire world who considers anything Lessans said "undeniable." Plenty of perfectly reasonable people have found perfectly reasonable bases for denying Lessans' tenets. Thus, regardless of whether any of Lessans' claims were correct or incorrect, the contention that any of them are "undeniable" is false as a simple matter of fact.

Your continued participation in this thread is a fool's errand. I think you know that, but as you've proven time and time again, you are wholly incapable of detaching yourself and moving on. I find that terribly sad.

I have no illusions that it will actually happen, but I hope that somehow, someday you find the gumption to let this thread go. Leave the alcohol alone, put Lessans' book on the shelf for awhile and spend some time enjoying life. At our advanced ages, our capacity for self-inflicted misery ain't nearly what it used to be. Take care.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Alas, yes, a blast from the past! peacegirl saying we would have to recalculate the speed of light!

Never mind that the speed of light has been measured to be velocity c in a vaccuum ever since 1676, with ever greater accuracy, in more ways that can even be listed or counted. Every single time it comes out c, the same speed! And not only that! The constancy of light speed c is a cornerstone of the theory of relativity, which peacegirl says both is and is not contradicted by Lessans.

Ah, dear me! So we shall have to recalculate the speed of light. But why? None of our experiments or measurements disagree that light travels at c. So why shall we have to recalculate it? Because -- and this is what is all important -- although the speed of light c does not disagree with a single experiment ever conducted, it disagrees with what Lessans thought! So we shall recalculate the speed of light to make Lessans and his daughter happy, to give them the intellectual validation they never received! Okey-doke!

David, I already said this was my mistake so no need to continue this harangue.

But wait ...

There is still a big problem!

Can peacegirl see it? No, of course not! Her brain is damaged, just like her father's brain was.

The problem is, what shall we recalculate the speed of light to be, peacegirl, to make you and daddy happy? Well, let's see. Lessans said that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it instantaneously. Okey-doke! To placate Daddy and peacegirl, we'll recalculate the speed of light to be "infinite" even though it isn't.

No, that's not what I'm asking anyone to do. DO NOT RECALCULATE THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO INFINITE! HOW MUCH LOUDER DO I HAVE TO GET!!

Originally Posted by Davidm

But hold on! Lessans also said that if God turned on the sun at noon, although people on earth would see it instantaneously, they would not see their neighbors standing next to them for some eight and a half minutes, until the light arrived from the sun! OMFG! That works out to light having a velocity of speed c, just like Einstein and everybody else said!

Exactly! I'm in agreement!!!

Originally Posted by davidm

OMFG! Is there still an undamaged corner of your brain, peacegirl, in which you will notice the BIG FAT CONTRADICTION in the very heart of your father's claim? He said that light both traveled infinitely fast and did not travel infinitely fast at the same time! Holy shit! How, then, can we recaculate the speed of light, peacegirl, to please your royal highness? Lessans said it both was, and was not, infinitely fast at the same time!

Now what?

No David, he never said light travels infinitely fast, never ever ever, nor did he say that light travels infinitely fast and not infinitely fast at the same time. Why are you making up stories? Can't you see that, due to efferent vision, light reveals the universe to us instead of bringing the universe to us?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Leave the alcohol alone, put Lessans' book on the shelf for awhile and spend some time enjoying life. At our advanced ages, our capacity for self-inflicted misery ain't nearly what it used to be. Take care.

My My, I think he cares?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can't you see that, due to efferent vision, light reveals the universe to us instead of bringing the universe to us?

But that is what everyone else does not see, because the light from the Universe brings us images of the past, and that is afferent, not efferent. You and Lessans are wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure.

It's funny how people say "sure" and then continue with the same subject.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So, given light is forming on image on our retinas when we see, how does the light know, as it land on my retina, what image to form of an object any distance away?

Because that wavelength is coming from the object; the only difference is that our brains are looking through the retina to see the object in real time instead of the image of the object being interpreted in the brain. If we see in real time there is no distance between seeing the object and the light striking the retina. It all happens at once.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Note that this easy for us to explain; the light travels from the object in a straight line, so it will naturally fall onto my retina in the same way it was reflected or emitted. But for your model it presents a great problem, as the light need to somehow have its path changed in precisely the right way to form an image matching the object's real time appearance, long after it emitted the light.

Why does it have to have its path changed? The photons would still land on the retina at the same spot.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Unless the light travelled intantly of course, but you don't believe that, do you?

Of course not. It has nothing to do with light traveling or arriving, therefore to say that light travels instantly would be a logical contradiction. We discussed this awhile back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Or maybe he didn't find any definitions he liked.

Do you see why I get upset? This is not what I call taking him seriously. It's making fun of him. You certainly wouldn't be doing this if he had someone of high esteem endorsing him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, he never said light travels infinitely fast, never ever ever, nor did he say that light travels infinitely fast and not infinitely fast at the same time. Why are you making up stories? Can't you see that, due to efferent vision, light reveals the universe to us instead of bringing the universe to us?

No, peacegirl, I can't "see" that, because, not only is it untrue, it is not even coherently formulated. This is why, when pressed to the wall on the mechanism of sight, if not light itself, you say shit like "Voila! We see!"

Tell me, peacegirl, in Lessans' thought experiment, how is it possible for us to see the light at the sun instantaneously, when the light will not reach our eyes for eight and a half minutes? Explain that, please!

On second thought, don't bother. What I really want to know is, are you lying again? You said just recently that you would not go on posting unless at least ONE PERSON gave you support. You have gotten support from no one. So are you going to take a hike, or was that just another lie?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well I'm sure by now everybody knows what I think. peacegirl is a cognitively dysfunctional, obsessive, delusional basket case. Just being a brat would be an improvement for peacegirl.

Okay natural.atheist, since you are so sure I'm delusional, tell me what his first discovery is about? If you can't do this, then where do you come off saying these things?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay natural.atheist, since you are so sure I'm delusional, tell me what his first discovery is about? If you can't do this, then where do you come off saying these things?

Hey, peacegirl, there is no "first discovery."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What else do you imagine a lens can do, beyond receiving incoming light? You claimed the lens acts efferently, but if nothing comes outwards from the lens then this is simply false.

Unless the lens can change the actual physical distance between the object and the camera, or the actual speed at which light travels between them, then I'm afraid your suggestion changes absolutely nothing.

It changes everything Spacemonkey. The lens doesn't have to change the physical distance in order to take a snapshot in real time, not delayed time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When an object first changes color to begin absorbing non-blue light and reflecting only blue light, any blue light just beginning to be reflected from the surface of the object will still take time to get from that surface to the camera and its lens.

Reflection is a misnomer because there is nothing being reflected from the surface of the object to the camera. The object reveals itself by absorbing all the non-blue wavelengths and we're able to see the object in real time because of how the brain and eyes operate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing I can come up with right now is that the apparent distance between the camera and the object is not the actual distance. I've already explained this and I still believe there is something to it. When the lens focuses on the object the wavelength is instantly at the film, just as we see the object instantly. How this occurs seems like a mystery but it's not if you're thinking in terms of efferent vision. It wouldn't make sense coming from afferent vision because, according to this [theory], light travels at a finite rate of speed and therefore it would necessarily follow that there is a time delay between the light leaving the object and the light arriving at the camera. Do you see the problem here?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, and I can see you trying to move it. The problem is not that anyone is assuming afferent vision, or looking at it only from that perspective. The problem here is coming purely from your account of efferent vision and nowhere else. Your account still makes no sense even on your own terms. Afferent vision has nothing to do with it. You still have absolutely no explanation for how blue light can be instantaneously at the camera at the very moment a distant object begins to absorb non-blue light to bounce only the blue light towards the camera.

Afferent vision and efferent vision are complete opposites. It makes all the difference in the world which one is true, just as it makes all the difference in the world whether or not our will is free or determined. There is no bouncing towards the camera. That would involve time. We see the object because the object exposes itself due to its absorption properties. I hope you get this eventually.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am not relying upon afferent vision to set up this problem. It follows purely from your own statements about what is happening on your account of photography. The only assumptions involved are your own.

And my account works due to efferent vision. If our brains did not look through the eyes, as a window, this version of reality would be fantasy. But it's an accurate version.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why is that arriving light of blue wavelength?

I wish you wouldn't use the word "arrive" because that denotes travel time, which originates from the afferent model of sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, that the light at the film has arrived and previously took time to travel there is what you have already agreed to. This is not originating from the afferent model. It is coming from your own answers.

I must have been confused as to what you were asking. How can there be an "arrival time" when there is no "departure time"? You can't arrive at point B unless you leave point A.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer: Because the object is absorbing all non-blue wavelengths.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But when was it doing this? Not at the time this light left the surface of the object, because then the object was absorbing blue light and reflecting only red light. That the light now at the camera is blue can only be explained by the absorptive properties of the object at the time it reflected the light in question.

That's because you think the wavelength is traveling toward the camera. In that case you would be right. The red would show up first.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the fact that the object is just now begining to absorb non-blue light and send only blue light towards the camera explain the color of the light which is already at the camera? This light is blue, and yet left the surface of the object back when the object was red. So you haven't explained why the light now at the camera is blue.

Send is another word for "transmit", and there is no transmission. I don't know of another way to explain this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What color wavelength was that particular light just before it arrived at the camera?

Answer: Blue.

Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived?

Answer: No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem is that you are now claiming that just before the picture was taken, there was blue light in transit between the red ball and the camera. Why on Earth would that light be blue? Does the light somehow know in advance that the object is about to change color?

Do you see the confusion with words? I will say once again that there is no transit time, which is the only reason the light at the camera would be blue, not red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived?

Answer: Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what specifically would that problem be? (And don't just say because then efferent vision would be impossible. That would be wrong.)

It's understanding what the lens is doing instead of what light is doing. That's why I think it's better to focus on the brain and the eyes in order to understand this concept rather than light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you are trying to get me to see the inconsistency in my reasoning, but I believe that's only because you are using the afferent model to judge my answers.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I'm not. I'm using only your own answers and your own reasoning. The problem here in your own account has nothing to do with the afferent model. The problem is that you are making inconsistent and nonsensical claims, and this is being demonstrated without any reliance upon the afferent model. Why can't you own up to your own inconsistency without trying to shift the blame elsewhere?

I'm not shifting the blame. I take responsibility where I am not being clear, although I'm not sure how to make the concept easier to understand. But efferent vision has everything to do with understanding why we see the object in real time. Light automatically becomes a condition of sight. It does not bounce off, travel, transmit, arrive, or depart, in order to bring us the image. It's there to be seen.

[LadyShea]

our brains are looking through the retina to see the object in real time instead of the image of the object being interpreted in the brain.

The brain cannot look through the retina, there is no neural path from that runs from brain to the eye, only from the eye to the brain

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I agreed I was confused as to what you were asking. How can there be an "arrival time" when there is no "departure time". You can't arrive unless you travel somewhere.

Here are your previous answers:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
Yes.

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.

6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.

7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects reflect light.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?
Yes.

Please indicate which of these you would like to change.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you think the wavelength is traveling. In that case you would be right that the red would show up first.

Again, my questions have nothing to do with the order of the arriving light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's understanding what the lens is doing instead of what light is doing. That's why I think it's better to focus on the brain and the eyes in order to understand this concept rather than light.

I asked you in the very post you were here replying to, what you think lenses actually do beyond receiving incoming light. You still haven't answered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not shifting the blame.

Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead of on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.

You need to either revise your earlier answers to my questions (quoted above), or answer my further questions about how the light at the camera could have been blue before it arrived and before the object itself was blue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Count the arrogancies!

Einstein knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant when he used words such as "mathematical" and "scientific". Lessans knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant. He used the words "mathematical" and "scientific" because they apply. The only difference is that Einstein's discoveries have been recognized and Lessans' discoveries have not.