A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Just ... wow.

So Information Theory is yet another well-established branch of science that we must abandon in order to take Lessans' ideas seriously.

It's all about how you define "information transfer". I don't consider seeing efferently as obtaining information faster than the speed of light. It's a crazy thought. The definition of information transfer is very vague so it can be used to make it look in contradiction with the theory of relativity, when it isn't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then I've taken a lot more than I've given.

You got what you have brought onto yourself. Feeling sorry for yourself again, pity, but not from me.

[Kael]

The definition of information transfer is really quite simple. You don't have a piece of information, then you do. Ergo, information was transferred. From where and how are just details.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is coming from someone who doesn't even know what his first discovery is.

Then tell me, if you can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You got what you have brought onto yourself. Feeling sorry for yourself again, pity, but not from me.

I didn't bring anything onto myself other than trying to share information. The fact that you haven't read the book, and yet you yap yap yap about what it doesn't contain, is a sad state of affairs. You are definitely lying if you tell me you read the book. If I tested you, you'd fail, and you know it. I don't care if that's an insult. I've been insulted enough for the both of us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then tell me, if you can.

I'm not playing this game anymore. If you don't want to read the book, then don't read it. But I'm not going out of my way to explain this knowledge when no one will meet me half way.

[thedoc]

BTW, how are the book sales going, sold enough yet to get off the forums?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's all about how you define "information transfer". I don't consider seeing efferently as obtaining information faster than the speed of light. It's a crazy thought. The definition of information transfer is very vague so it can be used to make it look in contradiction with the theory of relativity, when it isn't.

So sorry, but you don't get to decide what is and is not information in Special Relativity, nor what "information transfer" means. The definition is not vague, you liar.

The theory is quite clear on what information is, and what does and does not constitute transfer of information. Go read Relativity for Dummies if you're unclear on the matter.

You can't just redefine "information transfer" and thereby claim that your notion of vision doesn't violate Special Relativity. That's an exceptionally dishonest tactic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

The definition of information transfer is really quite simple. You don't have a piece of information, then you do. Ergo, information was transferred. From where and how are just details.

Kael, the whole definition of "information transfer" is so diluted (just to make a case against efferent vision) that if you can't see that the direction in which we see has nothing to do with the theory of relativity, there's nothing more I can say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So sorry, but you don't get to decide what is and is not information in Special Relativity, nor what "information transfer" means. The definition is not vague, you liar.

The theory is quite clear on what information is, and what does and does not constitute transfer of information. Go read Relativity for Dummies if you're unclear on the matter.

You can't just redefine "information transfer" and thereby claim that your notion of vision doesn't violate Special Relativity. That's an exceptionally dishonest tactic.

There's nothing dishonest about it. That's your tactic to make Lessans look wrong; just like people telling me Lessans' definition of determinism is a modal fallacy. It's more than ridiculous. Just because someone experiences time differently depending on his state of motion does not in any way negate or disprove efferent vision. I read this carefully and I don't see a conflict.

One key idea in relativity theory is that of a reference frame. Your reference frame is, basically, everything that shares your state of motion. So if drive past and you measure my speed with radar, and you tell me my speed was 70mph, what you mean is that I was moving 70mph relative to your reference frame. You and the Earth and the radar were all in the same state of motion, and I was moving 70mph relative to your reference frame. But I may have been moving quite a bit faster relative to the reference frame of the Sun, for example.

Or if you’re traveling on a plane at 600mph and you say you’re going to walk down the aisle at 2mph, you don’t mean you’re going to walk at 2mph relative to the Earth. The Earth does not share your state of motion; you’re not in the same reference frame as the Earth at that time. Rather, the things that share your state of motion at that time are the plane, the other seated passengers, the luggage, and so on. So you’re saying you’re going to get out of your seat and walk down the aisle at 2mph relative to the plane, the seated passengers, and the luggage. You’re going to walk down the aisle at 2mph relative to your reference frame.

And as we discussed last time, the laws of motion are the same for any reference frame in uniform motion. You can play tennis on a planet traveling at 50 million mph (relative to Earth) just as well as you can on Earth.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's nothing dishonest about it. That's your tactic to make Lessans look wrong; just like people telling me Lessans' definition of determinism is a modal fallacy. It's more than ridiculous. Just because someone experiences time differently depending on his state of motion does not in any way negate or disprove efferent vision.

Liar.

You could make an effort to educate yourself, but you won't. You prefer your willful ignorance, and you dishonestly redefine terms to suit your needs.

I read this carefully and I don't see a conflict.

Of course not. That's because what you quoted has no relevance whatsoever to -- and doesn't even mention -- the nature of information or what is meant by information transfer.

That's more dishonesty on your part. Quoting something out of context and pretending that it says something that it doesn't even mention -- while hoping that nobody notices what you've done -- is very dishonest indeed.


But then, you've proven over and over again that you won't hesitate to dissemble, misrepresent, and outright lie when it suits you. So it's not as if anyone's surprised.


You claim that those who don't buy your claims are being dishonest? Really?

We can and do provide actual evidence to back our claims. You're too arrogant and cowardly to make even a minimal effort to educate yourself on the well-established scientific and philosophical principles that you claim are wrong. All you can do is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears like a petulant 3-year-old and repeatedly whine: "Is not! Is not! Is not!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar.

You could make an effort to educate yourself, but you won't. You prefer your willful ignorance, and you dishonestly redefine terms to suit your needs.

Of course not. That's because what you quoted has no relevance whatsoever to -- and doesn't even mention -- the nature of information or what is meant by information transfer.

That's more dishonesty on your part. Quoting something out of context and pretending that it says something that it doesn't even mention -- while hoping that nobody notices what you've done -- is very dishonest indeed.


But then, you've proven over and over again that you won't hesitate to dissemble, misrepresent, and outright lie when it suits you. So it's not as if anyone's surprised.

Your first premise is that efferent sight is wrong because it violates the laws of physics. You are charging Lessans with faster than light communication, or instantaneous transfer of information. I don't believe that efferent vision is in violation of these principles, nor do I believe that it contradicts the theory of relativity. If efferent vision is true, we would not seeing an effect before the cause. If information transfer is due to light being sent from point A to point B, then I would be seeing the effect after that light traversed space and time. If I was in motion, I would be seeing a different effect based on the principle of special relativity, which says that what we see comes from our particular frame of reference. That in no way conflicts with efferent vision. If Lessans is correct, lightwaves do not get converted into chemical-electrical signals, and this observation does not conflict with Einstein's ideas. I'm really done talking about this because I can see that I'm causing a lot of anger in here, and I refuse to be the brunt of it. I'm hoping you won't respond because I don't want to have to respond back. Please respect my feelings.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that the premise; faster than light communication negates efferent vision.

It's not a "premise" -- it's the central point of Special Relativity Theory that there can be no FTL communication.

I don't believe that it does.

Then demonstrate why Einstein was wrong.

If efferent vision is true, we would not seeing an effect before the cause. If information transfer is due to light being sent from point A to point B, then I would see the effect after that light traversed space and time. But, if Lessans is correct, that light does not penetrate the photoreceptors.

Irrelevant, as has been repeatedly explained to you in terms that any reasonably intelligent 5th-grader should be able to comprehend.

I'm really done talking about this because I can see that I'm causing a lot of anger in here, and I refuse to be the brunt of it.

This is -- what? -- the 20th time you've said this now?

I'm hoping you won't respond because I don't want to have to respond back. Please respect my feelings.

It's not as if you've demonstrated the slightest degree of respect for anyone else.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you already. When your eyes open, you see what's in your visual field. If the sun is turned on, you see it. It is not information until that picture is interpreted by the brain. This has nothing to do with relativity theory, NOTHING.

You said that the sun is seen INSTANTANEOUSLY when it is turned on. Is finding out that the sun is turned on LEARNING NEW INFORMATION? Yes or no?



You are one big bag of crazy, lady! In the pre-Internet days you'd be walking around on a streetcorner with a sandwich board handing out mimeographed pamphlets and babbling about the end of the world. The Internet is good because it keeps the wackos like you off the streets.

And no, unlike you, I have no personal investment in any particular theory. I am invested what's true, whereas you are a cult member.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You claim that Lessans wanted an investigation, and we did that but you're not happy with the result. In truth Lessans wanted nothing to do with an investigation, he wanted someone to rubberstamp it as something it was not, a work of genius. Instead we found it was nonsense, worthless rubbish, derived from an unobtainable goal, not from sound research or reasoning. It was a work of comical fiction intended as a mealticket.

Exactly. We have read the book. We're not going to rubberstamp it. Instead, we investigated it. The book is worthless rubbish. It's only redeeming aspect is its unintentional humor, such as the discussions of rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table (but not with little ones present! Why not? Are they being blamed for wanting to watch? ), Lessans' phone call to Will Durant, his chasing around and hectoring his intellectual betters, his missives to Nixon and Carter, and so on. That stuff is rich in satiric material, which I will use for my next published story. Thanks for the material.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then I've taken a lot more insults than I've given.

You whole presence here is one sustained insult to everyone's intelligence.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is coming from someone who doesn't even know what his first discovery is.

There is no "first discovery." He discovered nothing at all.

[Doctor X]

She seems to think creating shit is something extraordinary.

Perhaps more fiber in her diet? Mayhaps some beets?

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's nothing dishonest about it. That's your tactic to make Lessans look wrong; just like people telling me Lessans' definition of determinism is a modal fallacy. It's more than ridiculous. Just because someone experiences time differently depending on his state of motion does not in any way negate or disprove efferent vision. I read this carefully and I don't see a conflict.

One key idea in relativity theory is that of a reference frame. Your reference frame is, basically, everything that shares your state of motion. So if drive past and you measure my speed with radar, and you tell me my speed was 70mph, what you mean is that I was moving 70mph relative to your reference frame. You and the Earth and the radar were all in the same state of motion, and I was moving 70mph relative to your reference frame. But I may have been moving quite a bit faster relative to the reference frame of the Sun, for example.

Or if you’re traveling on a plane at 600mph and you say you’re going to walk down the aisle at 2mph, you don’t mean you’re going to walk at 2mph relative to the Earth. The Earth does not share your state of motion; you’re not in the same reference frame as the Earth at that time. Rather, the things that share your state of motion at that time are the plane, the other seated passengers, the luggage, and so on. So you’re saying you’re going to get out of your seat and walk down the aisle at 2mph relative to the plane, the seated passengers, and the luggage. You’re going to walk down the aisle at 2mph relative to your reference frame.

And as we discussed last time, the laws of motion are the same for any reference frame in uniform motion. You can play tennis on a planet traveling at 50 million mph (relative to Earth) just as well as you can on Earth.

Did you really think cutting and pasting a discussion that you don't understand helps your case? The above cut and paste job is preparatory to understanding why instantenous information acquisition is impossible; and it's also preparatory to understanding that light does indeed carry infomration to the eye.

Hey, Peacegirl! Let's go to the videotape. Remember this? The video that you completely ignored?

YouTube - ‪Simultaneity - Albert...

Followed by the explanation:

Let's imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

The video proves two things: instantaneous seeing is IMPOSSIBLE, because if it were possible, then the ground observer and the train observer would agree, rather than disagree, on when the flashes took place. And it proves that light does indeed carry information to the brain, because the observer on the train has to wait for the light from the back of the train to determine that it happened after the light at the front of the train. And that is the end both of efferent seeing and real-time seeing.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So sorry, but you don't get to decide what is and is not information in Special Relativity, nor what "information transfer" means. The definition is not vague, you liar.

You do not understand the two-sided equation, TLR. If you did, you'd realize that Seymour "I luvs me some very young boys and girls" Lessans and his shit-shoveling spawn may redefine whatever they jolly well please. The ends justify the means, you see, and the death of honest/reason is a small price to pay for world peace.

Besides, look what the world has done to Seymour "I luvs me some very young boys and girls" Lessans:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, the whole definition of "information transfer" is so diluted (just to make a case against efferent vision) that if you can't see that the direction in which we see has nothing to do with the theory of relativity, there's nothing more I can say.

That's not just another manifestation peacegirl's rapidly advancing Hysterical Crone Syndrome. The Intellectual Elite has actually diluted the definition of "information transfer" for the sole purpose of "mak[ing] a case against efferent vision." Why? Because much like atheists hate God, the Intellectual Elite hates Seymour "I luvs me some very young boys and girls" Lessans, that's why.

This is all very true and not the least bit false, so please don't embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not a "premise" -- it's the central point of Special Relativity Theory that there can be no FTL communication.

Then demonstrate why Einstein was wrong.

Irrelevant, as has been repeatedly explained to you in terms that any reasonably intelligent 5th-grader should be able to comprehend.

This is -- what? -- the 20th time you've said this now?

It's not as if you've demonstrated the slightest degree of respect for anyone else.

Where have I disrespected anyone?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Did you really think cutting and pasting a discussion that you don't understand helps your case? The above cut and paste job is preparatory to understanding why instantenous information acquisition is impossible; and it's also preparatory to understanding that light does indeed carry infomration to the eye.

Hey, Peacegirl! Let's go to the videotape. Remember this? The video that you completely ignored?

Followed by the explanation:

The video proves two things: instantaneous seeing is IMPOSSIBLE, because if it were possible, then the ground observer and the train observer would agree, rather than disagree, on when the flashes took place. And it proves that light does indeed carry information to the brain, because the observer on the train has to wait for the light from the back of the train to determine that it happened after the light at the front of the train. And that is the end both of efferent seeing and real-time seeing.

Nothing to do with it and I've explained why. My question is why are you not getting it. Probably because you don't want to feel conflict, and I empathize. But should we not learn the truth because we don't like feeling uncomfortable?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not a "premise" -- it's the central point of Special Relativity Theory that there can be no FTL communication.

Then demonstrate why Einstein was wrong.

Irrelevant, as has been repeatedly explained to you in terms that any reasonably intelligent 5th-grader should be able to comprehend.

This is -- what? -- the 20th time you've said this now?

It's not as if you've demonstrated the slightest degree of respect for anyone else.

I have never disrespected anyone. So don't play this new game with me sir. Why did you disrespect me when I asked you politely not to respond to anymore posts? If you're so sure Lessans is wrong, and this is nothing more than an extreme case of fundamentalism, why would you even waste your time? To make me realize how wrong I am? It's not gonna happen because I'm not wrong. Am I not someone to be respected? I'm sure you will say, "No". I don't care what you say or what you think. I'm tired of this attack on Lessans when there is nothing that anyone has brought to the table that has proven him wrong. I already told you that his observations do not violate the laws of physics. Why can't you just leave it at that? If you disagree, move on. We're never going to come to a meeting of the minds, so let it go, okay? Just stop posting.

[LadyShea]

Why did you disrespect me when I asked you politely not to respond to anymore posts?

It's an unreasonable request in the context of a discussion you initiated.

If you're so sure Lessans is wrong, and this is nothing more than an extreme case of fundamentalism, why would you even waste your time?

People have lots of reasons for addressing fundamentalism and/or crackpottery

It's not gonna happen because I'm not wrong.

You have no objective way of ascertaining that

Am I not someone to be respected?

You started the pre-emptive attacks against your readers within the first few pages.

I'm tired of this attack on Lessans when there is nothing that anyone has brought to the table that has proven him wrong.

Putting ideas out there leads to attacking them to determine veracity. This is what you signed up for.

His theory of sight is definitely disproved.

His ideas of conscience and conditioning aren't really scientific hypotheses and can't be tested or disproved, but there was nothing offered in the work to lead to any more thorough investigation or surveys or neural imaging or anything that might support his conclusions.

Why can't you just leave it at that? If you disagree, move on. We're never going to come to a meeting of the minds, so let it go, okay? Just stop posting.

Why don't you move on and just stop posting since you are the one who is unhappy and since is not someplace you seem inclined to participate in fully? We all participate here in other threads, and have relationships and a community. As long as you are here and saying stuff and promoting an odd point of view someone is going to be interested in responding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

She seems to think creating shit is something extraordinary.

Perhaps more fiber in her diet? Mayhaps some beets?

--J.D.

I don't know about that, I think she has too much beans in her diet now, the stuff she's passing really stinks.