A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

If light reflects the material world, the same conditions exist that exist with afferent vision, therefore rods and cones of the retina are still using light to see the object. A sensor of a camera still uses pixels on a charge-coupled device, so there is no problem there.

"Light reflects the material world" is another meaningless phrase. You just think it sounds like something that makes sense, which is why you use it, but it is just more waffle and attempted woo-woo.

Sensors are light-detectors. They just detect light - it is how we built them. They do not use light. They detect it, and generate a pixel depending on what light is there. Hence they contradict your idea, as has been painstakingly pointed out to you.

It's not so much the lens that matters, it's the fact that something acts like a lens, so it works in a similar fashion. Light goes into the pinhole, for example, but it's light that is coming from the object that is present, not something that doesn't exist anymore.

Right. So now holes are magic too? But only lens-like holes?

Light still moves at a finite speed, so by definition, if the sensor or retina detects light, there has to be a delay. If not, and it is indeed the light from an object as it is right now, then that light has to move at infinite speed, which obviously is not the case. Thus, again, reality contradicts your idea and yet you fail to amend or abandon it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the accepted mechanism. If you want to propose a different mechanism then that is fine, but so far you have not done anything of the kind: you have merely presented a claim. A claim that is supported by neither evidence nor a theoretical mechanism by which it is supposed to work. All you support it with is the fact that your father said it was so, and some common misconceptions about dog and infant sight - misconceptions that, even if they were true, do not strongly support his version of sight in the first place.

What do you think I've been doing this whole time? I've tried to give you a theoretical mechanism. More testing has to be done on dogs and infant sight. It's true that the results could easily be made to support the answer one is looking for. Even so, truth does exist and hopefully the truth will come out either way.

No, you have merely made claims. You have proposed no mechanism at all, and the tests that have been done on dogs and infants, all of which flatly contradict what you said, you have simply rejected. Just like you unilaterally decided any evidence from outer space does not count. These are the more poignant examples of how you reject reality in favour of your silly fairy-tale.

The truth has come out already. You just don't like it, that's all.

The thinking was not muddled, there was no grandiose verbiage or broad, sweeping claims, just claims that Lessans felt strongly about or he wouldn't have made them. The reason I'm unable to confirm these ideas is because I can't do more empirical testing on my own which is necessary if science is ever going to give credibility to this man. I do understand everyone's reaction. These are huge claims and it would change our way of thinking about the real world. It would not negate all of the successful technologies that have been built based on the understanding of how light works.

There were broad, sweeping claims about how sight works. These claims were supported by nothing but common misconceptions about infant sight and dog sight, and nothing else. The reason you are unable to confirm the ideas is because they make no sense. You are just unable to face the reality that your father was far from a genius, but rather a misguided eccentric who liked to think that he was.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you have not disproved the hypothesis. You know why? It isn't a hypothesis. Am I supposed to agree with you because his observations haven't been established in scientific terms? If that's true, this goes all the way back to the premise. Nothing has been negated whatsoever.

And nothing ever will be as far as you're concerned. You've made it abundantly clear that any and all counterevidence -- no matter how ironclad -- will be ignored. Your beliefs are purely a matter of faith.

And that's okay, as far as it goes. But it's dishonest to claim that there's anything remotely scientific about those beliefs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Light reflects the material world" is another meaningless phrase. You just think it sounds like something that makes sense, which is why you use it, but it is just more waffle and attempted woo-woo.

Sensors are light-detectors. They just detect light - it is how we built them. They do not use light. They detect it, and generate a pixel depending on what light is there. Hence they contradict your idea, as has been painstakingly pointed out to you.

Sensors are light detectors but they can only detect light from an object when an object is present. This is not contradictory.

It's not so much the lens that matters, it's the fact that something acts like a lens, so it works in a similar fashion. Light goes into the pinhole, for example, but it's light that is coming from the object that is present, not something that doesn't exist anymore.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right. So now holes are magic too? But only lens-like holes?

Light still moves at a finite speed, so by definition, if the sensor or retina detects light, there has to be a delay. If not, and it is indeed the light from an object as it is right now, then that light has to move at infinite speed, which obviously is not the case. Thus, again, reality contradicts your idea and yet you fail to amend or abandon it.

Light travels at a finite speed but it doesn't travel with the wavelength of the object. The object is seen by the eye due to its absorption properties. The object shows up on a digital camera by its ability to pick up that same wavelength (through pixels) but, once again, the wavelength is not traveling toward the sensor, it is already present at the camera.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the accepted mechanism. If you want to propose a different mechanism then that is fine, but so far you have not done anything of the kind: you have merely presented a claim. A claim that is supported by neither evidence nor a theoretical mechanism by which it is supposed to work. All you support it with is the fact that your father said it was so, and some common misconceptions about dog and infant sight - misconceptions that, even if they were true, do not strongly support his version of sight in the first place.

What do you think I've been doing this whole time? I've tried to give you a theoretical mechanism. More testing has to be done on dogs and infant sight. It's true that the results could easily be made to support the answer one is looking for. Even so, truth does exist and hopefully the truth will come out either way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you have merely made claims. You have proposed no mechanism at all, and the tests that have been done on dogs and infants, all of which flatly contradict what you said, you have simply rejected. Just like you unilaterally decided any evidence from outer space does not count. These are the more poignant examples of how you reject reality in favour of your silly fairy-tale.

It's not that I reject outer space examples. I just can't explain what is happening to anyone's satisfaction until efferent vision is tested and verified on Earth. Until then anything I say will be automatically used against me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The truth has come out already. You just don't like it, that's all.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In short - there is no reason to assume your father was right, or even remotely on the right track. There is just a lot of muddled thinking, grandiose verbiage and broad, sweeping claims. This is the reason you remain unable to reduce these ideas to simple and precise explanations.

The thinking was not muddled, there was no grandiose verbiage or broad, sweeping claims, just claims that Lessans felt strongly about or he wouldn't have made them. The reason I'm unable to confirm these ideas is because I can't do more empirical testing on my own which is necessary if science is ever going to give credibility to this man. I do understand everyone's reaction. These are huge claims and it would change our way of thinking about the real world. It would not negate all of the successful technologies that have been built based on the understanding of how light works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There were broad, sweeping claims about how sight works. These claims were supported by nothing but common misconceptions about infant sight and dog sight, and nothing else. The reason you are unable to confirm the ideas is because they make no sense. You are just unable to face the reality that your father was far from a genius, but rather a misguided eccentric who liked to think that he was.

The dog and cat examples were supported but were misconstrued based on poorly run experiments. My father never used the word "genius", so for you to say that this is what he thought of himself is way out in left field, which doesn't surprise me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And nothing ever will be as far as you're concerned. You've made it abundantly clear that any and all counterevidence -- no matter how ironclad -- will be ignored. Your beliefs are purely a matter of faith.

And that's okay, as far as it goes. But it's dishonest to claim that there's anything remotely scientific about those beliefs.

Lessans would never have claimed anything based on faith alone. He was an observer and a thinker which led him to these findings.

[LadyShea]

It's not that I reject outer space examples. I just can't explain them and anything I say in regard to Lessans' claims will be automatically used against me.

The examples from space are the best evidence we have for how light works and that we see in delayed time, specifically because the distance makes the time delay readily apparent to any and all observers...in many cases with only basic, inexpensive equipment (the moons of Jupiter observation), and we don't have artificial light, weather, dust and pollution in the air, and atmospheric conditions to contend with in space. The examples from space flatly contradict Lessans.

For more Earthly experiments, you have refused to even go outside with some different lenses to demonstrate to yourself how lenses work! For a couple dollars at the store you can prove, to yourself, that lenses do nothing but bend light. They aren't magic mirrors that focus out and get an instant wavelength reflection or whatever babble you made up to trying to explain how cameras work.

You can't explain the space examples because they are incompatible with real time seeing, end of story. You can't explain how cameras work because their design and construction are incompatible with looking out or focusing out, as well as real time light detection.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then quit ignoring the photo below (that I have posted 5 times) and tell me what this image is. Is it a clue? A relic? A remnant?

The final image is 16,000 x 12,000 pixels.

Hey peacegirl, what is this an image of? And is it a clue, a remnant, or what?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans would never have claimed anything based on faith alone. He was an observer and a thinker which led him to these findings.

So, if his claims are scientific, then where is the data?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Obviously not. Which part of this incredibly simple explanation are you still not following?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, can you answer these questions please:

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

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

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

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

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. 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)?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels at a finite speed but it doesn't travel with the wavelength of the object.

"Wavelength of the object", again, after it was explained to you that the object doesn't give any wavelength to the light, nor does the light somehow "pick up" wavelengths from objects to carry along with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object is seen by the eye due to the wavelength that it displays

How does the eye see it? How is the "wavelength" it displays determined and where does the "wavelength it displays" come from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object shows up on a digital camera by its ability to pick up that same wavelength (through pixels) but

Describe this ability. How does it "pick up a wavelength through pixels"? What are the pixels and camera doing that enables this ability?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, what does that mean? Objects bounce off light?

Nothing.

And failed miserably. The best you can come up with is your immortal magic line: "Voila! We see!"

Why? Because you don't like the results achieved so far?

Shall we also do more testing on the moons of Jupiter? Well, as a matter of fact, we do, every time we look in a telescope: the results confirm delayed seeing and rule out real time seeing, while also confirming that we see light, not the "object itself," whatever that is supposed to mean.

You mean after all this time you don't know what the difference is between interpreting signals from light, or seeing the object in real time?

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, even apart from the fact that actual observations about light rule out Lessans' claims, you haven't had your feet properly held to the fire over the fact that The Lone Ranger explained to you hundreds of pages ago: The eye is not, biologically, an efferent structure. We know this from dissecting it, studying it and oberving it. How do you explain that, peacegirl? Oh, wait, I know:

I'm not talking about the eye as much the brain in relationship to the eye. As much as scientists believe they know all there is to know about the brain, it's still not completely understood.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and pecegirl? Remember you said you'd leave unless at least one person showed support for Lessans? Well, that did not happen. Was that another lie, that you were leaving?

I know you would love me to leave. It would solve all your problems. I believe the reason people haven't come forward in support is they know they wouldn't live it down. This place can be quite unforgiving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is just the kind biased testing that you are accusing others of having done. When the whole purpose of the test is to prove a hypothasis, that is the very definition of bias.

Not if the test is carefully controlled and interpreted correctly. With animals the controls could actually interfere with the test because it might look like the test is statistically significant when it's nothing of the sort. It could easily give the impression that because the dog's paw hits a bar more times when his master is shown, that this is conclusive proof that the dog recognizes his master. Not true.

You are completely leaving out why this is not just an assertion or a hypothesis, which is the reason why testing is only meant to confirm what has already been carefully observed. As usual, we're back to square one.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe the reason people haven't come forward in support is they know they wouldn't live it down. This place can be quite unforgiving.

As I stated when you threatened to leave, if somebody here wants to offer you support, but is askeered of the mob, they can contact you via private message. People do it all the time when they don't want their comments read by the entire board for whatever reason.

allows sockpuppets, so anyone here could choose to sign up under a different user name to offer you support without getting burned at the stake by the rest of us. Maybe somebody already did, as Rickoshay seems like a possible sockpuppet...he came out of nowhere right to this thread.

Additionally, if you start your own site or blog or whatever, you could link to it here, and anyone who wants to support you, or ask the kinds of questions you think truly interested people would ask, can sign up under a different user name and talk to you there without exposing themselves to crucifixion and boiling oil.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1000592]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then the most you can say is that Lessans supported his claims logically or philosophically, but you cannot claim they have been proven scientifically. Because he did not use scientific methodology or means.

No, this is not logic or philosophy. That is exactly why he made sure people understood that this knowledge was indisputable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not talking here about what is possible, we are talking about what is actual. Yes, proving something like Noah's Ark scientifically would take time and effort to find the clues that would substantiate the theory that the Ark actually existed, therefore until those clues were found it would be a matter of faith. But Lessans' claims don't fit in the same category because he already found the science behind his claims through careful observations and sound reasoning which are not faith based.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't do any science! He did no experiments, collected no data, he didn't even offer a breakdown of the sample group he observed to see if there were demographic anomalies to be corrected for (if he observed only mental institution patients, that would not be applicable to all people everywhere, for example). Nothing in his book is science based.

Okay, so he used the wrong word. His observations were spot on, therefore they were undeniable. How else could his third discovery have been made. He had to base his reasoning on observation and inference. I already explained that this law of our nature is universal. It's not like there are people who have free will and there are others who don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It makes real time/instantaneous vision wrong.

If Lessans had stuck only to "efferent" vision (looking out) and stayed away from instantaneous sight, you would be bumping hard against anatomy and physiology, only. He made claims about time though, and that's where you get stuck dealing with physics.

I don't know how to explain efferent vision (looking outward in real time) could escape this aspect. I want to repeat that I am not disputing how physicists calculate where an object is by using the speed of light as a measurement. I'm just disputing that we see objects after the object is gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Because Lessans' "discovery" hinges on whether actual truths are also necessary truths. He states that we must do what we did, because we did it.

But why is the question? Yes, it's true that we had to do it once it was done, but that doesn't mean we had to do it before it was done. Do you see the difference?

Originally Posted by Kael

This is either ultimately incorrect, hence we keep returning to modal fallacies and tautologies which demonstrate why it is incorrect, or is very sloppy use of language and reason.

Is this yet another area of "his" book where your hand is heavily responsible?

What do you mean by "my hand is heavily responsible?" Responsible for what? It's not sloppy language; it's just a difficult concept to grasp but you finally get it, it become easy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not logic or philosophy.

It's also not science or math, so what's left?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so he used the wrong word. His observations were spot on, therefore they were undeniable.

Undeniability has not been demonstrated, has not been supported with any valid evidence, and has certainly not been proven. It has been and is being asserted.

Also "he was correct therefore he was correct", lol you are using circular reasoning again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How else could his third discovery have been made. He had to base his reasoning on observation and inference. I already explained that this law of our nature is universal. It's not like there are people who have free will and there are others who don't.

You believe it's a law of nature. That has not been demonstrated

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how to explain efferent vision (looking outward in real time) could escape this aspect. I want to repeat that I am not disputing how physicists calculate where an object is by using the speed of light as a measurement. I'm just disputing that we see objects after the object is gone.

So now you claim we see in delayed time? That we see objects (in this example Pluto) as they were at some other point in time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why don't you tell us who Lessans observed if this is not correct? If you can't provide a more detailed list of his observations, this will stand as his subject group, lacking any other possibility. Put Up or Shut Up.

Oh, FYI, I'm not going away and I'm not going to stop posting the truth as 'I see it', And that quailfier was more than Lessans was capable of, he simply didn't have the mental acuity.

What you said about his demographic being the pool hall is beyond ridiculous. The truth as you see it is complete fantasy; the very thing you keep accusing Lessans of.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Kael

Because Lessans' "discovery" hinges on whether actual truths are also necessary truths. He states that we must do what we did, because we did it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But why is the question?

Why is a philosophical question

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's true that we had to do it once it was done, but that doesn't mean we had to do it before it was done.

Then Lessans whole determinism argument falls, because he claimed the "direction of greater satisfaction" description of all choices was a necessary truth, as well as an actual truth, and we have demonstrated that actual truths are not always necessary truths.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see the difference?

Do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean by "my hand is heavily responsible?"

On several occasions when we've pointed out sloppy scholarship or poor writing or plagiarism, you've taken responsibility for that portion of the book

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If vision and/or photography takes place in real time, ie: instantaneously, then our understanding of how light works, and the Theory of Relativity, are wrong

If our understanding of how light works and the Theory of Relativity are wrong, then the technologies based on those two things could not work or would not work as designed

Therefore, since these technologies do actually work as designed (everything from cameras to GPS) then our understanding of how light works and the Theory of Relativity are correct (even if incomplete, as there is more to learn) and real time/instantaneous vision and/or photgraphy is wrong.

I believe it would question the idea of eternalism, and the fact that there is no past or present. But I don't see where his discovery would negate the technologies already in use. Light still travels at a finite rate of speed and has certain properties that can be utilized in all kinds of ways.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you said about his demographic being the pool hall is beyond ridiculous. The truth as you see it is complete fantasy; the very thing you keep accusing Lessans of.

Yet you have not provided us with his observed demographic.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I don't see where his discovery would negate the technologies already in use. Light still travels at a finite rate of speed and has certain properties that can be utilized in all kinds of ways.

I couldn't word this any more simply if I was talking to my Kindergarten age son. Which words don't you understand?


*If vision and/or photography takes place in real time, ie: instantaneously, then our understanding of how light works, and the Theory of Relativity, are wrong

*If our understanding of how light works and the Theory of Relativity are wrong, then the technologies based on those two things could not work or would not work as designed

*Therefore, since these technologies do actually work as designed (everything from cameras to GPS) then our understanding of how light works and the Theory of Relativity are correct (even if incomplete, as there is more to learn) and real time/instantaneous vision and/or photography is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

thedoc is correct though. We have no idea who Lessans observed. We have no data to analyze.

You have his explanation regarding the brain and how it is capable of being conditioned where this is incapable of occurring with the other senses. This is what I meant by "he came to this finding indirectly." Let me post this again for those who may have missed it or need a review.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality: pp. 125-127

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.
When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.

A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.
If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking
any person who should open the fence at night were to have two
senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected assuming that no
relation was developed as to his owner’s gait (because this could also
be used to identify), he would actually have amnesia, and even though
he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate he would have
no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having
already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie
projector, can recognize at a very early age.

The brain is a very
complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder
through our ears and the other three senses, and a camera through
our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie
projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are
projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in
relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes
are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in front of this
telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are
projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world and if these
words do not accurately symbolize, as with ‘five senses,’ man will
actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words
correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual differences
and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who
do not know the words. To understand this better let us observe my
granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. As her eyes
are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word dog rapidly in her ear.
When she turns away I stop. This will be continued until she looks
for him when hearing the word which indicates that a relation between
this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph
taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a
particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns
more and more words such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she
becomes conscious of these differences which no one can deny because
they are seen through words or slides that circumscribe accurately
these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words
only I am speeding up the process.

Before long she learns house, tree,
car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth,
eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed. She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter
can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs
because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her
mother is, but who she is not. In other words, as she learns these
names and words her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized
and when she sees these differences again she projects the word or
name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is
formed.

Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or
words we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

We're seeing light as it is interacting with matter.