A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl is too crazy to be ashamed of this thread. She thinks she has performed brilliantly.

I expect a part of her thinks that. But I think another part of her knows that if she shows this thread to anyone whose judgement she trusts, they will conclude that she is just as bonkers as we have done. She will of course simply rationalize some excuse for not doing so, but some part of her might also be able to observe that this is what she is doing.

[naturalist.atheist]

If she has a history of insanity and treatment then you might be right, but we could be dealing with plain old dementia and it could be that all who know peacegirl personally are well aware of it. This would not surprise them at all. They may even be glad that we provide someone else to be bothered so she won't bother them.

Perhaps dementia runs in her family. It would explain Lessans.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not even the issue. The issue is the fact that an object must be present for it to be seen which does not require light to travel. I still maintain that Lessans was right because it makes complete sense based on his findings.

POP QUIZ TIME!

1. When a photograph is being taken, did the light now at the camera previously travel to get there?

2. Did that light previously come from the sun (or some other light source), and arrive at the camera after striking the surface of the object now being photographed?

3. Did that light previously travel the intervening space between the object and the camera at some finite speed?

4. Did that light have a travel time?

5. Was that light ever previously in transit (between the object and the camera)?

6. If something is now at one point, was previously somewhere else, and travelled the distance in between at a finite speed, is it possible for that thing to have no travel time? Or to never have been in transit (between those two points)?


Show me how much complete sense you can make working on the assumption that Lessans' was right! No cheating!

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl doesn't care about light. It is an annoying detail. The bottom line for her is we must believe her. It's the pivot point of her insanity. She really, really needs people to believe her.

She doesn't understand that "believe" is just not something that skeptics do.

She has been told there are better forums that might be more receptive but for some reason she thinks this is the place she should be spending her time.

[naturalist.atheist]

Oh my, if it isn't singing horses...

Laugh a little... Singing Horses

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If that is all true and Lessans pot is all cracked would that let all his enlightenment out to be lost forever?

The light would not be lost. Haven't you been paying attention. The light, once it is there is always there.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see an object as long as light is surrounding the object because light is a condition of sight. It should be obvious that we can't see something if there's no light in which to see it.

Right, but you said the light comes from the sun. How then do you explain pictures that are taken at night.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl doesn't care about light. It is an annoying detail. The bottom line for her is we must believe her. It's the pivot point of her insanity. She really, really needs people to believe her.

She doesn't understand that "believe" is just not something that skeptics do.

She has been told there are better forums that might be more receptive but for some reason she thinks this is the place she should be spending her time.

I think the problem is that more woo-oriented sites all have competing theories, agendas of their own to push, and generally do not spend as much time actually investigating new ideas. On those sites she would never generate much interest, as she would just be one among many.

At least here she can feel as if this idea is controversial, which lends it an aura of legitimacy. If we went on the merits of the book, we would not be discussing this at all: we would have had a look, giggled at the silliness of it, and left it at that.

It is the religious fervour with which Peacegirl tries to defend the indefensible that is oddly fascinating. The way she will lie, twist, waffle and regularly completely stops making any sense even to herself just to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that her father was not just not a genius, but not terribly bright either, and that he spent his life deluding himself into thinking himself quite the scholar.

The bizarre thing is that a deluded man has now created a fundamentalist: and now we have a new religion. If you want to think of Peacegirl as mentally ill, then surely it is a kind of religious mania.

Already we have the same thing that happens in religion: we have a book that purports to have absolute truths, but that conflicts with reality. In order for believers to be able to avoid this conflict, a tradition of explanation arises: this is what has given us the "Astute Observation", a phrase that does not appear in the book. It is used whenever she wants to treat a claim by Lessans as if it is just as convincing as a well-supported and evidenced one, while not producing a shred of support.

Also, unmarked re-writes are already in the book, to deal with the difference between the book and reality that have appeared in the last 50 years. First there was a strong prediction that all this would come to pass in the last century. New lines were added to deal with the fact that this never happened: it was because Scientists! never ratified it and World Leaders! never implemented it.

Also we have some marvellous side-effects that are similar to the ones that bible-literalism throws up: a weird pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that acts as a buffer between them and the unavoidable facts that science just works. Thus the literalists come up with an earth that was created 6000 years ago, but was created 4 billion years old! They also declare that traces of what might be primitive life in asteroids is proof of the flood. In this case, we have the magical action of "focusing", "fields of view" and "Images" - all concepts she does not understand and which do not help her at all, but which allow her to stave off reality.

I find it fascinating.

That said, lately I am beginning to wonder if Peacegirl enjoys these discussions at all, or if it is just an unpleasant compulsion for her to keep responding here. Peacegirl, I do hope you enjoy a good argument like I do. If this is unpleasant for you, I would seriously reconsider keeping this up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Now that is very interesting. If I came forward would that make you insane or Lessans more of a moron? Your defense of Lessans and of your sanity is all you. Too bad you're not sane enough to realize it. A sane person given what you and Lessans have to work with would have left 15,000 posts ago. Consider the post count a measure of your insanity. You get nuttier by the post.

And you're obsessed with this thread so what does that make you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. You don't. Why would you think that?

By the things you say!! You want to win this competition for your own selfish purposes! If you really wanted to understand his work, you would have been more interested in his writing. You're only interested in your faulty logic, because then you will be proclaimed the winner and given accolades for your brilliant refutation!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you did. Liar. I even quoted you saying so in the post you were here replying to.

I clarified what I meant. Lessans never said light doesn't travel but he also said that we would see the sun instantly if it exploded. How do you explain that? Efferent vision!!!!!!! You don't have a grasp of what this means because of the questions you keep asking regarding light changing colors in midstream.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you're missing the meaning behind efferent vision. I tried to explain that when object is in view, the distance from the object to the camera or retina does not require travel time because the light being used is right there, as a mirror image of the object (so to speak). I have tried to explain this in many different ways, including the fact that light coming from an object without the object present would never be detected on film or the lens of a telescope. It's true that light can travel and be detected, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not only have you failed to answer the question posed in the post you were replying to, but you've missed the fact that you had already subsequently answered it in a different post to someone else, and that the question you know need to answer is a different one.

Whatever! You're all making me dizzy by going round and round the mulberry bush with no sign of productivity. Just attack, defense, attack, defense, attack, defense; on and on ad infinitum.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I clarified what I meant. Lessans never said light doesn't travel but he also said that we would see the sun instantly if it exploded. How do you explain that? Efferent vision!!!!!!!

So let's test it! Suns explode all the time.

A star exploding releases huge numbers of particles called neutrinos. If we see a sun instantly as it explodes, then particles like neutrinos (that travel very, very fast, but not instantly) will arrive only a long, long time after we see the exploding star.

On the other hand, if we detect the neutrinos arriving at the same time as we see the sun explode, that means we only see the explosion a long time after the it took place - allowing time for the neutrinos to arrive.

Guess what happens, peacegirl? Do we see the neutrinos a long time after the explosion (consistent with Lessans), or at the same time as it (ruling Lessans out)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The terms you use are questionable. Conscience is innate, yes. God-given? What do you mean by that? Infallible? What do you mean by that? And I'm not sure what you mean by point 5?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. These terms are not questionable. 'God-given' means given by God.

But that could be a trick question because you might say how do we know an infallible conscience is God-given (once all blame and punishment is removed) when we don't even know God exists? After all, most of you are atheists.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'Infallible' means not fallible. Look them up if you have to. I've been asking you about these presuppositions all week and now you're going to tell me you don't even undertstand them? The correct answer is that these things do have to be true for his arguments to work. If you wish to disagree, then the onus is on you to show otherwise.

This could also be a trick question because conscience works but only if the person knows that what he is about to do is a concrete hurt to another once these principles are in effect. Maybe he doesn't know, so he could make a mistake and hurt someone unintentionally. Then you would tell me that Lessans was wrong because conscience is still fallible. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(ii) He did not argue for or support these things anywhere within his book?

I believe he argued for and supported these terms, if they mean what I'm assuming they mean.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you believe wrongly. At no point does he argue for or support any of the above points anywhere in his book. Go ahead and look. You won't find him offering a single scrap of evidence or argument in support of any of these points. If you think otherwise then quote me a paragraph (only!) where you think he does so.

There you go again with your better than thou attitude. Instead of asking me to provide you with evidence (which I've been trying to do since you came on the scene), you tell me that I believe wrongly when I haven't even gone over Chapter Two. Maybe you still won't see the validity of his insights based on his observations, but that still wouldn't make him wrong. You're way too big for your britches Spacemonkey, and it's hard to enjoy talking to you when you come off like a Mr. Know It All.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So let's test it! Suns explode all the time.

A star exploding releases huge numbers of particles called neutrinos. If we see a sun instantly as it explodes, then particles like neutrinos (that travel very, very fast, but not instantly) will arrive only a long, long time after we see the exploding star.

On the other hand, if we detect the neutrinos arriving at the same time as we see the sun explode, that means we only see the explosion a long time after the it took place - allowing time for the neutrinos to arrive.

Guess what happens, peacegirl? Do we see the neutrinos a long time after the explosion (consistent with Lessans), or at the same time as it (ruling Lessans out)?

Dragar, once again, people are confusing efferent with afferent vision. Detecting invisible electromagnetic radiation is a completely different topic than seeing an object that is large enough for someone to see with the naked eye or a telescope. We can't see neutrinos, or any radiation that is not within the visible spectrum. There is so much confusion surrounding this issue that I don't think I can salvage this discussion.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, once again, people are confusing efferent with afferent vision. Detecting invisible electromagnetic radiation is a completely different topic than seeing an object that is large enough for someone to see with the naked eye or a telescope. We can't see neutrinos, or any radiation that is not within the visible spectrum. There is so much confusion surrounding this issue that I don't think I can salvage this discussion.

Huh? You make no sense.

We can see stars explode with a telescope.

We can detect when the neutrinos arrive with other equipment.

If we see the star explode instantly, the neutrinos produced by the explosion should arrive long after we see the star explode. Because we see the star explode the instant it happens (you claim!), but the neutrinos take a long time to reach us.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can fall in love with somebody and their whole appearance can look different because of the affection that is associated with that person, but according to general standards there are certain features that are considered handsome, and others considered homely, and the majority of people are conditioned to seeing those features as more attractive. Some people do find overweight people attractive. Lessans even mentioned that in the book, but the majority of people would rather be with a thinner person because they believe they are prettier.

The majority is not an absolute term, it's a subjective one. You had previously said that everyone, always is subject to the same conditioning. Someone's appearance seemingly changing relative to the level of affection felt is also not an absolute standard.

So, are ideas about human beauty subjective, relative, and subject to change and yes subject to influence, as I maintain them to be based on actual evidence and which you seem to concede here, or are they unchanging absolute standards conditioned into all children?

You can't have it both ways.

Some people like heavy people because they feel superior around them, since they can't get a thinner person. There are all kinds of psychological reasons that may factor into one's choice for a mate, but that doesn't change the fact that conditioning does take place, and it begins in early childhood. You can't tell me that society's attitude toward body image is healthy. I feel sorry for the youth of today.

The consequences of standards of beauty in any society are irrelevant to the point of whether they are subjective and relative and changing or absolute standards conditioned into people.

[thedoc]

Just a quick review,

Peacegirl/Lessans states the light from the Sun takes aprox. 8.5 min. to get here but is white and has no color frequency till it contacts an object.

The light (as condition of sight) travels to the eye and signals the brain to look out and see the object, but the light does not transmit any information about that object.

The brain looking through the eyes sees the object directly and the frequency of the light at the object corosponds with the color of the object which is the light that the eye actually sees. The eye does not see the light that has traveled to the eye, only the light 'at the object'.

How the brain/eye can see the object/light at the object, is not important, we just need to believe that this is how things work.

This is all necessary for us to believe so that Lessans can astutely observe that the brain/eyes project words out onto blank screen of objects and people, representing false value judgments that lead people to believe things that are false and untrue.

The 'Golden Age' will surely follow.

-
I hope this has cleared everything up so people will stop arguing with Peacegirl and just believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I expect a part of her thinks that. But I think another part of her knows that if she shows this thread to anyone whose judgement she trusts, they will conclude that she is just as bonkers as we have done. She will of course simply rationalize some excuse for not doing so, but some part of her might also be able to observe that this is what she is doing.

This thread is not about me Spacemonkey, which just goes to show that this is a competition between the brilliance you seem to think you display and Lessans' astute observations. There's no match, even if YOU fail to see why.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Huh? You make no sense.

We can see stars explode with a telescope.

We can detect when the neutrinos arrive with other equipment.

If we see the star explode instantly, the neutrinos produced by the explosion should arrive long after we see the star explode. Because we see the star explode the instant it happens (you claim!), but the neutrinos take a long time to reach us.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

It takes time for light to travel, but, once again, we're not talking about the physics of the speed of light. We're talking about our eyes, and the brain's ability to see in the present. This completely eliminates time when seeing something efferently. This is really harder than I ever thought it would be, but I won't give up, at least not yet. I'm not asking you to make sense out of what doesn't make sense to you. I'm asking you to keep an open mind because that's the only way you will begin to understand the difference between what Lessans claims to be true which is the opposite of what science has established as factual.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So let's test it! Suns explode all the time.

A star exploding releases huge numbers of particles called neutrinos. If we see a sun instantly as it explodes, then particles like neutrinos (that travel very, very fast, but not instantly) will arrive only a long, long time after we see the exploding star.

On the other hand, if we detect the neutrinos arriving at the same time as we see the sun explode, that means we only see the explosion a long time after the it took place - allowing time for the neutrinos to arrive.

Guess what happens, peacegirl? Do we see the neutrinos a long time after the explosion (consistent with Lessans), or at the same time as it (ruling Lessans out)?

Without being a 'nit picker' (well I probably am, but thats beside the point), the neutrino burst is released a short time before the flash of light when the star explodes, but they travel just a little bit slower than light. for stars within a certain distance the neutrinos will arrive before the light and is used as a signal that a nova has occured which allows astronomers to watch as the star explodes. At some distance the neutrinos and light arrive at the same time further away they arrive later and cannot be used as advance warning. In this way Neutrinos have allowed astronomers to observe nearby Nova as it happens. But the fact that neutrinos travel at a finite speed and light arrives after the neutrino burst proves that we see light after it has traveled to us and not instantly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can fall in love with somebody and their whole appearance can look different because of the affection that is associated with that person, but according to general standards there are certain features that are considered handsome, and others considered homely, and the majority of people are conditioned to seeing those features as more attractive. Some people do find overweight people attractive. Lessans even mentioned that in the book, but the majority of people would rather be with a thinner person because they believe they are prettier.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The majority is not an absolute term, it's a subjective one. You had previously said that everyone, always is subject to the same conditioning. Someone's appearance seemingly changing relative to the level of affection felt is also not an absolute standard.

You're right; sometimes someone's internal likes or dislikes breaks through the standards that exist. But even so, the majority of people are conditioned by words that have nothing to do with reality, and this is what Lessans is addressing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, are ideas about human beauty subjective, relative, and subject to change and yes subject to influence, as I maintain them to be based on actual evidence and which you seem to concede here, or are they unchanging absolute standards conditioned into all children? You can't have it both ways.

In any artificially created standard, there will be differences in what one finds attractive, but if you are truthful with yourself you would not consider someone who does not conform with your culture's standards, as beautiful. You really don't understand this chapter like you think you do. That's why I suggest you read it again.

Some people like heavy people because they feel superior around them, since they can't get a thinner person. There are all kinds of psychological reasons that may factor into one's choice for a mate, but that doesn't change the fact that conditioning does take place, and it begins in early childhood. You can't tell me that society's attitude toward body image is healthy. I feel sorry for the youth of today.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The consequences of standards of beauty in any society are irrelevant to the point of whether they are subjective and relative and changing or absolute standards conditioned into people.

The consequences of an external standard of beauty makes all the difference LadyShea in what you believe are your personal descriptors. I will say once again that you need to read and understand this chapter because you don't at this moment in time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes time for light to travel, but, once again, we're not talking about the physics of the speed of light. We're talking about our eyes, and the brain's ability to see in the present. This completely eliminates time when seeing something efferently. This is really harder than I ever thought it would be, but I won't give up if you don't give up. That's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking you to make sense out of what doesn't make sense to you. I'm asking you to keep an open mind because that's the only way you will begin to understand the difference between what Lessans claims to be true which is the opposite of what science has established as factual.

You're dodging the simple, straightforward question

If a star explodes (supernova) right now, which we'll call T1 , according to Lessans we would be able to see the supernova right now at T1

Supernovas produce neutrinos, which travel out in all directions at close to the speed of light.

So, the neutrinos will arrive here on Earth and be detected after the travel time which we'll call X.

Again, supernova at T1, neutrino arrival at T1+X

So we should see the supernova instantly, at T1 and detect the neutrinos at some time after we saw the supernova, T1+X necessarily if Lessans was correct, right?

How do you explain what actually happens in reality (which is we see the supernova at the same time the neutrinos arrive) within Lessans "instantaneous sight" context?

[LadyShea]

This is different from your previous absolutist statements that nobody can escape conditioning and that conditioning is responsible for all attraction.

Shall I look them up and quote them for you, or do you concede you've softened the stance considerably?

You dodged my direct question. I am going from your statements trying to explain and defend the chapter, not the chapter itself.

Are ideas about human beauty subjective, relative, and subject to change and subject to influence, or are they unchanging absolute standards conditioned into all children?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really don't understand this chapter like you think you do. That's why I suggest you read it again.

I am asking you to explain the concept to me, in context of and consistent with what was written and consistent with your previous statements. Are you able to do that?

This is how discussions of discoveries, theories, concepts, and ideas works, quit trying to weasel out of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The consequences of an external standard of beauty makes all the difference LadyShea in what you believe are your personal descriptors. I will say once again that you need to read and understand this chapter because you don't at this moment in time.

The social and personal consequences of beauty standards makes no difference to the discussion of the causal factors for that standard. Also, until the causal factors are determined, any discussion of a "cure" or mitigation efforts has to remain hypothetical.

The devastating emotional and interpersonal consequences of having cancer, while important in many contexts and in need of addressing, are irrelevant to the research into the causes and cure for that same cancer.

And I don't want to read it again, I want you to explain it to me while remaining consistent with the chapter and your previous statements.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're obsessed with this thread so what does that make you?

If this were the only thread I posted on you might have a point, but it's not. You are just another nutjob in a long line of nutjobs drawn to this forum like a moth to a flame.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Oh my, if it isn't singing horses...

Laugh a little... Singing Horses

Every once in awhile you come up with something worth listening to. I hate to give you any credit, but those singing horses put a smile on my face.