A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc
Just a quick review,

Originally Posted by TheDoc

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.

Originally Posted by TheDOc

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.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You're wrong right there. The light is already at the eye; it doesn't travel when you're seeing in real time.

This is one of my favourite pieces of crazy. You just said that if we were to activate a hypothetical sun in we would see it right away using light that has already reached the eye even though it travels at lightspeed, which means it will take 8 minutes and a bit to reach us?

Can you not see that you are just flailing around at random here, and that you do not even have a clear idea how it is supposed to work yourself? It doesn't even make sense to you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

This book does not conflict with reality just because we can't see the potential of a new world in a free will environment, except for someone who happened to be extremely perceptive. This is a legitimate book and there is no waffling or fudging the facts, even though it's sometimes difficult for me to answer all of your questions when the book has not been thoroughly studied. You are trying to compare me to a fundamentalist when this book is not religious, nor am I acting like a religious zealot just because I am enthusiastic. The words I use are not meant to confuse anyone. Lessans had astute observations. All the other words I use such as in range, focusing, field of view, object vs. images, efferent versus afferent, are all in an effort to help you understand a new concept. Anything new is going to sound strange at first. Finally, Lessans hoped to bring his discovery to light in his lifetime, but he wasn't surprised when it didn't work out that way. That's why he wrote the following:

Down through history no one has ever
known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit
the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is
absolutely no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all
forms of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into
existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this
knowledge can be brought to light.

< snip >

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the
prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the
astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these
bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their
course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist
makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million
dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate
this money on that date. I am donating to mankind this scientific
discovery that gives man no choice as to the direction he is compelled
to travel, once the principles are understood. Until that time, your
help, your willingness to learn about these principles and understand
them is needed. And once you understand them, you will be
compelled, of your own free will, to spread the news. When the fuse
is lit and this knowledge spreads to those who not only recognize its
significance but who also have the influence to lay it before those who
can disseminate it even more rapidly, then it will not take long before
we will develop this world of unmatched splendor wherein no one will
ever be hurt, and everyone will have sustenance and health. We are
given no free choice in this matter because God has taken it out of
our hands as we are compelled to move in this direction for greater
satisfaction. In our next chapter, you are about to see another miracle
performed that is related to the medical profession.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If this book does not conflict with reality, then please explain why we detect the neutrinos just after we see the supernova. So on sight at least, we know he was wrong - unless you want to say that neutrinos travel at different speeds, all faster than light, but varied in such a way that they reach earth just as if they were just a bit slower than light, and it was in fact light that we detect.

I don't know why; all I know is that Lessans' observations were spot on. I believe there's a lot more chance for error when you're discussing Stars and neutrinos (which have just recently become identified), therefore, to reject Lessans outright (just because he disgrees with your position) is doing the exact thing that you criticize in me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for the rest, all that hinges on the claim that conscience works a certain way, a claim we are not given any reason to believe.

That's because you're not really paying attention to his evidence as to how the brain actually works, or even giving it a second thought. That makes me wonder if the only reason you're here is to attack Lessans for having the gall to suggest that science may not be right in this area.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Finally - the bit about leaders and scientists being necessary is written by you, not him. You added that failure clause after the prediction failed.

The above quote was not written by me. It was written by Lessans. So you're wrong again.

[Vivisectus]

I don't know why; all I know is that Lessans' observations were spot on. I believe there's a lot more chance for error when you're discussing Stars and neutrinos (which have just recently become identified), therefore, to reject Lessans outright (just because he disgrees with your position) is doing the exact thing that you criticize in me.

I reject Lessans because he does not support his claims, so I see no reason to believe them. I also know of observations (one of them is the neutrino's) that flatly contradict him: we know the neutrinos were emitted many centuries ago. We also know that we are right about how far away Jupiter is: we have even observed it up close with probes. If all these things check out, then instant, direct vision simply cannot be true.

By the way, how do you know his observations were spot on? You do not accept empirical observations as enough to refute him. Logical ones you also do not accept. This more or less means that there is nothing that could possibly make you doubt him. Does that seem like a reasonable, rational position to you?

That's because you're not really paying attention to his evidence as to how the brain actually works, or even giving it a second thought. That makes me wonder if the only reason you're here is to attack Lessans for having the gall to suggest that science may not be right in this area.

I am not aware of any evidence in the book at all, to tell you the truth, and I have gone over it a few times. I see a lot of claims, but the key point, his claim about how conscience works, I see no support for. And I cannot help but notice that you have so far been unable to point it out as well. Apparently it is very special evidence that needs reassurance before it can come out of hiding, or something.

The above quote was not written by me. It was written by Lessans. So you're wrong again.

Really? I thought it read like it was tweaked. Fair enough: I will take your word for it, and assume that there was a failure clause in it from the start, which explains that if the book does not do what it is supposed to do, that is the fault of the readers and not the fault of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not talking about light either. I'm talking about seeing a star explode. So let's repeat:

We see a star explode.

You say that we see it happen instantly, in 'real time'.

Therefore anything released from that explosion that does not travel infinitely fast should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Neutrinos are little particles we can detect, that are released from the star. They do not travel infinitely fast. So they should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

Not sure, but I would never negate someone's work because of a theory regarding the speed of neutrinos which are just being detected. And in contrast to your question answer me this Dragar: Why do we never detect an image on Earth if an object (not an image), is not in range for it to be resolved?

[Vivisectus]

Am I to assume that you reject the evidence of the neutrinos because "they have not been detected for long enough?" So how much do these observations have to mature? We have been detecting them since the 1940's, so their observation is actually older than the book, by the way...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Since the subject has turned to supernovas it seems that everyone here is just too damned lazy to look it up and find out just what the interval is between Neutrinos and visible light. And you guys are so phony as to call Peacegirl dishonest when just a little research would give you the accurate information, I am dissapointed at your lack.

It's certainly not decades or centuries, as the difference would be if we saw the supernova as it happened at it's own location in spacetime, but had to await the arrival of neutrinos.

For the purposes of this discussion the time difference is negligible and therefore confuses the issue.

You do realize peacegirl is arguing that temporal location is not a real thing? That light years away are not a factor in seeing?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the Supernova is not large enough to be seen with a telescope until it reaches it's mass potential before it starts to compress. By that time the neutrinos (these sub-atomic particles) have had time to reach Earth so the Supernova and the neutrinos are detected at close intervals. Just a theory.

Mass potential...what?

Here's the scenario, peacegirl. We can see a supernova through a telescope. We are, in fact, looking at it right now from Earth.

I am asking you to tell me when, exactly, that seeing is taking place in relation to the star that is in supernova right now in it's own time zone.

According to efferent vision, the spatial distance is negated...in other words we are seeing the supernova here on Earth simultaneously to it happening there at the star's location.

Is that not a correct statement based on Lessans claims, esp his example about an observer near Rigel as well as his example of the Sun exploding?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's certainly not decades or centuries, as the difference would be if we saw the supernova as it happened at it's own location in spacetime, but had to await the arrival of neutrinos.

For the purposes of this discussion the time difference is negligible and therefore confuses the issue.

You do realize peacegirl is arguing that temporal location is not a real thing? That light years away are not a factor in seeing?

Hey, no need to convince me; you're singing to the choir.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mass potential...what?

Here's the scenario, peacegirl. We can see a supernova through a telescope. We are, in fact, looking at it right now from Earth.

I am asking you to tell me when, exactly, that seeing is taking place in relation to the star that is in supernova right now in it's own time zone.

According to efferent vision, the spatial distance is negated...in other words we are seeing the supernova here on Earth simultaneously to it happening there at the star's location.

Is that not a correct statement based on Lessans claims, esp his example about an observer near Rigel as well as his example of the Sun exploding?

You are on the wrong track and I'm not going to follow this faulty train of thought. You tell me that Lessans' observations are not proven? Do you see something unfair about this when science's explanation is far from proven? I have no desire to talk about Stars when the answers regarding sight are right in our own backyard. You're just avoiding them. You keep telling me that optics explains all this, but where? How does it explain the fact that we never see an image if the object is not in the camera's or telescope's field of view, or in our visual range?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am interested in his writing (that's why I have read it). I'm just not interested in your endless and counterproductive copypasting which never achieves anything.

What a cop-out Spacemonkey. If someone is interested in what an author has to say, they read the dam writing. They don't spout off that the writing means nothing, or that copy-pasting, which comes from the author's own words, are meaningless. You are the one speaking bullshit if I ever heard any.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And this is not about 'winning' for me. You forget that in the minds of everyone here but you, you already lost several hundred pages ago. And I couldn't care less what you think of my ability, so there is no-one here for me to try to impress. Your assessment of my motivations is inaccurate, and a poor excuse for refusing to answer legitimate and reasonable questions.

I do believe that you're trying to impress people with your flawed logic, or another possibility is that you want to believe Lessans is right but you won't let yourself to really investigate his claims because you've been let down so many time before. All I'm asking you is to be honest as far as your motivations, and stop accusing me of something that I am innocent of.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not sure, but I would never negate someone's work because of a theory regarding the speed of neutrinos which are just being detected. And in contrast to your question answer me this Dragar: Why do we never detect an image on Earth if an object (not an image), is not in range for it to be resolved?

Really, you would never negate someone's work because of a new theory? What do you think you are doing? Lessans claims negates the work of thousands if not millions of scientists. Do you expect them to take the word of an uneducated crank who's only source of information was a few outdated philosophy books and a few so called "keen observations"? And this crank didn't bother to record anything about how exactly he made these observations?
You expect the world to do something you are unwilling to do yourself.

Every post you make is yet another example of how crazy you are.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You are on the wrong track and I'm not going to follow this faulty train of thought. You tell me that Lessans' observations are not proven? Do you see something unfair about this when science's explanation is far from proven? I have no desire to talk about Stars when the answers regarding sight are right in our own backyard. You're just avoiding them. You keep telling me that optics explains all this, but where? How does it explain the fact that we never see an image if the object is not in the camera's or telescope's field of view, or in our visual range?

That is very easy to explain.

Let us say that we are standing on top of a mountain that is 6000 miles tall, under optimum conditions. The horizon at sea level at that height is 200 miles. For all practical purposes that is the farthest we are going to see on earth, if we want to keep from looking at the sky in stead.

That still only represents 0.001 lightseconds. If you consider that if we flicker an image between black and white at about 60 FPS, or roughly 0.01 seconds per frame, we do not even see the flicker but perceive a stable gray field, this gives you some idea why you will always need some machine or other, like a high-speed camera, to do any experiments on earth. To experience the delay without using a machine, you need far greater distances. Happily, we have Jupiter, where we observe just that.

Your dismissal of observations in space is just convenient for you because they flatly and conclusively contradict direct sight, something which you are unable to deal with.

Also, we CAN see an image if the object is not in the cameras field of view: we can see objects that are actually behind us using mirrors. How do you explain mirrors in your theory of sight? In the normal one, mirrors reflect light. What do they reflect in yours?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you bringing this up again?

I didn't bring it up again, I responded to its being brought up

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are nitpicking to try to get people to turn against him.

Once again, any reasonable, criticial analysis of the actual text as written is nitpicking or personal attack. Keep waving your woo flag, there peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, he didn't say light arrives and parks, or even imply that.

If I said, "peacegirl is already present" what would I be implying? That you had already traveled, arrived, and stayed and are still here, correct? What if I said "Once the family car arrives it remains here"? That would indicate the car arriving here and parking, correct?

So, what is implied by these sentence if not the same exact thing?

because these photons are already present.
Once the light is here it remains here

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This shows me how low you are willing to go to make him a laughingstock.

It's not our fault Lessans was such a terrible writer he couldn't make a clear and coherent point without making ridiculous implications.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does the following excerpt give any indication that he believed light is not always moving in a constant stream

See bolded.

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us.
When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Admit when you're wrong LadyShea, or I will start calling you a liar.

I am not wrong. Call me a liar all you want, but you are clearly the one doing mental gymnastics to make this glaring mistake seem legitimate

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not sure, but I would never negate someone's work because of a theory regarding the speed of neutrinos which are just being detected.

So you wouldn't negate someone's work based on experimental data from physics. What would you negate someone's work based on?

On what do you base your negation of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics? How about Hicquodiam's work regarding the lack of a true self?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, no need to convince me; you're singing to the choir.

LOL like you even understand what we are talking about, peacegirl

[LadyShea]

When do we see it, peacegirl, according to Lessans? I think I have correctly interpreted the examples he offers in the book, of which two were related to space/stars. If you have a different explanation of those examples, and can therefore demonstrate my wrong track, I am all ears.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just avoiding them. You keep telling me that optics explains all this, but where? How does it explain the fact that we never see an image if the object is not in the camera's or telescope's field of view, or in our visual range?

Quit dodging.

I gave you a list of optics terms to research a few pages back including subtended angles and the inverse square law. Do it or don't, but quit acting like you have any clue what you are talking about.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would seem to me that any sub-atomic particle coming from the Star would take time to be detected, but we could see the Star explode if it was large enough to be seen with a telescope.

That's certainly what Lessans predicts.

On the other hand, it turns out that what actually happens is that the particles arrive at Earth at roughly the same time we see the Sun explode. Since the particles take time to arrive, that means we are seeing the explosion later than when it actually happens.

Test complete! We learn Lessans is wrong, once again.

Not sure, but I would never negate someone's work because of a theory regarding the speed of neutrinos which are just being detected.

Neutrinos were detected in 1956. That's not 'just being detected'!

It's also irrelevent what the speed is. The fact is that we should expect a gap of at least years, if Lessans is right, and usually more depending on the distance to the exploding sun. We also know they move roughly at the speed of light anyway, although that fact is irrelevent to this test we've done.

And in contrast to your question answer me this Dragar: Why do we never detect an image on Earth if an object (not an image), is not in range for it to be resolved?

You're being silly. We don't 'detect' images, we make them. And if an object is 'not in range to be resolved', that means the image we make is too small to be useful (i.e. it's smaller than one pixel on whatever we are using to capture the light). I've answered this at least three times before, but you always ignore it. When you understand the word you are using, it turns out your question is either nonsensical or answers itself by pure definition, depending on how charitably we interpret your waffle.


So, to summarise:

Lessans says that exploding suns are seen instantly. And yet the 'shrapnel' from the explosion arrives at the same time we see the explosion. Therefore Lessans is wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your dismissal of observations in space is just convenient for you because they flatly and conclusively contradict direct sight, something which you are unable to deal with.

She is unable to deal with it due to an advanced cognitive impairment. It is the equivalent of not being able to see the color green but in the case of a brain impairment, you would need a functioning brain in order to determine that your own brain is not functioning properly. And since her condition is advanced asking her to see the errors in her reasoning is like asking a dog to stop licking its ass.

peacegirl can't do it. The best you can do is put a collar on her so she won't hurt herself.

[Vivisectus]

I am not convinced it is quite that bad. I think it is much more an unwillingness than an inability.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not convinced it is quite that bad. I think it is much more an unwillingness than an inability.

An unwilling but cognitively unimpaired person would have figure out a very, very long time ago that their approach was getting them nowhere and would have changed it or simply gone away. What we are witnessing here is two things, substantial cognitive impairment in peacegirl, and massive disbelieve that such a thing is possible in posters.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL like you even understand what we are talking about, peacegirl

Yet another example that peacegirl does not understand what she or anyone else here is talking about. Her brain is fried.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The Opera measurements have been shown to have been a miscalibration - Neutrinos do not travel faster than light.

Where?

I know that as usual, a shitload of papers have been published, several with some theoretical argument or another why it has to be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first said that the light at the camera didn't travel to get there, and now you're saying it did. So don't lie by trying to say that you didn't change your position.

Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I said that light travels at a finite speed, but when a camera takes a picture or the eyes are looking at something, all that's necessary is for light to be at the object. The reason for this is that we're seeing efferently, not afferently, which does not involve time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compared to: Just avoid, avoid, avoid, answer, avoid, avoid, change the answer, avoid, avoid, deny ever having changed your answer, avoid, avoid, and then refuse to answer any more questions.

This would be much easier for you if you could just be honest and consistent.

I never changed my answers; you're just basing your questions about light on the afferent model, which will make my answers look inconsistent but they're not.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why; all I know is that Lessans' observations were spot on.

I'm sure you don't know why. And I am sure you do not understand how crazy it is to advocate something when you don't know why and claim complete accuracy while at the same time saying you are not acting on faith.

Your brain reasoning unit is fried. It's performing operations like 1 + tomato = efferent vision. Your "mathematical equation" always has the same right side no matter what is on the left side.

It is getting very funny though watching all these people trying to get you to understand that your equation is nonsense. They don't seem to be able to come to grips with the idea that the brain is something that can go haywire but the person with the haywire brain would never know it. I think it scares them.

[peacegirl]

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

Yes. You're pointing out that these presuppositions are hard to support. That's your problem, not mine. What you are not showing is that these things don't need to be true for Lessans' arguments to work. Nor are you showing that he anywhere supported them. They can't be trick questions, because they are not even questions. They are his presuppositions.

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of presupposition but these things have to be true (as long as you're not going to tell me God doesn't exist so conscience cannot be infallible under any condition) for his argument to work. I believe that he has shown quite accurately that conscience works exactly as he describes.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There you go again trying to attack my character instead of addressing the points I raise. Go ahead and look in his book. You won't find him offering a single scrap of evidence or argument in support of any of the points I have listed as presuppositions. If you think otherwise then you are welcome to quote a short paragraph where you think he does so. But you won't find one because he doesn't do it.

What about you? Telling me I'm mentally ill and a liar? Is that a nice thing to say when I'm bending over backwards to help you understand this discovery? It certainly doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. Sorry but I will need to cut and paste the rest of this chapter. People who are truly interested in his words (as you say you are) will devour anything I post regardless of whether it's directly from the text or whether it's paraphrased. I think it will help people understand how he came about making these inferences, at the very least. I have a feeling that you will never be satisfied because he didn't write down his results in a laboratory setting.