A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. Can you actually see something that is below the horizon or around a corner in the efferent vision model?

No, only if it's reflected from another source such as water. When we do see it coming over the horizon, it's not an image that is embedded in the light. We see the actual Sun come over the horizon IN REAL TIME.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From Monday

For lack of a better way of expressing it, that's exactly what I mean. Obviously, the metaphors I've been giving have not worked well, but it's very difficult to explain this concept without offering a concrete example to give you something less abstract to hang onto. Spacemonkey gave a great example in the other forum. He said that baskets (the light) are not the contents inside of the basket. But I'm talking about the basket itself which I'm trying my best to explain.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe you are probably correct, but are you an admin. here and can the admin. dig into an account and see the details like that?

No, I do not have the ability to know such details. I just have a good feel for peacegirl's mental illness. She sees herself as the keeper of the Lessans' flame and must know everything being said about Lessans whether she likes it or not. She also has a mental picture of everyone (but her) as some kind of a child that seeks the approval of the adult (her). I suspect this is a projection of what is going on in her head but the adult she seeks approval from is dead.

I as well as others warned peacegirl about this. That the more she posted the more people would see her mental illness. That she wasn't gonna get anywhere on FF. Especially with her constantly going in circles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Looks like Peacegirl has put me on ignore. Could someone repeat these questions for me:


1. Can blue light (travelling as a part of full spectrum light heading towards a blue ball) stay at the surface of the ball after hitting it without becoming stationary?

2. Can the specific photons at surface of the camera film at the precise time the photograph is taken have been at the exact same position just before the photograph was taken without having been stationary?

3. Is the (P)reflected light which is at the film, comprising the instantaneous image at the film and interacting with it to produce the resulting photograph, also full spectrum sunlight, or is it not?

I have not put you on ignore Spacemonkey, but I will if you keep telling me I need to go to a doctor because I'm mentally ill. So stop following the crowd, okay? You know the consequences if you do, and it will come as no surprise. All of your questions are based on photons traveling, and in the efferent model, there are no photons traveling, only a flip side of what exists out there. The flip side is not full spectrum sunlight. What is on our retina/film does not see white light, but the non-absorbed light which defines the external world. So how could it be full spectrum light if we're looking efferently at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths due to its composition?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not put you on ignore Spacemonkey, but I will if you keep telling me I need to go to a doctor because I'm mentally ill. So stop following the crowd, okay? You know the consequences if you do. It will come as no surprise. All of your questions are based on photons traveling, and in the efferent model, there are no photons traveling, only a flip side of what exists out there. The flip side is not full spectrum sunlight. It reflects the full screen or field of view which is not white light, but the non-absorbed light. So how could it be full spectrum if we're looking efferently at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths due to its composition?

More arrant nonsense and gobbledeygook from peacegirl. Answer the questions about NASA and calculating trajectories to distant planets, peacegirl. Both I and spacemonkey have carefully outlined for you how space travel as currently practiced is ONLY possible under delayed seeing of light. Too bad for you and Lessans!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey gave a great example in the other forum. He said that baskets (the light) are not the contents inside of the basket. But I'm talking about the basket itself which I'm trying my best to explain.

Here's what I actually said:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey at IIDB

The weight, size, and shape of a fruit basket is INFORMATION. These things are properties of the basket, but they are NOT the basket itself. The basket may CARRY apples or bananas but it CANNOT 'carry' its own weight, size, and shape. Yet if you bring the basket to me I will have access to this information, access that I lack while the basket is in another room beyond the reach of any of my senses.
Light is exactly the same, Janis. Light itself is not information. Nor does it carry information in the way that the basket can carry fruit. Really, reading your posts it seems that you think WE are saying that any individual photon (or perhaps ray of light) is carrying all the information necessary to generate the image, and that it carries it in the way that a basket carries fruit.
This is not the case. Light has certain properties, namely frequency/wavelength, intensity, and direction of travel. These properties are not the light, nor are they 'carried' by the light. They are properties of the light. No individual ray of light has the information required to generate the entire visual image. But any individual ray of light will be traveling in a certain direction, and will have a certain wavelength/frequency. And at any given point on the retina, the number of light rays striking that area at a given moment determines the intensity of light in that area. These are all properties of light. And this is INFORMATION, just like how the weight, size, and shape of the basket were information. And the retina is capable of sensing and detecting these properties of the arriving light as it reaches and strikes the retina. The retina is NOT capable of sensing or detecting anything else.

My point was that light is not a basket, and doesn't carry images or wavelengths in the way that a basket carries its contents.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Also, as I pointed out way back in the first thread, many bird species have been shown to be able to recognize and distinguish between individual humans based upon visual cues only.

As I and several of my colleagues have learned from bitter experience, you must take this into account when doing field research with some bird species.

That's so interesting. I am just as intrigued by the animal kingdom as you are. Can you show me examples of this? I know certain birds have amazing visual acuity, but I'm interested to know how they would identify individual features without some other sense to help them. I'll be waiting for any links that can explain this.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

No, I do not have the ability to know such details. I just have a good feel for peacegirl's mental illness. She sees herself as the keeper of the Lessans' flame and must know everything being said about Lessans whether she likes it or not. She also has a mental picture of everyone (but her) as some kind of a child that seeks the approval of the adult (her). I suspect this is a projection of what is going on in her head but the adult she seeks approval from is dead.

I as well as others warned peacegirl about this. That the more she posted the more people would see her mental illness. That she wasn't gonna get anywhere on FF. Especially with her constantly going in circles.

I don't see any evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill. Most people have a cognitive bias against giving into others in a debate over strongly-held beliefs, no matter what the evidence. In fact, we tend to hold even tighter to our own beliefs in the face of countervailing evidence.

I think it's easy to psychologize about people who have differing opinions and worldviews, especially if they go against the group. But we're better off simply 1) trying to understand the other person's point of view, 2) offering up evidence for our own point of view, and 3) walking away if their appears to be no attempt at real conversation or understanding. I'd like to suggest this is a better approach than simply concluding that peacegirl is mentally ill.

We have as little evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill as she has for the efferent theory of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here's what I actually said:

My point was that light is not a basket, and doesn't carry images or wavelengths in the way that a basket carries its contents.

I loved that analogy. Was I close enough? I get your point, and what I'm saying is that nothing is carried in the light, as a basket carries its content. In other words, the light does not change form as it strikes the object. We see the object directly which has nothing to do with the full spectrum light that bounces off of it as it travels at 186,000 miles a second, which is the basket. I hope people get this soon because it's about the 100th time I've repeated it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I don't see any evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill. Most people have a cognitive bias against giving into others in a debate over strongly-held beliefs, no matter what the evidence. In fact, we tend to hold even tighter to our own beliefs in the face of countervailing evidence.

I think it's easy to psychologize about people who have differing opinions and worldviews, especially if they go against the group. But we're better off simply 1) trying to understand the other person's point of view, 2) offering up evidence for our own point of view, and 3) walking away if their appears to be no attempt at real conversation or understanding. I'd like to suggest this is a better approach than simply concluding that peacegirl is mentally ill.

We have as little evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill as she has for the efferent theory of light.

Thank you ThreeLawsSafe. At least one person understands me. I mean that sincerely. You are like a needed breath of fresh air in a dying thread. Maybe your accurate analysis will help generate renewed interest.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not put you on ignore Spacemonkey...

Great. Then you can start answering my questions (which I've bumped multiple times without response). You could try beginning with the other two questions in the post you were just replying to:

1. Can blue light (travelling as a part of full spectrum light heading towards a blue ball) stay at the surface of the ball after hitting it without becoming stationary?

2. Can the specific photons at surface of the camera film at the precise time the photograph is taken have been at the exact same position just before the photograph was taken without having been stationary?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So stop following the crowd, okay?

This right here is an insult. If you don't want to be called mentally ill, then don't insult others by saying they are only following other people rather than thinking for themselves.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of your questions are based on photons traveling, and in the efferent model, there are no photons traveling, only a flip side of what exists out there.

You're lying again. My questions are based only upon what you have said. There are travelling photons at multiple points in your model. Full spectrum light consists of photons, and is emitted by the sun and travels toward objects. Hence Q1 above. You've said the (P)reflected light at the film consists of photons. Those photons are either newly existing or previously existed at either the same or a different location. Hence Q2 above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The flip side is not full spectrum sunlight. What is on our retina/film does not see white light, but the non-absorbed light which defines the external world.

Thank you for answering one of my questions at least. Are you agreeing then that you were wrong to say this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are somehow believing that the light at the film instantly is different from the (N) light that is bouncing off the ball. What you are failing to understand is that it's the same light.

If the latter is full spectrum sunlight while the former is not, then they can hardly be the same, can they?


I will now bump my other posts and questions for you to address.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I don't see any evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill. Most people have a cognitive bias against giving into others in a debate over strongly-held beliefs, no matter what the evidence. In fact, we tend to hold even tighter to our own beliefs in the face of countervailing evidence.

I think it's easy to psychologize about people who have differing opinions and worldviews, especially if they go against the group. But we're better off simply 1) trying to understand the other person's point of view, 2) offering up evidence for our own point of view, and 3) walking away if their appears to be no attempt at real conversation or understanding. I'd like to suggest this is a better approach than simply concluding that peacegirl is mentally ill.

We have as little evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill as she has for the efferent theory of light.

Well I doubt that peacegirl is going anywhere so you have an opportunity, if you wish to spend your time, to find out if peacegirl is mentally ill. You will find that it is not a matter of peacegirl holding strongly held views. She has severe cognitive difficulties. She is unable to reason about her own beliefs. She forgets what she has learned so the thread goes in circles. She doesn't have a firm grasp of the meanings of many words. And she is deluded to the point that she is unable to accept the evidence of common experience. She is also elderly enough that we could be seeing the onset of dementia. I also suspect early childhood emotional trauma. If you read Lessans book it becomes obvious that being a female in his family would be traumatic.

But hey, knock yourself out. I'm sure peacegirl thinks you can be convinced that Lessans will save the world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I loved that analogy. Was I close enough? I get your point...

No. And you don't get my point. The point was that no-one thinks light is carrying images or wavelengths in this way, and that you are therfore arguing against an inaccurate strawman of afferent vision every time you argue as if this is what afferent vision requires.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's so interesting. I am just as intrigued by the animal kingdom as you are. Can you show me examples of this? I know certain birds have amazing visual acuity, but I'm interested to know how they would identify individual features without some other sense to help them. I'll be waiting for any links that can explain this.

You were already given PLENTY of data about how they identify individual features by sight alone; he just got through telling you, in the post you quoted and thanked, that birds do it BY VISUAL CUES ALONE.

You really are flat-out nuts. Can you even read properly?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you ThreeLawsSafe. At least one person understands me. I mean that sincerely. You are like a needed breath of fresh air in a dying thread. Maybe your accurate analysis will help generate renewed interest.

Wow, you really do lack reading comprehension. Did you notice what he said about your "efferent sight"?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

There are only 2 admins, viscousmemories and Livius Drusus.

Pity.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I don't see any evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill. Most people have a cognitive bias against giving into others in a debate over strongly-held beliefs, no matter what the evidence. In fact, we tend to hold even tighter to our own beliefs in the face of countervailing evidence.

I think it's easy to psychologize about people who have differing opinions and worldviews, especially if they go against the group. But we're better off simply 1) trying to understand the other person's point of view, 2) offering up evidence for our own point of view, and 3) walking away if their appears to be no attempt at real conversation or understanding. I'd like to suggest this is a better approach than simply concluding that peacegirl is mentally ill.

We have as little evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill as she has for the efferent theory of light.

Have you read both threads here in full? How about the 10 months worth of IIDB/FRDB threads? Her threads at GOTG? I fear your judgment here may be seriously premature.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well I doubt that peacegirl is going anywhere so you have an opportunity, if you wish to spend your time, to find out if peacegirl is mentally ill. You will find that it is not a matter of peacegirl holding strongly held views. She has severe cognitive difficulties. She is unable to reason about her own beliefs. She forgets what she has learned so the thread goes in circles. She doesn't have a firm grasp of the meanings of many words. And she is deluded to the point that she is unable to accept the evidence of common experience. She is also elderly enough that we could be seeing the onset of dementia. I also suspect early childhood emotional trauma. If you read Lessans book it becomes obvious that being a female in his family would be traumatic.

But hey, knock yourself out. I'm sure peacegirl thinks you can be convinced that Lessans will save the world.

I'm sure you feel much better having gotten that out, naturalist.atheist.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

We have as little evidence that peacegirl is mentally ill as she has for the efferent theory of light.

Have you read both threads from begining to end? There are reported to be other forums where she has used the same arguments.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I'm sure you feel much better having gotten that out, naturalist.atheist.

Do you actually think he's exaggerating?

(Or are you just playing a role here to get Peacegirl to think of you as an ally?)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I'm sure you feel much better having gotten that out, naturalist.atheist.

Not really. peacegirl is the only specimen of a mentally ill person I have access to. Coupled with all the posters here who just can't get over that they are dealing with a person who is unable to think rationally and it makes for a great learning experience. I suppose you do not approve of someone learning things without the benefit of educators steeped in the knowledge bestowed by a degree in education, but there you have it.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Have you read both threads here in full? How about the 10 months worth of IIDB/FRDB threads? Her threads at GOTG? I fear your judgment here may be seriously premature.

I've read both threads. I'm a licensed mental-health care professional, and worked 15 years as an LHMC, so I reserve the right to judge where it's appropriate. And it's not appropriate on an internet forum. People have a lot of reasons for posting what they do.

I'm not defending what peacegirl is arguing. I think it's irrational and entirely contrary to the evidence. I see a lot of defensiveness and cognitive bias on her part, as well. But it's always sad to see the psychologizing pile-on.

I will say, however, with certain exceptions, that the folks in this forum are a lot more cautious about that than some other forums I lurk around in. So kudos.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not really. peacegirl is the only specimen of a mentally ill person I have access to. Coupled with all the posters here who just can't get over that they are dealing with a person who is unable to think rationally and it makes for a great learning experience. I suppose you do not approve of someone learning things without the benefit of educators steeped in the knowledge bestowed by a degree in education, but there you have it.

One specimen does not constitute sufficient evidence to understand a category, especially in psychology.