A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Anyway, all of this was explained to her nearly a year ago. Predictably, it went in one ear and right out the other.

Efferent ears?

[thedoc]

Did Shakespeare really write Shakespeare?

[thedoc]

Did Lessans really write 'Decline and Fall of all Evil'?

[thedoc]

We have only Pescegirl's say-so on this, do we have any real proof?

[thedoc]

Is Peacegirl only blameing this on her father, so she can claim 'reasonable deniability'?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light coming from the light source that is pointed at the mirror. If it's a flashlight that is pointed at the mirror, we will get a mirror image of the light (not the flashlight), just as we get an image of the Sun's light being reflected off of sparkling water. We don't get an image of the Sun (the light source), just the light. The same goes for any light source such as a laser pen. We will get a mirror image of the light of that pen on the ceiling, not the pen itself.

Actually, we will get a mirror image of the light in the mirror. The spot of light on the ceiling cannot also be a mirror image of the light from the flashlight, unless you are claiming that there are two mirror images, one in the mirror and one on the ceiling. We can, of course, get multiple mirror images, if we have multiple mirrors (like in a dressing room or a house of mirrors), but in the present example we have only one mirror. Yet, by some remarkable circumstance, we have two mirror images. How does that happen?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yet, by some remarkable circumstance, we have two mirror images. How does that happen?

PFM.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're probably thinking of Cleve Backster, who claimed to have demonstrated with a lie detector that plants in the genus Dracaena have ESP and will respond to the presence of a person who has "murdered" other plants.


The "experiment" was, to put it extremely mildly, poorly done, and the results extremely suspect. Furthermore, no one, to my knowledge, has been able to reproduce these alleged results.

Has Y's blood been made aware of this marvellous breakthrough in Dracaena science?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Someone who copied Lessans' book before she took it down might let ThreeLawsSafe take a look at it.

Welcome to a world where if God turns on the sun at noon, people on earth will see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes. A world where cameras both do, and don't, take pictures in real time. A world in which an astronomer on Rigel, with a powerful enough telescoope, would be able to see Columbus stepping onto the shores of North America in real time, not hundreds of years after the fact.

A world in which everyone will run around scantily clad and mate with the first person they fancy, for life (though no one will ever again share the same bed -- that's a mathematical certainty!)

A world in which people are "compelled by their own free will" to do what they do!

A world of rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table (but only if little ones aren't present). A world of no war and no poverty. A world of translucent sex robes. A world in which Mom had better make a goddamn special study of cooking, because Seymour likes spahgetti and meatballs on Monday night. A world where anyone can be a doctor just by hanging out a shingle. A world in which there are no vaccinations. A world in which to wake a child is to blame it for sleeping. A world in which there will be far fewer gay people, if any at all.

A world in which the author sued President Jimmy Carter for failing to grant him an audience to demonstrate his "mathematically certain" formula for world peace.

Welcome to Seymour and Peacegirl's world!

Don't listen to this guy ThreeLawsSafe, he is trying to protect his worldview by corrupting this book and what it stands for. He has taken everything out of context and made this work unrecognizable even to me. He is a liar!!! Please use your own judgment to determine what this book is about, not his very confused misinterpretation. He is not a freethinker at all, and that's what this forum is supposed to stand for. No matter what this guy does to block further interest, the truth will come out one way or another, and he won't be able to stop it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, we will get a mirror image of the light in the mirror. The spot of light on the ceiling cannot also be a mirror image of the light from the flashlight, unless you are claiming that there are two mirror images, one in the mirror and one on the ceiling. We can, of course, get multiple mirror images, if we have multiple mirrors (like in a dressing room or a house of mirrors), but in the present example we have only one mirror. Yet, by some remarkable circumstance, we have two mirror images. How does that happen?

There aren't two mirror images. The mirror is the image point which provides the intersection of the photons. Think about it this way. The object that is reflecting the light is at the film/retina instantly because of how the brain works. This is the world of "efferent" vision, not "afferent" vision. The reason you're confused is because you can't wrap your mind around this idea. Afferent vision keeps sneaking into your thought process. As the object gets further and further away, the object gets dimmer and dimmer which is consistent with optics. Therefore, as long as the object is in view, that light will cause a mirror image to be seen on the film or the retina. It's the same exact image but upside down. No time is involved at all because the light that is being reflected is already present as long as the object is within the field of view of the camera or eye. It's really not that difficult if you think in terms of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window, which means that light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause.

[LadyShea]

The object that is reflecting the light is at the film/retina instantly because of how the brain works

Why does "how the brain works" or vision or eyes as windows affect how light and camera film works? Or how light and plants interact? Or how light works by itself?

This is why I've been asking and asking for you to describe how light works when there is no brain/eyes/observer. And how light photons can interact with film through a "mirror image". So far you've not been able to answer without bringing an observer into it, or positing stationary light...like a photon Gee staying on a leaf until the plant dies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Never said it did. But if you are surrounded by working cars, and you see a car smoking and lurching, you don't need a degree to know that it's broken.

ThreeLawsSafe, I have explained why I'm smoking and lurching (using NA's car analogy). Lessans had insight as far as how the brain works in relation to the eyes, and I'm trying to bridge the gap by creating a working model in relation to how light works. So yes, there are moments where I haven't been clear or consistent, but I'm working out those snags. This does not mean Lessans was wrong at all.

As far as NA goes (I refuse to talk to him personally), he is so completely off his cotton pickin rocker when it comes to his interpretation of who I am, that it's laughable. If it wasn't for this knowledge being a genuine discovery, I could shrug it off, but it bothers me that he is creating such a phony picture of who I am and who Lessans was, that I could puke.

Originally Posted by natural.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.

I just want you to know ThreeLawsSafe that I have no cognitive deficits, and as I mentioned before, the only reason people say I am going in circles is because Lessans' conclusions about efferent vision did not come from physics; it came from understanding how the brain works. Due to the fact that I believe Lessans was 100% correct, I am determined to create a working model that in no way violates the laws of physics. Furthermore, just because the majority of people don't agree with Lessans because of commonly held beliefs does not make him wrong or me mentally ill. My childhood was wonderful. There was no trauma at all. I was blessed with loving parents. My father was a kind man. Please don't listen to this guy. I think he is projecting his own fears about his place in the world, onto me. After all, he is an atheist and if Lessans is right and there is eventual harmony in the mankind system, what would that do to his belief that there is no God? If you want to use psychology on him, as he is using on me (and repeating the same thing over and over again as if somehow people are going to believe what he's saying if he says it 100 more times), he would be the one that is in need of psychological help. Using the same psychobabble that he is displaying, I could conclude that he is a perfect specimen of someone who has a major personality disorder. But I wouldn't do that because I don't know him and I would never diagnose someone over the internet.

[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?

Spacemonkey, I'm not answering these same questions over and over again because it's not going to give you the answers you're looking for. Please try to understand what I'm talking about in terms of optics, because this knowledge along with the understanding of how "efferent" vision works (which will be confirmed as more empirical testing is done) will give you your answers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

That experiment doesn't show anything about dogs recognizing features. They could associate someone's gait but to look at a 2 dimensional picture and recognize their owner from a picture is so far from conclusive, I'm shocked that you can even call yourselves scientists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

IMHO, Lady Shea is providing pictures that do indeed falsify peacegirl's hypothesis, by peacegirl's own admission. The light has provided images, through Hubble, that are not in my field of view.

They are providing pictures, there's no doubt about that, but what those pictures signify is still open to interpretation based on which orientation, or direction of thought, you're coming from. If it turns out that efferent vision is correct, we have to rethink what it is we're seeing. So, no, it does not falsify Lessans' claims at this point in the investigatin.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

what those pictures signify is still open to interpretation

Okay, this can be built on. This can be a starting point for scientific methodology as it is an empirical observation (we pointed the Hubble at apparently empty space for a million minutes and got an image of galaxies).

What are all the possible interpretations of what these pictures signify?

Just brain storm all possible interpretations you can think of for now, then we can analyze each possibility individually for falsifiability, and compatibility with known laws and principles.

*Working backwards from afferent or efferent vision isn't scientific methodology. No matter how much you think mainstream science does that, it doesn't. That's sloppy and biased and usually done for money. You work forward from the evidence, not backward from a conclusion.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are providing pictures, there's no doubt about that, but what those pictures signify is still open to interpretation based on which orientation, or direction of thought, you're coming from. If it turns out that efferent vision is correct, we have to rethink what it is we're seeing. So, no, it does not falsify Lessans' claims at this point in the investigatin.

That's right, peacegirl. There might be a magical, mysterious explanation for what these things are that magically will make your ideas about vision all okay.

By the way, any thoughts on those guys at NASA?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That experiment doesn't show anything about dogs recognizing features. They could associate someone's gait but to look at a 2 dimensional picture and recognize their owner from a picture is so far from conclusive, I'm shocked that you can even call yourselves scientists.

It demonstrates that dogs can and will respond to, and interpret, visual cues from two dimensional images that therefore do not stimulate a dog's most sensitive and most favored and used sense, that of smell. The dog did not follow the persons gaze unless the person was looking at the dog and addressed it directly first. Recognition of direct address is fairly sophisticated cognitive functioning.

It's just another piece if evidence....just more data.

[LadyShea]

I thought this graphic was really helpful in explaining the problem. Do you have a response, peacegirl?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think Peacegirl will still need some kind of simplified diagram or picture to follow what is being said. (And even then she'll just have to flatly deny it or appeal to mysterious unknown factors once she gets it.) Anyway, I'll give it a shot...


Peacegirl, imagine that we want to send a rocket to planet . This planet is moving across the sky from left to right, across the points represented by letters below:

<- A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

At time T1 we look at the planet and see it at point B, like so:


<- A - - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

Bob is a lessanologist and proponent of real-time efferent vision, so he assumes that the planet really is at B at T1. He calculates how far the planet will travel across the sky while the rocket travels to get there, and works out that will cover ten letter-points during this travel time. So Bob fires his rocket towards point L.

Jim is a normal person and proponent of delayed afferent vision, so he assumes that what he sees at T1 is a dated image and that the planet only appears to be at B at T1, while it is really at point E. So Jim also calculates how far the planet will travel while his rocket is in flight - using the exact same calculation for this as Bob - and also determines that will cover ten letter-points during this travel time. But because he believes that the planet is at E rather than B at T1, he aims his rocket towards point O instead of point L like Bob.

Bob understands the situation like this:

<- A - - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

Point B is both the perceived and actual position of at T1, and point L is where he aims his rocket.

Jim understands the situation like this:

<- A - - C - D - - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

Point B is only the apparent position of the planet at T1 which is really at E, so he aims his rocket at Point O instead of point L.

When they fire their rockets, guess what happens. Jim's rocket arrives at the planet while Bob's rocket does not. Both use the exact same calculations. The only difference is that Bob takes his perception of the planet's location at T1 to be real-time, while Jim takes it to be dated. Yet it turns out that Jim was right, and both Bob and Lessans were wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why does "how the brain works" or vision or eyes as windows affect how light and camera film works? Or how light and plants interact? Or how light works by itself?

This is why I've been asking and asking for you to describe how light works when there is no brain/eyes/observer. And how light photons can interact with film through a "mirror image". So far you've not been able to answer without bringing an observer into it, or positing stationary light...like a photon Gee staying on a leaf until the plant dies.

All of these questions are answered according to the efferent model. I just hope you don't give up because it doesn't make sense coming from the entrenched idea that light alone gives us the past image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought this graphic was really helpful in explaining the problem. Do you have a response, peacegirl?

Forget it!! You will not discredit Lessans by your sneaky insinuation that those who agree with him are now Lessanologists... along with the disgusting statement that anyone who agrees with Lessans is not normal. LadyShea, you are on probation. Be careful what you say or you will be put on ignore island like all those who came before you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of these questions are answered according to the efferent model. I just hope you don't give up because it doesn't make sense coming from the entrenched idea that light alone gives us the past image.

How are my questions about how light and camera film works, or how light and plants interact, or how light works by itself- answered by efferent vision and images when I've specifically asked you to answer them without vision/brains/eyes being factored in at all?

I want to know how you think these things work if there are no observers. You've dodged my questions every time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it!! You will not discredit Lessans by your sneaky insinuation that those who agree with him are now Lessanologists... along with the disgusting statement that anyone who agrees with Lessans is not normal. LadyShea, you are on probation. Be careful what you say or you will be put on ignore island like all those who came before you.

Translation: I can't answer this question -- of COURSE the way that NASA actually calculates how to send rockets to other planets, refutes Lessans completely and irrevocably! I have no answer to your question, LadyShea, so -- dishonest little harridan that I am -- I am going to throw another little shit fit, a tantrum designed to distract attention from my ignorance and dishonestly, and put you on probation! And I am so deluded that I think this little hissy fit of mine will distract people from the fact that I have ABSOLUTELY NO ANSWER to this disarmingly irrefutable refutation of my buffoon Father's bilge water!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it!! You will not discredit Lessans by your sneaky insinuation that those who agree with him are now Lessanologists... along with the disgusting statement that anyone who agrees with Lessans is not normal. LadyShea, you are on probation. Be careful what you say or you will be put on ignore island like all those who came before you.

Weasel. Spacemonkey offered as clear an explanation as is possible to give about how apparent position is used in calculating actual position by NASA. Your being upset at him being a meanie doesn't change that.

Go ahead and put me on ignore, then you will only have ThreeLawsSafe left to talk to. Which he seems nice and intelligent, but what is your goal in staying at if you only have one person to discuss with?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. Spacemonkey offered as clear an explanation as is possible to give about how apparent position is used in calculating actual position by NASA. Your being upset at him being a meanie doesn't change that.

Go ahead and put me on ignore, then you will only have ThreeLawsSafe left to talk to. Which he seems nice and intelligent, but what is your goal in staying at if you only have one person to discuss with?

I could care less who I talk to; you are not going to use derogatory terms to subtly make Lessans look like an idiot. And don't tell me you don't have an agenda to do that very thing.