A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 238

davidm · #**5926** 01-22-2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.

No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow?

No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film.

If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.

It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison?

You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.

And I think it's about time you answered my questions. Don't you?

How can there be stationary photons when white light is constantly in motion Spacemonkey? You're getting confused because you think that because light travels, the light that is coming from the object is traveling in the same way. I already told you that (P) reflective light diminishes as the (P) reflective light gets more and more distant from the object. Do you understand what I'm saying? And don't tell me what is and what is not a legitimate possibility. That's what got science in trouble in the first place because of the accepted premise that the eyes are a sense organ, and everything that followed seemed to fit into place. How wrong could they have been if Lessans turns out to be right?

We don't see in real time, peacegirl, as we have proved to you with by now more than a hundred different examples, the latest being the fact that NASA must account for a light-speed delay in seeing Mars in order to successfully send spacecraft there. So all your convoluted efforts to explain the mechanics of real time seeing are simply irrelevant. We don't see in real time. Lessans was wrong.

peacegirl · #**5927** 01-22-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

naturalist.atheist · #**5928** 01-22-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Ya thedoc!

We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes!

peacegirl · #**5929** 01-22-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.

No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow?

No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film.

If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.

It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison?

You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.

And I think it's about time you answered my questions. Don't you?

How can there be stationary photons when white light is constantly in motion Spacemonkey? You're getting confused because you think that because light travels, the light that is coming from the object is traveling in the same way. I already told you that (P) reflective light diminishes as the (P) reflective light gets more and more distant from the object. Do you understand what I'm saying? And don't tell me what is and what is not a legitimate possibility. That's what got science in trouble in the first place because of the accepted premise that the eyes are a sense organ, and everything that followed seemed to fit into place. How wrong could they have been if Lessans turns out to be right?

We don't see in real time, peacegirl, as we have proved to you with by now more than a hundred different examples, the latest being the fact that NASA must account for a light-speed delay in seeing Mars in order to successfully send spacecraft there. So all your convoluted efforts to explain the mechanics of real time seeing are simply irrelevant. We don't see in real time. Lessans was wrong.

I have heard your interpretation. I don't agree. So get over it. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. That's called living in a democracy.

peacegirl · #**5930** 01-22-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Ya thedoc!

We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes!

You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.

davidm · #**5931** 01-22-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

Spacemonkey · #**5932** 01-22-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have heard your interpretation. I don't agree. So get over it. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. That's called living in a democracy.

You're free to be as crazy as you like. But you're not rationally entitled to an opinion that flies in the face of all evidence and is supported by none.

davidm · #**5933** 01-22-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.

No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow?

No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film.

If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.

It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison?

You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.

And I think it's about time you answered my questions. Don't you?

How can there be stationary photons when white light is constantly in motion Spacemonkey? You're getting confused because you think that because light travels, the light that is coming from the object is traveling in the same way. I already told you that (P) reflective light diminishes as the (P) reflective light gets more and more distant from the object. Do you understand what I'm saying? And don't tell me what is and what is not a legitimate possibility. That's what got science in trouble in the first place because of the accepted premise that the eyes are a sense organ, and everything that followed seemed to fit into place. How wrong could they have been if Lessans turns out to be right?

We don't see in real time, peacegirl, as we have proved to you with by now more than a hundred different examples, the latest being the fact that NASA must account for a light-speed delay in seeing Mars in order to successfully send spacecraft there. So all your convoluted efforts to explain the mechanics of real time seeing are simply irrelevant. We don't see in real time. Lessans was wrong.

I have heard your interpretation. I don't agree. So get over it. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. That's called living in a democracy.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your facts. The fact is, we don't see in real time. This has been proven to you hundreds of different ways. Therefore, any further tortured efforts by you to explain the mechanics of real-time seeing, are irrelevant. Even if you ever did come up with a coherent explanation (and you won't), it doesn't matter, because in the real world we do not see in real time. Lessans was wrong.

naturalist.atheist · #**5934** 01-22-2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

Your continuity comes and goes. You yourself not too long ago realized that I really thought you were insane. I'm doing this not because I am bullying you. You need to get help. And if this is what must be done to get you to get help then I'm willing to give it a try.

I do not see you as some crazy foil that I can use as an excuse to sharpen their debating skills and knowledge against fundamentalists, and so are willing to ignore your insanity to continue the game.

I see you as a very ill person who needs help.

You agreed to see a doctor if I did. I'm gonna try to see ThreeLawsSafe. Maybe we should try to see him together.

naturalist.atheist · #**5935** 01-22-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Ya thedoc!

We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes!

You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.

Then will you see ThreeLawsSafe with me?

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5936** 01-22-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's ask ThreeLawsSafe for his professional opinion on the whole reason Lessans came up with efferent vision, shall we?

TLS, Lessans posited that we are conditioned to see some features as beautiful, and that this conditioning can only happen by projecting the value "beautiful" on "the screen of actual substance". He says this could not happen if vision is the result of receiving light which is then interpreted as an image in the brain.

Is there any reason, assuming the current model of vision is correct, to think the brain could not be conditioned to attach inaccurate values to visual images?

I'm not sure why I'm being offered my professional opinion on this question, LadyShea, but I can give you my layperson's opinion. My fields of expertise are therapy (specifically Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), English literature, and philosophy.

I do think notions of beauty are partly a product of our evolved mental traits, but mostly a matter of environmental conditioning. I see absolutely no reason why this view would contradict the standard model of light. We are certainly hard-wired to see in a particular way (again, a product of evolutionary processes), but that's a product of 3.5 billion years worth of evolution working itself out as an advantage for our genetic ancestors.

To answer your question directly, there is no reason why we couldn't be conditioned to attach inaccurate values to visual images. In fact, we do it on a second-to-second basis. For example, in order to maintain the continuity of objects in our environment, we ascribe particular colors to objects. The shirt I'm wearing right now I perceive to be a dark maroon color. In the sunlight, that's how it appears. However, I perceive it to be the same color even in the darkly lit room I currently inhabit, though in this light it is most certainly not the same color. In point of objective fact, my shirt is now black in this light. But my brain prefers to continue the dark-maroon illusion so as to maintain continuity. I'm conditioned to attach an inaccurate value to my shirt-color in order to maintain continuity of objects. This is an obvious evolutionary advantage, though it can play tricks on us in strangely-lit rooms (which were not a part of our environment for the 6 million years leading up to modern-day lighting).

Does that answer your question, LadyShea? I'm afraid I'm no expert here, so I'll gladly accept being corrected on any point of fact by someone who understands visual cognition better than I.

Spacemonkey · #**5937** 01-22-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

Peacegirl is again providing us with a practical demonstration of the failure of Lessans' ideas. NA expresses genuine concern for her mental health. Peacegirl misinterprets this as an attack and retaliates, thereby making a first blow herself.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5938** 01-22-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Ya thedoc!

We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes!

You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.

Then will you see ThreeLawsSafe with me?

Hey -- when did I agree to this?

For the record, I'm not advising anyone to see the doctor. I like to antagonize N.A., but I don't think he's mentally ill.

I'm not diagnosing anyone online. However, peacegirl, I've looked through both threads now completely, and I've looked at some older posts as well. You certainly have angered and frustrated a lot of people. Naturalist.atheist did indeed begin by being very accepting of you, and he tried to be empathetic. His current frustrations aren't much different than anyone else's. He just tends to be more blunt about it.

Peacegirl, have you ever considered that you might have some mental problems? Do you think you could benefit from therapy? I'm not saying you need it, I'm simply asking you what you think.

davidm · #**5939** 01-22-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

For the record, I'm not advising anyone to see the doctor. I like to antagonize N.A., but I don't think he's mentally ill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

You sure do contradict yourself a lot, TLS.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5940** 01-22-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

For the record, I'm not advising anyone to see the doctor. I like to antagonize N.A., but I don't think he's mentally ill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

You sure do contradict yourself a lot, TLS.

Is that okay with you, davidm?

peacegirl · #**5941** 01-22-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

thedoc · #**5942** 01-22-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

We have Mars.

"We'll always have Mars."

naturalist.atheist · #**5943** 01-22-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

We have Mars.

"We'll always have Mars."

You old romantic.

peacegirl · #**5944** 01-22-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Ya thedoc!

We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes!

You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.

Then will you see ThreeLawsSafe with me?

Hey -- when did I agree to this?

For the record, I'm not advising anyone to see the doctor. I like to antagonize N.A., but I don't think he's mentally ill.

I'm not diagnosing anyone online. However, peacegirl, I've looked through both threads now completely, and I've looked at some older posts as well. You certainly have angered and frustrated a lot of people. Naturalist.atheist did indeed begin by being very accepting of you, and he tried to be empathetic. His current frustrations aren't much different than anyone else's. He just tends to be more blunt about it.

You're playing right into his hand ThreeLawsSafe. NA has been playing a very old game by being charming at first so he could get his foot in the door and then turn on me. He never had any intentions of trying to understand this book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Peacegirl, have you ever considered that you might have some mental problems? Do you think you could benefit from therapy? I'm not saying you need it, I'm simply asking you what you think.

An emphatic "NO". I have angered people because this discovery is challenging an established worldview. Of course they are going to resist anything I have to say, but this has gone too far. NA is using me as a whipping post for his own frustrations. I'm a perfect target for his displaced anger and I'm tired of being exploited.

thedoc · #**5945** 01-22-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Really, and just what are you going to report? I didn't see any line, but then I don't see efferently. Just afferently, and a lot of nonsense.

naturalist.atheist · #**5946** 01-22-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

davidm · #**5947** 01-22-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

For the record, I'm not advising anyone to see the doctor. I like to antagonize N.A., but I don't think he's mentally ill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

You sure do contradict yourself a lot, TLS.

Is that okay with you, davidm?

It's OK with me. Is it OK with you? Because it sure makes you look bad.

Angakuk · #**5948** 01-22-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

Indeed she did. There is nothing in that story about the pot having been borrowed. Granny cut the ends off the roast because she did not own a pot that was large enough to accomodate a full sized roast. She did this routinely and that is how her daughter learned to do it as well. Logically, if the problem stemmed from the neighbor borrowing the pot, Granny could just have gone and gotten the pot back and the whole trimming the ends off the roast would have been a one-off.

Peacegirl's allegories are as incoherent as her defense of efferent sight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.

1. There is no evidence that anyone here is sincerely interested in Lessan's alleged discovery.
2. There is no evidence that anyone here really cares whether you go or stay.
3. Much of what n.a. posts does not sit well with a lot of the people who post here. This has nothing to do with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

David was talking to ThreeLawsSafe. That post was not directed at you in any way. It wasn't even about you. Not everything in this thread is.

davidm · #**5949** 01-22-2012, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An emphatic "NO". I have angered people because this discovery is challenging an established worldview.

No, as has been repeatedly explained to you, willful ignorance and blatant dishonesty anger and annoy people of integrity. You don't have a world view. We don't see in real time, as has been proved to you. That you continue to maintain this fiction demonstrates anew that you are willfully ignorant and blatantly dishonest.

naturalist.atheist · #**5950** 01-22-2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. :eek:

It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.

And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.

Ya thedoc!

We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes!

You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.

Then will you see ThreeLawsSafe with me?

Hey -- when did I agree to this?

For the record, I'm not advising anyone to see the doctor. I like to antagonize N.A., but I don't think he's mentally ill.

I'm not diagnosing anyone online. However, peacegirl, I've looked through both threads now completely, and I've looked at some older posts as well. You certainly have angered and frustrated a lot of people. Naturalist.atheist did indeed begin by being very accepting of you, and he tried to be empathetic. His current frustrations aren't much different than anyone else's. He just tends to be more blunt about it.

You're playing right into his hand ThreeLawsSafe. NA has been playing a very old game by being charming at first so he could get his foot in the door and then turn on me. He never had any intentions of trying to understand this book.

peacegirl, you are the first poster on this forum to ever call me charming. That is very nice of you.