A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 240

naturalist.atheist · #**5976** 01-22-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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.

You're just an old romantic.

You got me pegged.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5977** 01-22-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I notice a pattern of ThreeLawsSafe asking stuff like, "how do you feel about that?" and "why do you feel the need to do that?" I can't help but thinking he asks these kind of questions in his practice, and this makes me think he is in the process of working up of the people here -- dare I say it? -- a diagnosis. :chin:

What's wrong with asking questions?

peacegirl · #**5978** 01-22-2012, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

You are no more rational than I am. FYI, I am entitled to express what I believe is true even if it flies in the face of [science's] evidence to the contrary and supported by none [you mean science], which is why we're having the discussion in the first place.

Spacemonkey · #**5979** 01-22-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I am entitled to say what I believe is true even if it flies in the face of [science's] evidence to the contrary and supported by none [once again, you mean not supported by science], which is completely circular.

No, I mean not supported by evidence. Don't try to tell me what I mean. And there's no circularity on our part in pointing out that all of the evidence is against you.

peacegirl · #**5980** 01-22-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

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.

If you contact either admin they will advise you to put n.a on ignore. Why don't you just put him on ignore? That is what it is for.

It's not good enough. I know what he's saying even if he's on ignore and I don't appreciate being lied about. I can't stand the sight of his name which still shows up.

Spacemonkey · #**5981** 01-22-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are no more rational than I am...

There you go with the insults again. I'm not the one clinging to a position opposed by evidence I can't explain or account for, or a position which I cannot even explain without contradicting myself. I'm not the one cowardly refusing to answer questions about my own position.

Spacemonkey · #**5982** 01-22-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

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.

If you contact either admin they will advise you to put n.a on ignore. Why don't you just put him on ignore? That is what it is for.

It's not good enough. I know what he's saying even if he's on ignore and I don't appreciate being lied about. I can't stand the sight of his name which still shows up.

To establish that he's lying, you'd first have to establish that he's wrong.

peacegirl · #**5983** 01-22-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I am entitled to say what I believe is true even if it flies in the face of [science's] evidence to the contrary and supported by none [once again, you mean not supported by science], which is completely circular.

No, I mean not supported by evidence. Don't try to tell me what I mean. And there's no circularity on our part in pointing out that all of the evidence is against you.

There is circularity in your comment because it is science's "evidence" that is being contested. I am entitled to give my opinion Spacemonkey, whether you like it or not. I'm not attacking anyone's character by giving my point of view. I can see that you are digging your heels in deeper instead of trying to understand what Lessans meant by efferent vision, so maybe it's time that we end the conversation.

Spacemonkey · #**5984** 01-22-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision... You need to first try to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model before coming to the premature conclusion that he is wrong...

If you want or expect me to understand efferent vision or recognise its alleged plausibility, then you'll need to answer my questions about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you keep basing your logic on the afferent model (even if you don't see it).

The help me see it. Show me exactly where and what the afferent assumptions are in the following set of questions:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

And how about the next set? Where and what are the afferent assumptions here:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Either show me these alleged afferent assumptions, or answer the questions already.

Bumpity bump bump McBump.

...bump bump.

...and yet another bump for our dishonest question-dodging weasel.

Spacemonkey · #**5985** 01-22-2012, 10:39 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 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.

I am entitled to say what I believe is true even if it flies in the face of [science's] evidence to the contrary and supported by none [once again, you mean not supported by science], which is completely circular.

No, I mean not supported by evidence. Don't try to tell me what I mean. And there's no circularity on our part in pointing out that all of the evidence is against you.

There is circularity in your comment because it is science's "evidence" that is being contested.

There's no circularity whatsoever. It is a simple fact that all of the evidence is against you and none of it supports you. You can 'contest' it all you like. You still have no evidence, and no ability to refute the evidence against you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that you are digging your heels in deeper instead of trying to understand what Lessans meant by efferent vision, so maybe it's time that we end the conversation.

I am trying to understand it. You're refusing to answer my questions about it. So how am I meant to improve my understanding?

peacegirl · #**5986** 01-22-2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

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.

If you contact either admin they will advise you to put n.a on ignore. Why don't you just put him on ignore? That is what it is for.

It's not good enough. I know what he's saying even if he's on ignore and I don't appreciate being lied about. I can't stand the sight of his name which still shows up.

To establish that he's lying, you'd first have to establish that he's wrong.

Crumb, telling people that I was molested by my father and that's why I have an attachment to him, is malicious libel.

Defamation of Character Quick Tips

davidm · #**5987** 01-22-2012, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I notice a pattern of ThreeLawsSafe asking stuff like, "how do you feel about that?" and "why do you feel the need to do that?" I can't help but thinking he asks these kind of questions in his practice, and this makes me think he is in the process of working up of the people here -- dare I say it? -- a diagnosis. :chin:

What's wrong with asking questions?

Why would you feel that I feel there is something wrong with asking questions? And how do you feel about that?

peacegirl · #**5988** 01-22-2012, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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 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.

I am entitled to say what I believe is true even if it flies in the face of [science's] evidence to the contrary and supported by none [once again, you mean not supported by science], which is completely circular.

No, I mean not supported by evidence. Don't try to tell me what I mean. And there's no circularity on our part in pointing out that all of the evidence is against you.

There is circularity in your comment because it is science's "evidence" that is being contested.

There's no circularity whatsoever. It is a simple fact that all of the evidence is against you and none of it supports you. You can 'contest' it all you like. You still have no evidence, and no ability to refute the evidence against you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that you are digging your heels in deeper instead of trying to understand what Lessans meant by efferent vision, so maybe it's time that we end the conversation.

I am trying to understand it. You're refusing to answer my questions about it. So how am I meant to improve my understanding?

Saying the following does not sound like you want to understand anything I say. You know I am doing the best I can, so why would you say I can be crazy, and just add to the tension that's already being played out in here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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 · #**5989** 01-22-2012, 10:57 PM

Real-time seeing isn't true, peacegirl, so there is nothing to say about it.

peacegirl · #**5990** 01-22-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

NA is blunt, sure. He psychologizes too much about you, sure. But does he have a point when he says that you don't appear to listen or care about the evidence? Absolutely.

I know what the evidence is, but that's what is being contested. NA could care less what this book is about. He has made no effort to ask me any questions in regard to Lessans' discoveries. All he does is look at my online history and conclude I must be crazy. This just shows how interested he is in this thread. :glare:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

If you're going to present an alternative worldview other than the standard scientific model, it's your burden of proof. You need to have a thicker skin about it. That doesn't justify other people's attacks on you (or your attacks on them), but your responses do at times seem very desperate. Do you think perhaps you should consider taking your ideas to a different audience?

Of course I've thought about it, and that's what I plan to do when I leave here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Alternatively, Crumb does have a very good point about using the "ignore" option.

I have put him on ignore, but I think the freedom to attack someone's character should not be allowed.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5991** 01-22-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I notice a pattern of ThreeLawsSafe asking stuff like, "how do you feel about that?" and "why do you feel the need to do that?" I can't help but thinking he asks these kind of questions in his practice, and this makes me think he is in the process of working up of the people here -- dare I say it? -- a diagnosis. :chin:

What's wrong with asking questions?

Why would you feel that I feel there is something wrong with asking questions? And how do you feel about that?

Where specifically have I diagnosed anyone, as you imply?

peacegirl · #**5992** 01-22-2012, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Real-time seeing isn't true, peacegirl, so there is nothing to say about it.

You can say this until you're blue in the face but it does not change reality. The truth will one day be known.

davidm · #**5993** 01-22-2012, 11:12 PM

Good advice here, I think, from the thread at the Baut forum.

Quote:

Thanks for background. IMHO, sounds like it could be good let this one get away (?)
Everyone has the right to their beliefs.

My humble opinion is, if it comes down to her trusting her father, or adopting a rational perspective, one has to question the morality of forcing the issue further (??) (Sounds like its already gone beyond several boundaries).

A reasonable position would be that she goes forth acknowledging that there is a scientific view, which differs from her personal view, and if she can go forth without distorting this view, or attempting to misrepresent it, it would be kindly appreciated.

davidm · #**5994** 01-22-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Real-time seeing isn't true, peacegirl, so there is nothing to say about it.

You can say this until you're blue in the face but it does not change reality. The truth will one day be known.

You're right, peacegirl, nothing I say, or you say, changes reality. And the reality is, we don't see in real time, as has been proven to you dozens of times over. How do you think NASA sends spacecraft to Mars?

peacegirl · #**5995** 01-22-2012, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision... You need to first try to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model before coming to the premature conclusion that he is wrong...

If you want or expect me to understand efferent vision or recognise its alleged plausibility, then you'll need to answer my questions about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you keep basing your logic on the afferent model (even if you don't see it).

The help me see it. Show me exactly where and what the afferent assumptions are in the following set of questions:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

And how about the next set? Where and what are the afferent assumptions here:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

yes

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

at the film

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Yes, the (P) reflection is moving but, according to optics, this light fades the farther away the object gets. Can you at least agree with that?

peacegirl · #**5996** 01-22-2012, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Real-time seeing isn't true, peacegirl, so there is nothing to say about it.

You can say this until you're blue in the face but it does not change reality. The truth will one day be known.

You're right, peacegirl, nothing I say, or you say, changes reality. And the reality is, we don't see in real time, as has been proven to you dozens of times over. How do you think NASA sends spacecraft to Mars?

Don't worry David. If afferent vision is correct it will hold up under scrutiny.

davidm · #**5997** 01-22-2012, 11:46 PM

It's been scrutinized for hundreds of years. It's false. Every time we look at the moons of Jupiter or send a spaceship to Mars, it is proved false. You are wasting your time, and making both you and your father look very bad indeed.

peacegirl · #**5998** 01-22-2012, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

It's been scrutinized for hundreds of years. It's false. Every time we look at the moons of Jupiter or send a spaceship to Mars, it is proved false. You are wasting your time, and making both you and your father look very bad indeed.

Of course it makes Lessans look bad. There's no way of getting around it, but I still have the right to support his views.

davidm · #**5999** 01-23-2012, 12:11 AM

Of course you have the right to do so. You should ask yourself if it is wise to do so. We don't see in real time.

LadyShea · #**6000** 01-23-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

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.

If you contact either admin they will advise you to put n.a on ignore. Why don't you just put him on ignore? That is what it is for.

It's not good enough. I know what he's saying even if he's on ignore and I don't appreciate being lied about. I can't stand the sight of his name which still shows up.

They will not change the principles the forum was built on because of your butthurt. Either ignore him or find a way to cope.