A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 255

LadyShea · #**6351** 01-25-2012, 02:35 AM

15 people is an unusual number of people to be reading any single thread here at :ff:

at the same time, most were guests, too

Did someone link to us over at the BAUT forum?

Spacemonkey · #**6352** 01-25-2012, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

ThreeLawsSafe, without offering any diagnosis, could you explain why it would be unreasonable to think that the following might be applicable here, given the evidence presented within these threads?:

Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikpedia

The following can indicate a delusion:

1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

If an online poster were to regularly display such indicators over a period of several years whilst giving every indication of being genuine and not a troll or poe, would it not be reasonable to think that this person might benefit from psychiatric treatment of some sort?

ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

When delusional disorders occur late in life they suggest a hereditary predisposition. Researchers also suggest that these disorders are the result of early childhood experiences with an authoritarian family structure. According to other researchers, any person with a sensitive personality is particularly vulnerable to developing a delusional disorder.

Spacemonkey -

While that's a good question, my answer is that we can't diagnose a person solely on the basis of internet posts. Of course, davidm would cry out, "then why can you diagnose Vincent Van Gogh based upon his writings?" and my answer would be 1) that we diagnose him very tentatively, 2) part of that diagnosis is a product of psychological assessments done by professionals who knew him, and 3) we are able to look at the facts of his life in addition to his writings.

On the internet, we really don't know what motivates a person to post. People mis-represent themselves wildly, and sometimes over many years. We've seen instances of sexual predators who keep up a fake online persona for multiple years in order to pursue victims, for example.

I don't know what peacegirl's real persona is like in the real world. For all I know, peacegirl could be 5 different people posting on the same account.

So it would be impossible to make a professional diagnosis. And, contra to what davidM says, I have not ever done so on this forum or any other. I could even lose my license if I did so. I can only diagnose insofar as I am working in my capacity as a therapist. I also work as a teacher, and I've been asked about students' psychological difficulties by parents, and I am unable to give an assessment because I am not working for them in my capacity as a therapist.

I'm sorry if that answer seems evasive, but it's the honest truth.

Thank you for your reply, and I don't doubt it to be an honest one. But as you may notice from the bits I've put in bold above, what you've answered is not quite what I was asking. As I credit you with much greater reading comprehension than Peacegirl I'll assume the question I asked is not one you wished to answer.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**6353** 01-25-2012, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

ThreeLawsSafe, without offering any diagnosis, could you explain why it would be unreasonable to think that the following might be applicable here, given the evidence presented within these threads?:

Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikpedia

The following can indicate a delusion:

1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

If an online poster were to regularly display such indicators over a period of several years whilst giving every indication of being genuine and not a troll or poe, would it not be reasonable to think that this person might benefit from psychiatric treatment of some sort?

ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

When delusional disorders occur late in life they suggest a hereditary predisposition. Researchers also suggest that these disorders are the result of early childhood experiences with an authoritarian family structure. According to other researchers, any person with a sensitive personality is particularly vulnerable to developing a delusional disorder.

Spacemonkey -

While that's a good question, my answer is that we can't diagnose a person solely on the basis of internet posts. Of course, davidm would cry out, "then why can you diagnose Vincent Van Gogh based upon his writings?" and my answer would be 1) that we diagnose him very tentatively, 2) part of that diagnosis is a product of psychological assessments done by professionals who knew him, and 3) we are able to look at the facts of his life in addition to his writings.

On the internet, we really don't know what motivates a person to post. People mis-represent themselves wildly, and sometimes over many years. We've seen instances of sexual predators who keep up a fake online persona for multiple years in order to pursue victims, for example.

I don't know what peacegirl's real persona is like in the real world. For all I know, peacegirl could be 5 different people posting on the same account.

So it would be impossible to make a professional diagnosis. And, contra to what davidM says, I have not ever done so on this forum or any other. I could even lose my license if I did so. I can only diagnose insofar as I am working in my capacity as a therapist. I also work as a teacher, and I've been asked about students' psychological difficulties by parents, and I am unable to give an assessment because I am not working for them in my capacity as a therapist.

I'm sorry if that answer seems evasive, but it's the honest truth.

Thank you for your reply, and I don't doubt it to be an honest one. But as you may notice from the bits I've put in bold above, what you've answered is not quite what I was asking. As I credit you with much greater reading comprehension than Peacegirl I'll assume the question I asked is not one you wished to answer.

My answer is that one cannot diagnose a delusional disorder without knowing an actual person's history and behavior. All we have are internet postings. We cannot diagnose a real person's mental state based upon his or her virtual persona, for the reasons I state above.

I am, however, concerned over this person's postings just as much as you are. Especially if the same kinds of denials have been going on for a decade, as some people claim. That concerns me, though not so deeply as to feel the need for any kind of serious action. I don't see any real, immediate harm coming out of this behavior.

Spacemonkey · #**6354** 01-25-2012, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

My answer is that one cannot diagnose a delusional disorder without knowing an actual person's history and behavior. All we have are internet postings. We cannot diagnose a real person's mental state based upon his or her virtual persona, for the reasons I state above.

But that's still not what I'm asking. I'm not talking about diagnosis at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I am, however, concerned over this person's postings just as much as you are. Especially if the same kinds of denials have been going on for a decade, as some people claim. That concerns me, though not so deeply as to feel the need for any kind of serious action. I don't see any real, immediate harm coming out of this behavior.

Who mentioned harm? Don't you think she would be better off if she could find some way to just let all of this go?

thedoc · #**6355** 01-25-2012, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

15 people is an unusual number of people to be reading any single thread here at :ff:

at the same time, most were guests, too

Did someone link to us over at the BAUT forum?

I read the thread but don't remember seeing a link.

naturalist.atheist · #**6356** 01-25-2012, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When did you start giving a shit about fundies? Seriously N.A. I don't remember you sticking up for other types of True Believers.

She may be a fundie but she is unarmed. It's not sporting.

thedoc · #**6357** 01-25-2012, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

My answer is that one cannot diagnose a delusional disorder without knowing an actual person's history and behavior. All we have are internet postings. We cannot diagnose a real person's mental state based upon his or her virtual persona, for the reasons I state above.

But that's still not what I'm asking. I'm not talking about diagnosis at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I am, however, concerned over this person's postings just as much as you are. Especially if the same kinds of denials have been going on for a decade, as some people claim. That concerns me, though not so deeply as to feel the need for any kind of serious action. I don't see any real, immediate harm coming out of this behavior.

Who mentioned harm? Don't you think she would be better off if she could find some way to just let all of this go?

Assuming that what everyone is posting is either true or what they believe is true, I would have to agree with TLS that we really cannot diagnose Peacegirl or anyone else. We only have steril words on a screen, no tone of voice, no facial expression or body language, and no context that is outside the scope of the computer screen. Certainly what Peacegirl has posted casts doubts on her sanity and rationality, but as has been stated people can act convincingly when they try. Case in point the character Kelly Bundy was at the lower end of the intellictual scale, yet she was played by Christena Applegate who is in fact a relatively intelligent person. What we see on the screen of Peacegirl may be all there is and that would be troubling, but it may be just an act to get attention. Some of her replies appeared as if they could have been clever ploys to keep things going or genuine incompetence, there is no way to know for sure.

naturalist.atheist · #**6358** 01-25-2012, 04:08 AM

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity" - Heinlein (Logic of Empire)

Or in peacegirl's case, insanity.

Spacemonkey · #**6359** 01-25-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Assuming that what everyone is posting is either true or what they believe is true, I would have to agree with TLS that we really cannot diagnose Peacegirl or anyone else. We only have steril words on a screen, no tone of voice, no facial expression or body language, and no context that is outside the scope of the computer screen. Certainly what Peacegirl has posted casts doubts on her sanity and rationality, but as has been stated people can act convincingly when they try. Case in point the character Kelly Bundy was at the lower end of the intellictual scale, yet she was played by Christena Applegate who is in fact a relatively intelligent person. What we see on the screen of Peacegirl may be all there is and that would be troubling, but it may be just an act to get attention. Some of her replies appeared as if they could have been clever ploys to keep things going or genuine incompetence, there is no way to know for sure.

I don't know how much more strongly I can stress that I'm not saying we can make any online diagnosis here. Any such specific diagnosis would necessarily be speculative. And of course this could all be some elaborate decade-long hoax. I don't think that is at all likely, but it's not really relevant to my point.

I'm just saying that on the assumption that this is not a hoax, then even though no certain or accurate online diagnosis is possible, it is still reasonable for us to believe that something like a delusional disorder could well be involved, and that whatever her actual condition involves, it is reasonable for us to believe that she would probably benefit from some kind of treatment for it. Because if she is for real, then what she is doing is definitely neither normal nor healthy.

None of this requires any online diagnosis.

Angakuk · #**6360** 01-25-2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

mental dysfunctinos

Are those discrete particles of crazy? Can they be measured? What are their properties?

But · #**6361** 01-25-2012, 08:27 AM

All I can say is they are always there, ready to smile at me in the morning.

Spacemonkey · #**6362** 01-25-2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

mental dysfunctinos

Are those discrete particles of crazy? Can they be measured? What are their properties?

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

All I can say is they are always there, ready to smile at me in the morning.

With plenty of spin but rarely any charm.

Angakuk · #**6363** 01-25-2012, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to efferent vision, the full visible spectrum stays intact even when it bounces off of objects. But, of course, until it's proven that efferent vision is true, anything that depends on efferent vision for its validity, will also be suspect.

It is clear that Lessans' efferent vision requires that light behave differently than is stipulated by current theory so you have to postulate some new property of light that will allow efferent vision to work. However, absent empirical evidence for this previously unknown property of light, the property itself is purely speculative. You cannot use a speculative property of light to defend your claims about efferent vision. That is like trying to prove a maybe with a maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I trust that you do realize that the object does not actually get smaller. It just appears to be smaller.

Of course. That's why I said it depends on the location of the observer. If they're closer to the object than someone else, it will obviously appear bigger in comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Given that the actual object remains the same size, regardless of its distance from the film/retina, is there any reason to suppose that the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object changes? If the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object does not change, and they do not have to travel in order to interact with the film/retina why, according to efferent vision, should there be fewer photons interacting with the film/retina simply because the object is further away?

Yes, there would be less photons interacting with the film/retina. Optics explains this very clearly, and it supports Lessans' claim. Remember, when the lens of the film/camera focuses on the object, it will be an exact mirror image on the film/retina regardless of how small or large the object is in relation to the observer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In other words, if, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor with regard to efferent vision, just so long as the object is visible, then why should the distance of the obect from the film/retina affect the number of photons interacting with the film/retina? For that matter, why, according to efferent vision, should it be the case that the further away the object is the smaller it appears to be?

This has to do with optics. The further away an object is from the film/retina, the less photons are interacting with it. No surprise here. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor in efferent vision, then the mirror image you are talking about should be an exact duplicate of the object itself, as it actually exists. That means that the mirror image should be the same size as the actual object. The apparent size of the object would be irrelevant. In fact, if, according to efferent vision, what we are seeing is the actual object then we should see it in its actual dimensions. There should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size. The difference between actual size and apparent size only exists because distance is a factor and distance is factor because the light from the object has to travel across that distance. According to efferent vision the light does not have to travel and so distance is not a factor. Therefore, there should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you understand efferent vision, then what you get is a true mirror image no matter how far away that object is from the lens. All that's required is that the lens, focusing on the screen of the external world, will get that same image on film instantly because the object and light are one and the same.

If the object and the light are the one and same, then that means that the object itself is present at the film/retina. That means (as I believe davidm pointed out a lifetime ago) that when you look at the sun the sun is physically present in your eye. Ignore, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of that being the case. This also means that if two people are looking at the sun at the same time that each of them has the same sun physically present in their eyes. The means that the sun is in at least three different places at the same time. It occupies space in the galaxy, space in your eye and space the second person's eye. That is remarkable, to put it mildly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is coming from an object...

You can stop right there. The phrase "light is coming from an object" implies that light is traveling away from away from the object, something you have repeatedly claimed is not necessary for efferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Except, of course, the substantial portions that you did write.

No Angakuk, I did not make this discovery, okay? I only added examples where I felt it would clarify the concept, but in no way, shape, or form did I make changes to the original concepts. That would not be good stewardship, and that was my biggest worry as I was compiling his 7 books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How is that not an example of you having written some substantial portion of the book?

I wouldn't say that. The majority of the book was written by Lessans. Why do I sense hostility in you Angakuk?

I never said that you wrote the majority of the book, only that you are responsible for substantial portions of the book. Why do you persist in trying to deny this?

As for why you are sensing hostility, I couldn't possibly say.

Vivisectus · #**6364** 01-25-2012, 11:38 AM

Oh come now. Peacegirl is nuts on the colloquial sense, as she has some rather bizarre beliefs, but that does not make her insane. I regularly talk to people who believe the earth was made 6000 years ago, and that it was made to LOOK 4 billion years old!

Crazy right? But not too crazy to get 2 terms as president of the USA, apparently.

Sure, she is a fanatic adherent of these ideas, and the chances of convincing her are zilch as she will always retro-fit her fathers nonsense into reality in any way she can. So if you are here to win the argument you are wasting your time. It is merely an interesting example of someone who warps reality in any way she can so she can hold on to an idea that she embraces for emotional reasons. She gets to feel that it is at least being discussed, we get to see the strange irrational capers that she pulls to escape all logical argument.

peacegirl · #**6365** 01-25-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's in keeping with afferent vision too. For some reason you keep bringing it up like this is an unexplained aspect in optics, or like it somehow isn't compatible with the standard model of vision. So, now what?

This has not been cleared up by any means. No one has answered the question as to why light alone never brings an image to our eyes when the object itself is not in range. This is exactly what Lessans claimed: That an object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen.

peacegirl, they haven't answered the question because it is a crazy question. Everyone knows, not thinks, they know that images form from light alone. And they have told you this hundreds of times, but because you are crazy you are completely unable to process this. Your delusions won't let you.

Actually that WAS answered. The answer is: that happens all the time, but you do not notice it much, since even the moon is only about a light-second and a half away.

We watch supernovas that are long gone. And we KNOW they are long gone, because we do not just detect the light of a supernova event: we detect neutrinos as well, roughly in the same timeframe, despite the fact that the supernova is many thousands of lightyears away.

This has been well-covered, but Peacegirl just conveniently forgets it at random intervals.

Detecting (N) light (or neutrinos) from a supernova event, and seeing images of a past event such that we would see Columbus discovering America if we were on a star and a telescope happened to detect this light, are two different animals.

How? Do the neutrinos magically travel too? The event of us seeing the supernova and the detection of the neutrinos happen close to each other, while the supernova is at LEAST several lightyears away. We know that, because we have not in fact burnt to a crisp.

What SHOULD happen is that we see the supernova in 1980, and then receive the neutrinos in 2010, for a supernova that happened 30 light-years away... which is too close for comfort.

what happens is that we see huge supernovas, and receive the neutrinos in the same year!

If efferent vision were correct, this should mean that the supernova was only 1 lightyear away.

Do you realize that for efferent vision to be true, we would need to go back to an earth-centric universe?

Not at all. We are detecting (N) light which Lessans was not disputing when he said that (N) light travels at 186,000 miles per second. The only thing Lessans was disputing was that (P) light is not the same as (N) light, therefore in order to see the object (or any screen of the external world since everything on that screen has properties of absorption and (P) reflection), we are seeing that screen in real time DUE TO EFFERENT VISION. Please read this again:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-120

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away.

peacegirl · #**6366** 01-25-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh come now. Peacegirl is nuts on the colloquial sense, as she has some rather bizarre beliefs, but that does not make her insane. I regularly talk to people who believe the earth was made 6000 years ago, and that it was made to LOOK 4 billion years old!

Crazy right? But not too crazy to get 2 terms as president of the USA, apparently.

Sure, she is a fanatic adherent of these ideas, and the chances of convincing her are zilch as she will always retro-fit her fathers nonsense into reality in any way she can. So if you are here to win the argument you are wasting your time. It is merely an interesting example of someone who warps reality in any way she can so she can hold on to an idea that she embraces for emotional reasons. She gets to feel that it is at least being discussed, we get to see the strange irrational capers that she pulls to escape all logical argument.

I'm very disappointed if after all of this discussion you think I'm being illogical just because I'm emotionally attached to these principles and that this thread is being used for reasons that were never intended (i.e., to show people how stubborn someone with strong ideas can be), which presupposes they are automatically wrong because of this stubbornness, and turns them into an irrational fundamentalist. It's extremely disheartening.

LadyShea · #**6367** 01-25-2012, 12:57 PM

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light is intersecting with the film. Obviously, light is not intersecting with the film where there is darkness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Intersecting" where? The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is. As long as the lens is focused on the Sun, the light that produces the mirror image on the film is intersecting with the film.

Define intersecting, and explain how focusing lenses can bring 2 physical objects separated by 93 million miles to the same physical place in space without anything traveling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is LadyShea, .

There are physical photons on Earth at the camera film 93 million miles away from the Sun where the photons also are, but they did not travel to get there, nor come into duplicate physical existence ? How on Earth is that possible?

How can you shake my hand from 93 million miles away?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Film photography requires actual photons of light to be physically absorbed by the camera film which requires they be in the exact same physical location of space

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that's what is happening. There is a physical interaction as long as the lens is focused on the object since the mirror image will be at the film instantly.

Focusing lenses cannot fold space or create a wormhole allowing a photon to physically touch the atoms in camera film 93 million miles away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally Where does this "mirror image" physically exist in space and how do the photons get to the physical location of this mirror image?

I answered both of these. The mirror image is at the film or retina. It is the back of the imaginary coin. There's no "in between" or traversing any distance. It's there at the film the instant a snapshot is taken.

Then the mirror image you are positing is a second full physical universe with duplicated atoms of matter that can be physically interacted with.

Is that REALLY what you think is happening in our retina and on camera film? A whole other dimension of space comes into existence in our eyeball or a camera by the act of looking?

There is a physical distance between the sun and the camera film. Any negating of that distance must also be a physical process because the same location is a physical place.

peacegirl · #**6368** 01-25-2012, 01:00 PM

This is completely off topic, but I love this poem by a Jewish guy who is proud of his identity and sharing it in a monologue that I was riveted by. I am not religious at all, and I believe religion is eventually going to fade out, but on a couple of atheist websites there was a standing joke as to Jewish traditions. This poem answers to that mockery.

LadyShea · #**6369** 01-25-2012, 01:02 PM

Do you understand that matter is made up of atoms and molecules, and that these atoms and molecules are what cause light to be absorbed? Is the mirror image in our eyes and on film also made up of atoms and molecules?

If yes, that means actual physical miniature versions of what we see come into duplicate existence in our eyes.

If not, then the photons from the sun cannot interact with the atoms and molecules in camera film via the mirror image you are positing.

That physical interaction is required to get a photographic image on camera film. The atoms must touch the photons.

peacegirl · #**6370** 01-25-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you understand that matter is made up of atoms and molecules, and that these atoms and molecules are what cause light to be absorbed? Is the mirror image in our eyes and on film also made up of atoms and molecules?

Of course not. The film/retina interacts with photons, period. But in order to receive this mirror image, it requires an object to absorb certain wavelengths through its particular configuration of atoms and molecules. From this property, it is able to reveal itself to us by (P) reflecting the non-absorbed wavelengths. But remember, we can only see the object or get a photograph when the lens of the film/retina is focused directly on the object. We never receive the image from light itself without the object being present in some form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If yes, that means actual physical miniature versions of what we see come into duplicate existence in our eyes.

How can it be duplicate (which indicates A moving to B) when there is no travel time in a mirror image?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If not, then the photons from the sun cannot interact with the atoms and molecules in camera film via the mirror image you are positing.

That physical interaction is required to get a photographic image on camera film. The atoms must touch the photons.

I know that LadyShea, and they do touch the photons. The reason for this, which you seem to be forgetting, is that if efferent vision is true, the object must be in range, and due to this phenomenon, we're not just detecting light. The lens MUST be focusing on the object to get the mirror image. The mirror image (or light that is at the film) is the opposite side of the imaginary coin. But if you don't understand that the space from the film to the lighted object does not have to travel 93 million miles, then you are missing the most important aspect of all of this: EFFERENT VISION. Without this understanding, you will continue to go back to "how can light interact with film if the light hasn't traveled to the film, which takes time, and is therefore delayed?"

specious_reasons · #**6371** 01-25-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm very disappointed if after all of this discussion you think I'm being illogical just because I'm emotionally attached to these principles and that this thread is being used for reasons that were never intended (i.e., to show people how stubborn someone with strong ideas can be), which presupposes they are automatically wrong because of this stubbornness, and turns them into an irrational fundamentalist. It's all very hurtful.

No, we think you're being illogical because you refuse to accept the evidence that Lessans' ideas are false.

The strong emotional attachment is simply the reason why you refuse to let the ideas go, even the ones that are unnecessary to Lessans' larger philosophy, like his ideas on vision.

thedoc · #**6372** 01-25-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't know how much more strongly I can stress that I'm not saying we can make any online diagnosis here. Any such specific diagnosis would necessarily be speculative. And of course this could all be some elaborate decade-long hoax. I don't think that is at all likely, but it's not really relevant to my point.

I'm just saying that on the assumption that this is not a hoax, then even though no certain or accurate online diagnosis is possible, it is still reasonable for us to believe that something like a delusional disorder could well be involved, and that whatever her actual condition involves, it is reasonable for us to believe that she would probably benefit from some kind of treatment for it. Because if she is for real, then what she is doing is definitely neither normal nor healthy.

None of this requires any online diagnosis.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, I was just trying to point out the limits of potential knowledge of others online. It is also valid for any of us to form an opinion and in this forum it is acceptable to express that opinion.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**6373** 01-25-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Assuming that what everyone is posting is either true or what they believe is true, I would have to agree with TLS that we really cannot diagnose Peacegirl or anyone else. We only have steril words on a screen, no tone of voice, no facial expression or body language, and no context that is outside the scope of the computer screen. Certainly what Peacegirl has posted casts doubts on her sanity and rationality, but as has been stated people can act convincingly when they try. Case in point the character Kelly Bundy was at the lower end of the intellictual scale, yet she was played by Christena Applegate who is in fact a relatively intelligent person. What we see on the screen of Peacegirl may be all there is and that would be troubling, but it may be just an act to get attention. Some of her replies appeared as if they could have been clever ploys to keep things going or genuine incompetence, there is no way to know for sure.

I don't know how much more strongly I can stress that I'm not saying we can make any online diagnosis here. Any such specific diagnosis would necessarily be speculative. And of course this could all be some elaborate decade-long hoax. I don't think that is at all likely, but it's not really relevant to my point.

I'm just saying that on the assumption that this is not a hoax, then even though no certain or accurate online diagnosis is possible, it is still reasonable for us to believe that something like a delusional disorder could well be involved, and that whatever her actual condition involves, it is reasonable for us to believe that she would probably benefit from some kind of treatment for it. Because if she is for real, then what she is doing is definitely neither normal nor healthy.

None of this requires any online diagnosis.

You're playing semantics, SpaceMonkey. You're asking, "does this behavior constitute 'something like' a delusional disorder". Sir, that is asking for a diagnosis. There's functionally no difference.

peacegirl · #**6374** 01-25-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm very disappointed if after all of this discussion you think I'm being illogical just because I'm emotionally attached to these principles and that this thread is being used for reasons that were never intended (i.e., to show people how stubborn someone with strong ideas can be), which presupposes they are automatically wrong because of this stubbornness, and turns them into an irrational fundamentalist. It's extremely disheartening.

No, we think you're being illogical because you refuse to accept the evidence that Lessans' ideas are false.

The strong emotional attachment is simply the reason why you refuse to let the ideas go, even the ones that are unnecessary to Lessans' larger philosophy, like his ideas on vision.

But whether they are necessary in your opinion, or not, I cannot simply dismiss his insights because they bother you.

peacegirl · #**6375** 01-25-2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to efferent vision, the full visible spectrum stays intact even when it bounces off of objects. But, of course, until it's proven that efferent vision is true, anything that depends on efferent vision for its validity, will also be suspect.

It is clear that Lessans' efferent vision requires that light behave differently than is stipulated by current theory so you have to postulate some new property of light that will allow efferent vision to work. However, absent empirical evidence for this previously unknown property of light, the property itself is purely speculative. You cannot use a speculative property of light to defend your claims about efferent vision. That is like trying to prove a maybe with a maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I trust that you do realize that the object does not actually get smaller. It just appears to be smaller.

Of course. That's why I said it depends on the location of the observer. If they're closer to the object than someone else, it will obviously appear bigger in comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Given that the actual object remains the same size, regardless of its distance from the film/retina, is there any reason to suppose that the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object changes? If the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object does not change, and they do not have to travel in order to interact with the film/retina why, according to efferent vision, should there be fewer photons interacting with the film/retina simply because the object is further away?

Yes, there would be less photons interacting with the film/retina. Optics explains this very clearly, and it supports Lessans' claim. Remember, when the lens of the film/camera focuses on the object, it will be an exact mirror image on the film/retina regardless of how small or large the object is in relation to the observer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In other words, if, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor with regard to efferent vision, just so long as the object is visible, then why should the distance of the obect from the film/retina affect the number of photons interacting with the film/retina? For that matter, why, according to efferent vision, should it be the case that the further away the object is the smaller it appears to be?

This has to do with optics. The further away an object is from the film/retina, the less photons are interacting with it. No surprise here. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor in efferent vision, then the mirror image you are talking about should be an exact duplicate of the object itself, as it actually exists. That means that the mirror image should be the same size as the actual object. The apparent size of the object would be irrelevant. In fact, if, according to efferent vision, what we are seeing is the actual object then we should see it in its actual dimensions. There should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size. The difference between actual size and apparent size only exists because distance is a factor and distance is factor because the light from the object has to travel across that distance. According to efferent vision the light does not have to travel and so distance is not a factor. Therefore, there should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you understand efferent vision, then what you get is a true mirror image no matter how far away that object is from the lens. All that's required is that the lens, focusing on the screen of the external world, will get that same image on film instantly because the object and light are one and the same.

If the object and the light are the one and same, then that means that the object itself is present at the film/retina. That means (as I believe davidm pointed out a lifetime ago) that when you look at the sun the sun is physically present in your eye. Ignore, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of that being the case. This also means that if two people are looking at the sun at the same time that each of them has the same sun physically present in their eyes. The means that the sun is in at least three different places at the same time. It occupies space in the galaxy, space in your eye and space the second person's eye. That is remarkable, to put it mildly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is coming from an object...

You can stop right there. The phrase "light is coming from an object" implies that light is traveling away from away from the object, something you have repeatedly claimed is not necessary for efferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Except, of course, the substantial portions that you did write.

No Angakuk, I did not make this discovery, okay? I only added examples where I felt it would clarify the concept, but in no way, shape, or form did I make changes to the original concepts. That would not be good stewardship, and that was my biggest worry as I was compiling his 7 books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How is that not an example of you having written some substantial portion of the book?

I wouldn't say that. The majority of the book was written by Lessans. Why do I sense hostility in you Angakuk?

I never said that you wrote the majority of the book, only that you are responsible for substantial portions of the book. Why do you persist in trying to deny this?

As for why you are sensing hostility, I couldn't possibly say.

Look back at your responses. I don't think this is coming from my sensitivity. You seem to be getting angrier, for what reason I don't know. I hope you listen to what I'm saying (which no one seems to care about) because you have stuck with me this long. At the very least you could give me the same respect you always have.