A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't care what you call it LadyShea, you are obviously biased, and therefore these observations by Lessans will never sit right with you since you are convinced that there is no way that we can see the Sun as it explodes in real time, which is the very thing that science can't handle. Do you see the catch 22 here, or don't you? I suggest letting somebody else take the floor.

Science can't handle it because it's wrong, you dope!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Little imbecile, yet another lacuane in your knowledge: Precise mathematical calculations must be carried out to send craft to Mars. There is no wiggle room in math! If we sent the craft to Mars based on real-time seeing, it would miss the target badly!

God, you are such a disgusting little liar. You're not so stupid that you can't understand these simple points. You are just a disgustingly dishonest person.

I want people to know that I cannot talk to someone this angry. He is filled with ad hominem attacks and he doesn't even see it. He is so filled with frustration, attacking me is his last resort. I see it so clearly, and I am refusing to answer anyone who is using these tactics. Please be aware of this so you won't be wondering as to why I'm not responding.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you see the pattern everyone? The second he feels trapped, he resorts to ad hominems, and he thinks no one notices.

Hey peacegirl:

When NASA sends a spacecraft to Mars, they know that the little red speck in the night sky labeled "Mars" is where Mars used to be, not where it actually is. That is to say, its apparent location is not the same as its actual location. In order to send a spacecraft to Mars, they have to set the trajectory for where Mars ACTUALLY IS, which is not where they see it in the sky.

And so real-time seeing is proved to be false. Do you think your transparent dishonesty in scuttling away from this disproof of Lessans is not noticed?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want people to know that I cannot talk to someone this angry. He is filled with ad hominem attacks and he doesn't even see it. He is so filled with frustration, attacking me is his last resort. I see it so clearly, and I am refusing to answer anyone who is using these tactics. Please be aware of this so you won't be wondering as to why I'm not responding.

I'm not angry at all. Like the Lone Ranger, I'm offended. There is a difference. People are offended by your dishonesty.

The reason you're not responding is because you have no answer.

If you don't want to respond to me on the question about how NASA sends spacecraft to Mars, I invite LadyShea and Spacemonkey to keep asking you the very same question, over and over, until you confront reality.

Oh, and did you look at your thread at the BAUT Forum?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want people to know that I cannot talk to someone this angry. He is filled with ad hominem attacks and he doesn't even see it. He is so filled with frustration, attacking me is his last resort. I see it so clearly, and I am refusing to answer anyone who is using these tactics. Please be aware of this so you won't be wondering as to why I'm not responding.

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm not angry at all. Like the Lone Ranger, I'm offended. There is a difference. People are offended by your dishonesty.

The reason you're not responding is because you have no answer.

If you don't want to respond to me on the question about how NASA sends spacecraft to Mars, I invite LadyShea and Spacemonkey to keep asking you the very same question, over and over, until you confront reality.

Oh, and did you look at your thread at the BAUT Forum?

You are a very offended guy because your worldview depends on delayed vision. I can understand why you're fuming, but all of your anger does not wipe out Lessans' claims as you believe. I did look at the BAUT forum and I told you this. So why are you now asking me if I went there? You are not fooling me by your innocent ignorance. I told you that we cannot find our answers in outer space unless they are inferences based on premises that could be wrong. We have to be able to manipulate the variables to get a conclusive result. Why aren't you listening David?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I do know what it means, and you are, once again, trying to deflect the truth. I will stand up against this nonsense.

If you did you would see that it makes no sense. A mirror image is a term that only has meaning in conventional optics. It is meaningless in the framework of efferent sight, as a mirror image is what happens when light is reflected off a surface, creating the illusion that the objects behind the observer are behind the mirror.

Unless you can deliver a mechanism by which mirror images work in efferent sight (you already admitted you just do not know by the way) and can then show how this same mechanism is at work in regular efferent sight where no mirrors are involved at all, the term "Mirror Image" is a piece of meaningless waffle you regurgitate every now because you think it sounds good.

Why do you never actually stop to examine anything?

I will say for the thousandth time that this is why science never saw the truth. I'm not blaming science but it was hidden behind the premise that information is in the light itself. All you're doing is going back to the old premise, and I can't win if that's what you're doing, but this does not make Lessans wrong.

This has nothing to do with light. In your model, nothing travels, and the sun being switched on instantly has an effect on the eyes. This contradicts causality.

One of the reasons this book will always be laughed at is that Lessans was completely unaware of this, and nevertheless felt perfectly entitled to make broad, sweeping statements about it.

Oh shut up already and stop using ad hominems to discredit this work when you have nothing else to lean on.

The facts remain the facts: in your model the sun causes an effect in the eyes without anything travelling between the two. That is the very definition of something that contradicts causality.

And I am genuinely surprised that you would be able to make it through any sort of formal education if you have this much difficulty understanding new concepts, even if they are carefully explained. Perhaps it is merely that you display wilful ignorance when it suits you, and that you are dishonest rather than stupid. But it has to be one or the other.

You're so confused I can't work with you. I'll have to stick with certain people who are a little open minded. That way you may glean the information from them. I'm sorry to say that a direct conversation with you will only lead to results that reflect (no pun intended) your truth, not reality.

Once again you are simply unable to admit you are wrong, despite not being able to refute what I say. The fact remains that the book is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with reality.

In order to hang on to your belief, you need to avoid this particular discussion, which very clearly shows that it is wrong. Since you cannot refute the fact that it IS wrong, you deal with it by claiming bias, even though you cannot show where my reasoning is flawed.

Bias does not work that way: Bias leads to an illogical statement. You can point to an illogical statement, and then say that a person made that mistake because of bias. You cannot simply dismiss a statement and claim it is biased: you must ALSO show why it is illogical or unrealistic. You can do neither.

[LadyShea]

We have to be able to manipulate the variables to get a conclusive result.

You don't think calculating trajectories and positions in order to land a spacecraft on a specific spot on another planet is manipulating variables?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you did you would see that it makes no sense. A mirror image is a term that only has meaning in conventional optics. It is meaningless in the framework of efferent sight, as a mirror image is what happens when light is reflected off a surface, creating the illusion that the objects behind the observer are behind the mirror.

Unless you can deliver a mechanism by which mirror images work in efferent sight (you already admitted you just do not know by the way) and can then show how this same mechanism is at work in regular efferent sight where no mirrors are involved at all, the term "Mirror Image" is a piece of meaningless waffle you regurgitate every now because you think it sounds good.

Why do you never actually stop to examine anything?

This has nothing to do with light. In your model, nothing travels, and the sun being switched on instantly has an effect on the eyes. This contradicts causality.

One of the reasons this book will always be laughed at is that Lessans was completely unaware of this, and nevertheless felt perfectly entitled to make broad, sweeping statements about it.

The facts remain the facts: in your model the sun causes an effect in the eyes without anything travelling between the two. That is the very definition of something that contradicts causality.

And I am genuinely surprised that you would be able to make it through any sort of formal education if you have this much difficulty understanding new concepts, even if they are carefully explained. Perhaps it is merely that you display wilful ignorance when it suits you, and that you are dishonest rather than stupid. But it has to be one or the other.

Once again you are simply unable to admit you are wrong, despite not being able to refute what I say. The fact remains that the book is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with reality.

In order to hang on to your belief, you need to avoid this particular discussion, which very clearly shows that it is wrong. Since you cannot refute the fact that it IS wrong, you deal with it by claiming bias, even though you cannot show where my reasoning is flawed.

Bias does not work that way: Bias leads to an illogical statement. You can point to an illogical statement, and then say that a person made that mistake because of bias. You cannot simply dismiss a statement and claim it is biased: you must ALSO show why it is illogical or unrealistic. You can do neither.

I will say it again: Unless you understand why the brain, looking through the eyes, ALLOWS THIS PHENOMENON, we are at odds. I CANNOT KEEP THIS CONVERSATION GOING WHEN ALL I GET ARE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AS A RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO GRASP THE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT VISION WHICH I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE TIME.

[LadyShea]

You've yet to offer a mechanism. You've only asserted that efferent vision allows for efferent vision.

Do you understand what a mechanism is? You don't seem to understand the words explain or model, should we add mechanism to the list of words you can't define?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't think calculating trajectories and positions in order to land a spacecraft on a specific spot on another planet is manipulating variables?

LadyShea, I've already told you that there could be a inadvertant adjustment made due to an original miscalculation. You cannot use this as absolute 100% proof even if the evidence appears airtight as is the case when prosecutors give their version of what took place at a crime scene, which looks like a slam dunk but it turns out not to be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've yet to offer a mechanism. You've only asserted that efferent vision allows for efferent vision.

Do you understand what a mechanism is? You don't seem to understand the words explain or model, should we add mechanism to the list of words you can't define?

You have to be kidding LadyShea. I have said all along that the mechanism is in the brain. Yes, it's true, that we have to verify through empirical testing that efferent vision is, in fact, true, but I'm just showing, at this point, that it is a plausible model.

[LadyShea]

Then you have yet to answer how the photons GET THERE to the film to touch the atoms in the matter that makes up camera film.

Until you can answer this, you are talking nonsense.

How can the photons be absorbed by the atoms in camera film on Earth AT NOON, if the photons are at the newly ignited Sun AT NOON and therefore no photons have arrived on Earth. There must be a physical process (aka MECHANISM) of some kind involved for that to happen. What is it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in order to receive this mirror image, it requires an object to absorb certain wavelengths through its particular configuration of atoms and molecules.

I have been using the same example, of Lessans, for weeks. The newly ignited sun at noon, camera film on Earth at noon.

The only object is the camera film on Earth. The only photons are from the newly ignited sun 93 million miles away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

If the mirror image is not duplicated physical matter consisting of atoms it cannot be interacted with by photons. You can't shake hands with a mirror image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that LadyShea, and they do touch the photons.

HOW? How do the photons and camera film come to share the same physical location?

This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

You're the camera film on Earth at noon, I am the photon at the just ignited Sun at noon. How can we shake hands?

You have yet to answer my very clear and precise questions regarding physical interactions between photons at the newly ignited Sun simultaneously touching camera film on Earth.

You keep forgetting that it is no different than two people shaking hands. They must physically exist in the same location in order to touch.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A focused lens and the reality of efferent vision (which is key and can be empirically proven), produces real time vision.

I am asking about photographing the sun at noon when it was turned on at noon and therefore according to Lessans, the photons have not arrived on Earth to touch the camera film.


This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I've already told you that there could be a inadvertant adjustment made due to an original miscalculation. You cannot use this as absolute 100% proof even if the evidence appears airtight as is the case when prosecutors give their version of what took place at a crime scene, which looked like a slam dunk but it turned out not to be.

Math is not court. Math is precise, human behavior and judgment is not. Landing spacecraft on Mars is an objective piece of hard evidence that the calculations were correct, a lawyers imagined possible version of what happened at a crime scene is subjective and might or might not be factual.

What kind of inadvertent adjustments do you think might be possible in that level and detail of mathematical calculations?

You don't even understand the math, yet think you have justification in talking about possible mysterious hidden correcting calculations

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to be kidding LadyShea. I have said all along that the mechanism is in the brain. Yes, it's true, that we have to verify through empirical testing that efferent vision is, in fact, true, but I'm just showing, at this point, that it is a plausible model.

Cameras don't have brains, and you've repeatedly claimed the mechanism is the same for photography as it is for vision.

Explain the mechanism for photography, where there is no brain to be factored in, to demonstrate you have an actual physical process in mind that explains things.

[LadyShea]

You live with magical thinking, peacegirl. You don't see the differences between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence, between data and opinion, between assertion and explanation, nor do you seem to understand that processes require a series of causes and effects.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.

No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and did you look at your thread at the BAUT Forum?

Davidm, you are determined to spread this contagion to a new board??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you have yet to answer how the photons GET THERE to the film to touch the atoms in the matter that makes up camera film.

Until you can answer this, you are talking nonsense.

How can the photons be absorbed by the atoms in camera film on Earth AT NOON, if the photons are at the newly ignited Sun AT NOON and therefore no photons have arrived on Earth. There must be a physical process (aka MECHANISM) of some kind involved for that to happen. What is it?

I have been using the same example, of Lessans, for weeks. The newly ignited sun at noon, camera film on Earth at noon.

The only object is the camera film on Earth. The only photons are from the newly ignited sun 93 million miles away.

If the mirror image is not duplicated physical matter consisting of atoms it cannot be interacted with by photons. You can't shake hands with a mirror image.

HOW? How do the photons and camera film come to share the same physical location?

This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

You're the camera film on Earth at noon, I am the photon at the just ignited Sun at noon. How can we shake hands?

You have yet to answer my very clear and precise questions regarding physical interactions between photons at the newly ignited Sun simultaneously touching camera film on Earth.

You keep forgetting that it is no different than two people shaking hands. They must physically exist in the same location in order to touch.

I am asking about photographing the sun at noon when it was turned on at noon and therefore according to Lessans, the photons have not arrived on Earth to touch the camera film.


This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

LadyShea, you are totally failing to understand the mechanism behind efferent vision. If you're looking at something that is the opposite side of the same object, can you at least agree that the image you're seeing (although the other side) is one and the same? Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?

I'm sorry but you've made too many sarcastic remarks, so you'll have to ask me again tomorrow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You live with magical thinking, peacegirl. You don't see the differences between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence, between data and opinion, between assertion and explanation, nor do you seem to understand that processes require a series of causes and effects.

Of course you would say that coming from your position, but have you ever considered for one second that my data is correct, that this is not an assertion, and that this does not violate cause and effect? Of course you haven't because it conflicts with your [mistaken] model of how life works.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see the catch 22 here, or don't you?

The catch-22 here is that no matter what anyone says, no matter how well documented it is, no matter how easily repeatable, no matter how certain, it will never be enough to indicate that there even could be something wrong with the way Lessans described things.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are totally failing to understand the mechanism behind efferent vision. If you're looking at something that is the opposite side of the same object, can you at least agree that the image you're seeing (although the other side) is one and the same? Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

I understand the words you are posting, but you are saying that when we look at an object we are seeing the opposite side (the other side) of that object. Is that what you ment to say? Is this what you ment by a 'Mirror image'? It does not make sense to say that we see the other side (far side, the side away from you) of the object, that side is not in view, only the near side should be seen?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say it again: Unless you understand why the brain, looking through the eyes, ALLOWS THIS PHENOMENON, we are at odds. I CANNOT KEEP THIS CONVERSATION GOING WHEN ALL I GET ARE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AS A RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO GRASP THE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT VISION WHICH I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE TIME.

LOL

Unless you understand why the brain, looking through the eyes, ALLOWS THIS PHENOMENON

You still do not understand that it makes no difference if I believe in direct, instant sight or not.

If direct sight occurs, then by definition causality no longer holds, and Lessans version of determinism is invalid. Well, more invalid, as it is already pretty much a fallacy-sundea.

Either direct sight can be true, or any version of determinism. They cannot both be true, as they contradict one another, as I have painstakingly explained.

You can throw hissy-fits all you want, but that remains a fact, whether you run away from the point while hysterically crying about ad hominem attacks or not.

Either refute my point or admit you are wrong. These are your only honest and honourable options. Let's see how honest you really are?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truth is found in a situation where the variables can be manipulated, not inferred.

Then in that case i can see that you have been very "truthful".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but you've made too many sarcastic remarks, so you'll have to ask me again tomorrow.

Sorry, but I didn't think it would take you that long to come up with an answer.