A revolution in thought - Page 710

LadyShea · #**17726** 05-29-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm's link

The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to tests its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the ‘respectable thinker’ from the crank. The original content of his theory does not.

There you have it, peacegirl

davidm · #**17727** 05-29-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm's link

The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to tests its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the ‘respectable thinker’ from the crank. The original content of his theory does not.

There you have it, peacegirl

This passage is certainly the take-home point for peacegirl in this context, but more broadly it should be noted that Feyerabend had very rebellious opinions against science and scientists, whom he scorned as "human ants" in his essay, On Epistemological Anarchism. Fundamentally, Mr. F was a dadaist. More power to him, I say. :yup:

Not that I necessarily agree with him, at least not totally, though I find parts of his arguments to be very good.

thedoc · #**17728** 05-29-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word you are looking for thedoc is "inspired".

I believe that Lessans claimed to have been 'inspired', do you dare to think that you are on the same level as the great pool hustler and part time savior of the world.

Not at all. My pool game is well below that of even the average pool hustler. On the other hand, I am probably at least as effective as Lessans at saving the world.

Yes, but you are doing it 'Full Time' and not as a joke.

What? I'm a preacher. Don't you know that we only work one day week? You call that full time?

I had a relative of mine applying for a job and he was going to be on salary, when he asked about the hours, they replied that they would like him to put in 8 hours, to which he replied, "Oh I'll put in 8 hours, even if it takes me all week." He got the job anyhow. For some people, actually working one day a week, is all they can manage, and all the work they have in them.

BTW, one sunday I asked "Does God have a sense of humor?" I got some interesting responses, apparently the members of my church think God does.

Spacemonkey · #**17729** 05-29-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

LadyShea · #**17730** 05-29-2012, 10:07 PM

Go ahead with your evidence link, Spacemonkey.

peacegirl · #**17731** 05-29-2012, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong.

I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks that the things Lessans says are wrong just because he said them. Rather, they think the things he says are wrong because they are wrong.

But it's gotten to the point where the minute I say Lessans said something, they react impulsively, without batting an eye.

Another unsupported claim. You have no way of knowing how much thought someone has put into a post.

I didn't say people put no effort into responding, but their response is faulty, and the reason it is partly faulty is based on all of the previous posts. You cannot tell me that this thread is unbiased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Quote:

Yes, if she was truly pointing out a flaw in the premises, but she's doing no such thing. LadyShea is bringing up trivialities which have nothing to do with the major concepts. She is so anal, she thinks that the things she is pointing out actually negate the entire book. I'm sure she's gloating with pride at what a wonderful sleuth she is, and how her imagined red flags actually mean anything. :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans' mistakes, even the small ones, inasmuch as they reflect on his competence and credibility, are anything but trivial. Molecules of light, trillions of babies, etc. all provide reasons for questioning that competence and credibility.

That was exactly the motivation of LadyShea, and obviously she has convinced you, like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis. She is out to prove that these small trivialities invalidate his claims. It's nuttier than the fundamentalists who are trying in their own way to prove their case. She is no different than a fundie, but do you think she sees this? Of course not. No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

This is another example of your delusional thinking, and a mistake (or deliberate lie) you repeat over and over. Nobody here convinced anyone else to dismiss Lessans. We all independently evaluated the work and arrived at the same conclusion. His claims are WRONG. They conflict decisively with reality. It is REALITY that convinced us. Everyone here knows this, and arrived at their conclusions about Lessans' claims independently, because everyone here is educated, unlike you and Lessans. Now, care to take another whack at explaining Mars and NASA? No, huh? :pat:

That's not true. Until there is further experimentation, your independent evaluation is anything but objective. What I am experiencing is a gang of people who have banded together in the name of science, and to throw out any dissenters.

What further experimentation needs to be done? Delayed-time seeing, and all its implications, have been empirically demonstrated for hundreds of years. You have been told about the moons of Jupiter, about NASA and Mars, about lasers and the moon, about special relativity, about earth-bound experiments that establish both the speed of light and delayed-time seeing, about GPS devices, about the Hubble telescope, about gravitational lensing, about on and on and on and on. Every single one of these experiments refutes Lessans. The truth is that in your insane mind, even if an infinite number of experiments were done and all refuted Lessans, Lessans would still be right. Isn't that a fact?

GPS devices? What in the world does this have to do with how we see? A lot of these experiments measure the speed of light but don't prove that we see in delayed time. You are clumping all of these things together to make your case for afferent vision look more convincing.

peacegirl · #**17732** 05-29-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

Where's your humility in listening?

I do have humility but I don't have to agree with you in order to prove it. That's why the only way to solve this is through unbiased empirical testing. If any of the results turn out to be in Lessans' favor, science needs to take a second look.

And when it turns out that the results are not in Lessans' favor, then the tests were obviously biased and unreliable and more testing needs to be done.

That's not true Angakuk. No one has tested these claims because there isn't a person, other than Lessans, who has made a counterclaim that the eyes are not a sense organ, at least that I know of.

Laugh Out Loud, no one needs to make a counterclaim that they eyes are not a sense organ, for the counterclaim to be tested. It has been tested for centuries! They eye is dissected, we observe how it works, just like we observe how light works. There are no efferent nerve endings in the optic system. This has been pointed out to you again and again. What possible test would you accept that invalidates Lessans? None, of course! Every conceivable test DOES invalidate his claims, but you deny reality and logic itself to sustain your pathetic delusion.

It is very easy to conclude that there is no other explanation because of all the years of experimentation, yet this is a cautionary tale that seeing is not always believing, especially when it is easy for an outcome to fit our preconceptions.

Spacemonkey · #**17733** 05-29-2012, 10:39 PM

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

Spacemonkey · #**17734** 05-29-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very easy to conclude that there is no other explanation because of all the years of experimentation, yet this is a cautionary tale that seeing is not always believing, especially when it is easy for an outcome to fit our preconceptions.

Yes, it's very easy to form a belief on the basis of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Easy for everyone but you. This entire thread is a cautionary tale, just not in the way you'd like to think.

peacegirl · #**17735** 05-29-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

Who knows? Maybe you aren't brainwashed but just have the wrong mindset as to this discovery. If you made this diagnosis long before you came to FF, then why did you follow me here? There are a lot of sophisticated discussions on going on that you could be a part of, so why be here if you think I'm just a deranged person who is making false claims? I wouldn't be the first or the last troll traipsing garbage across the internet, so what's the fascination?

Spacemonkey · #**17736** 05-29-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who knows? Maybe you weren't brainwashed but just have a wrong mindset as to who I am and who Lessans was. If you made this diagnosis long before you came to FF, then why did you follow me here? There are plenty of sophisticated discussions going on that you could be a part of, rather than this very unsophisticated discussion.

So you are retracting your claim that I have been convinced by NA, or brainwashed into believing you are mentally ill? Will you remember this point? How long will it be before you forget and repeat the same false accusation?

peacegirl · #**17737** 05-29-2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very easy to conclude that there is no other explanation because of all the years of experimentation, yet this is a cautionary tale that seeing is not always believing, especially when it is easy for an outcome to fit our preconceptions.

Yes, it's very easy to form a belief on the basis of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Easy for everyone but you. This entire thread is a cautionary tale, just not in the way you'd like to think.

I didn't realize the nerve I would hit when I shared his second discovery. There will be no resolution here even if you believe that the preponderance of evidence is enough to throw Lessans' observations out. I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

peacegirl · #**17738** 05-29-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who knows? Maybe you weren't brainwashed but just have a wrong mindset as to who I am and who Lessans was. If you made this diagnosis long before you came to FF, then why did you follow me here? There are plenty of sophisticated discussions going on that you could be a part of, rather than this very unsophisticated discussion.

So you are retracting your claim that I have been convinced by NA, or brainwashed into believing you are mentally ill? Will you remember this point? How long will it be before you forget and repeat the same false accusation?

Yes, I am. But you are imitating NA. You are modeling his words. It's not surprising as he is drumming his negative comments into everyone's head.

Spacemonkey · #**17739** 05-29-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't realize the nerve I would hit when I shared his second discovery.

Yes you did, because you've done it before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will be no resolution here even if you believe that the preponderance of evidence is enough to throw Lessans' observations out.

There will be no resolution for you, because you cannot learn from your mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You've already done that all on your own.

Spacemonkey · #**17740** 05-29-2012, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I am. But you are imitating NA. You are modeling his words.

Evidence please. Show me where I have modeled his words, as opposed to merely having expressed the same opinion of your mental state (an opinion which you have just agreed was independently reached).

LadyShea · #**17741** 05-29-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

LOL, not the poster child for that. True Believers are a dime a dozen.

You are the poster child for tenacity in talking to people who think you are nuts about your beliefs. Even Jehovah's Witnesses stop coming around after awhile.

Spacemonkey · #**17742** 05-29-2012, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at the eye to see something, but the problem is that everyone thinks light has to travel to the eye in order to be interacting with it, or we're violating the laws of physics. According to efferent vision, the instant an object is in one's field of view, and it's bright enough to be seen, the light is at the eye because of how efferent vision works which is the complete opposite of the way afferent vision works. That's why he said light only needs to be surrounding the object for it to be seen.

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

Bump.

davidm · #**17743** 05-29-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong.

I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks that the things Lessans says are wrong just because he said them. Rather, they think the things he says are wrong because they are wrong.

But it's gotten to the point where the minute I say Lessans said something, they react impulsively, without batting an eye.

Another unsupported claim. You have no way of knowing how much thought someone has put into a post.

I didn't say people put no effort into responding, but their response is faulty, and the reason it is partly faulty is based on all of the previous posts. You cannot tell me that this thread is unbiased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Quote:

Yes, if she was truly pointing out a flaw in the premises, but she's doing no such thing. LadyShea is bringing up trivialities which have nothing to do with the major concepts. She is so anal, she thinks that the things she is pointing out actually negate the entire book. I'm sure she's gloating with pride at what a wonderful sleuth she is, and how her imagined red flags actually mean anything. :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans' mistakes, even the small ones, inasmuch as they reflect on his competence and credibility, are anything but trivial. Molecules of light, trillions of babies, etc. all provide reasons for questioning that competence and credibility.

That was exactly the motivation of LadyShea, and obviously she has convinced you, like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis. She is out to prove that these small trivialities invalidate his claims. It's nuttier than the fundamentalists who are trying in their own way to prove their case. She is no different than a fundie, but do you think she sees this? Of course not. No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

This is another example of your delusional thinking, and a mistake (or deliberate lie) you repeat over and over. Nobody here convinced anyone else to dismiss Lessans. We all independently evaluated the work and arrived at the same conclusion. His claims are WRONG. They conflict decisively with reality. It is REALITY that convinced us. Everyone here knows this, and arrived at their conclusions about Lessans' claims independently, because everyone here is educated, unlike you and Lessans. Now, care to take another whack at explaining Mars and NASA? No, huh? :pat:

That's not true. Until there is further experimentation, your independent evaluation is anything but objective. What I am experiencing is a gang of people who have banded together in the name of science, and to throw out any dissenters.

What further experimentation needs to be done? Delayed-time seeing, and all its implications, have been empirically demonstrated for hundreds of years. You have been told about the moons of Jupiter, about NASA and Mars, about lasers and the moon, about special relativity, about earth-bound experiments that establish both the speed of light and delayed-time seeing, about GPS devices, about the Hubble telescope, about gravitational lensing, about on and on and on and on. Every single one of these experiments refutes Lessans. The truth is that in your insane mind, even if an infinite number of experiments were done and all refuted Lessans, Lessans would still be right. Isn't that a fact?

GPS devices? What in the world does this have to do with how we see? A lot of these experiments measure the speed of light but don't prove that we see in delayed time. You are clumping all of these things together to make your case for afferent vision look more convincing.

As usual, you are either gob-smackingly stupid, or a lying little asshat. (I personally maintain you are both). Of COURSE all these things prove we see in delayed time; the speed of light is able to be measured, because of the time delay in seeing the light. In these experiments, every one of them, if there were no delay in seeing the light, there would be no measurement of light speed! Hence we could conclude that light travels instantaneously.

I really wonder if you fail to understand this elementary point, which could probably be taught to a reasonably bright chimpanzee. Are you REALLY this stupid? Or are you more of a liar than an ignoramus?

davidm · #**17744** 05-29-2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very easy to conclude that there is no other explanation because of all the years of experimentation, yet this is a cautionary tale that seeing is not always believing, especially when it is easy for an outcome to fit our preconceptions.

Yes, it's very easy to form a belief on the basis of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Easy for everyone but you. This entire thread is a cautionary tale, just not in the way you'd like to think.

I didn't realize the nerve I would hit when I shared his second discovery. There will be no resolution here even if you believe that the preponderance of evidence is enough to throw Lessans' observations out. I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The only nerve you hit is the nerve of educated and honest people having contempt for willfully ignorant liars, and feeling the need to set the record straight and combat your willful, dishonest ignorance, to say nothing of the breathtaking arrogance exhibited by one so ill-informed and dishonest as yourself.

davidm · #**17745** 05-29-2012, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who knows? Maybe you weren't brainwashed but just have a wrong mindset as to who I am and who Lessans was. If you made this diagnosis long before you came to FF, then why did you follow me here? There are plenty of sophisticated discussions going on that you could be a part of, rather than this very unsophisticated discussion.

So you are retracting your claim that I have been convinced by NA, or brainwashed into believing you are mentally ill? Will you remember this point? How long will it be before you forget and repeat the same false accusation?

Yes, I am. But you are imitating NA. You are modeling his words. It's not surprising as he is drumming his negative comments into everyone's head.

LOL, go do a search for exchanges that N.A. and I have had in the past.

You have to personalize the discussion of reality because for you, it's all personal: Lessans said it, it must be true. However, reality is not personal. and reality shows Lessans to be wrong.

peacegirl · #**17746** 05-30-2012, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

Because NA is repeating a mantra and eventually people get brainwashed. But it really doesn't matter. If you're not brainwashed, fine. I can admit being wrong. But I do believe you are repeating his words down to the last syllable. He says" You're mentally ill. Go get help. You say: You're mentally ill. Go get help. Are you that clueless?

peacegirl · #**17747** 05-30-2012, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who knows? Maybe you weren't brainwashed but just have a wrong mindset as to who I am and who Lessans was. If you made this diagnosis long before you came to FF, then why did you follow me here? There are plenty of sophisticated discussions going on that you could be a part of, rather than this very unsophisticated discussion.

So you are retracting your claim that I have been convinced by NA, or brainwashed into believing you are mentally ill? Will you remember this point? How long will it be before you forget and repeat the same false accusation?

Yes, I am. But you are imitating NA. You are modeling his words. It's not surprising as he is drumming his negative comments into everyone's head.

LOL, go do a search for exchanges that N.A. and I have had in the past.

You have to personalize the discussion of reality because for you, it's all personal: Lessans said it, it must be true. However, reality is not personal. and reality shows Lessans to be wrong.

I was talking to Spacemonkey. And this is not all about Lessans said it, so it must be right, which you keep using as a cop out. Lessans was more than a realist, so you once again are misconstruing who he was for your selfish purposes.

naturalist.atheist · #**17748** 05-30-2012, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, Milton again. Appealing to crackpots is a great idea , you should do it a lot more :cheesywink:

You don't realize how you sound LadyShea. What he wrote in that excerpt has nothing to do with your opinion of him. The idea that you label someone a crackpot is in itself crackpot thinking because it's a blanket statement that has no validity unless it's used in context.

The mental illness is strong in this one.

naturalist.atheist · #**17749** 05-30-2012, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word you are looking for thedoc is "inspired".

I believe that Lessans claimed to have been 'inspired', do you dare to think that you are on the same level as the great pool hustler and part time savior of the world.

Not at all. My pool game is well below that of even the average pool hustler. On the other hand, I am probably at least as effective as Lessans at saving the world.

Yes, but you are doing it 'Full Time' and not as a joke.

What? I'm a preacher. Don't you know that we only work one day week? You call that full time?

And on gods day off no less.

naturalist.atheist · #**17750** 05-30-2012, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

The "showdown" was played out hundreds of years before Lessans even had his take on the subject. He was proven wrong. If anyone conducts more empirical testing, Lessans will only continue to be proven wrong.

You keep saying that as your one and only defense, but that's not a defense, just as it's not a defense that all the forums I have been to say I'm wrong. It's doesn't cut it specious.

Yes, my only defense is to refer back to 100s of years of scientific discovery empirically proving Lessans' ideas about vision are incorrect.

And the only defense I have is that Lessans came along and saw this from a completely different angle. If he or someone else didn't, we might never know how the brain actually works in relation to the eyes. Lessans had compelling reasons to believe that we don't see the way science believes.

We've seen what Lessans "believed" and nobody cares.