A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why won't you even try to answer this, Peacegirl?

Because it doesn't make any sense in terms of this account. Again, there are two things going on. One is that photons are traveling. Two, and most important, is that the premise begins with the eyes seeing in real time (It doesn't prove that we see in real time, but we have to start with that premise in order to grasp the concept). Therefore, you have to work backwards. You can't discuss traveling photons arriving at the eye or film. It doesn't work that way. That's why this discussion is so discombobulated.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it doesn't make any sense in terms of this account. Again, there are two things going on in this account. One is that photons are traveling. Two is that the premise begins with the eyes looking at the object, so you have to work backwards. You're not doing that, and that's why this discussion is so discombobulated.

It does make sense on your account. You've agreed that these photons previously existed and had some previous location on your account. The question simply asks you to give this location which you have agreed it must have.

That photon are traveling does not present any problem for this question.

And you cannot begin at the eyes in a scenario where there are NO eyes. But you can begin at the camera film and work backwards, which is EXACTLY what this question is doing.

So answer the question, or admit that you simply don't know what possible answer it could have on your own account.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because the light is too bright, but this has NOTHING to do with these claims. Do you actually think this one example proves Lessans wrong? Of course. You are all so matter of fact it makes me cringe.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see aluminum foil in real time, why wouldn't we?

Which is it? Can we see aluminium foil in real time, or can we not?

I didn't understand the point of his question. We would see the white object in real time. Again, why wouldn't we? Why would this be any different than any other object that is interacting with light?

Exactly, why would this be any different from any other object that is interacting with light, like a mirror? Or aluminium foil? Or crumpled aluminium foil? Or glass? Or a white object?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it doesn't make any sense in terms of this account. Again, there are two things going on. One is that photons are traveling. Two, and most important, is that the premise begins with the eyes seeing in real time (It doesn't prove that we see in real time, but we have to start with that premise in order to grasp the concept). Therefore, you have to work backwards. You can't discuss traveling photons arriving at the eye or film. It doesn't work that way. That's why this discussion is so discombobulated.

If photons are traveling, then I do get to ask about traveling photons. And if the photons at the film previously existed, then they either existed at the same location (i.e. at the film, thereby making them stationary non-traveling photons), or they previously existed at a different location - meaning they had to get from there to the film. So all you are saying above is that we cannot dscuss the crucial parts of your account that don't actually make any sense.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought it was a trick question. What was his point in asking me this, that's what I want to know?

You thought it was a trick question. And why in the world would anyone who had a coherent, correct account of something, fear trick questions?

You answered "no" to the question of whether we would see reflected light from a mirror in real time, so you have just admitted that all the bullshit you've been spewing for more than one thousand pages across two threads is bullshit.

Wow, that was some trick question! Thanks for answering it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it doesn't make any sense in terms of this account. Again, there are two things going on in this account. One is that photons are traveling. Two is that the premise begins with the eyes looking at the object, so you have to work backwards. You're not doing that, and that's why this discussion is so discombobulated.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It does make sense on your account. You've agreed that these photons previously existed and had some previous location on your account. The question simply asks you to give this location which you have agreed it must have.

Because it doesn't work. You are trying to separate these traveling photons from the object as if the photons are bringing the image to the eye, which takes you away from the efferent model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That photon are traveling does not present any problem for this question.

And you cannot begin at the eyes in a scenario where there are NO eyes. But you can begin at the camera film and work backwards, which is EXACTLY what this question is doing.

I am not interested in camera film until this question of efferent vision is confirmed, for you will not accept that light works the same way for camera lenses as it does for the eye's lenses until that time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So answer the question, or admit that you simply don't know what possible answer it could have on your own account.

I won't admit anything of the sort because the problem is not coming from this account; it's coming from the difficulty in understanding how this account is plausible. The idea that light travels and those photons are what bring the image to the eye keeps seeping back into the discussion whether you realize it or not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it doesn't work. You are trying to separate these traveling photons from the object as if the photons are bringing the image to the eye, which takes you away from the efferent model.

I am not interested in camera film until this question of efferent vision is confirmed, for you will not accept that light works the same way for camera lenses as it does for the eye's lenses until that time.

I won't admit anything of the sort because the problem is not coming from this account; it's coming from the difficulty in understanding how this account is plausible. The idea that light travels and those photons are what bring the image to the eye keeps seeping back into the discussion whether you realize it or not.

Stop making ridiculous excuses. The question must have an answer on your account, if that account is to be plausible or even possible. You agree that the photons concerned existed and had to have a location 0.0001sec beforehand. So either you know what that location is or you don't. Anything else is a red herring-weasel hybrid.

I'm not trying to separate the photons from the object (though you've already done that, for they are at the film while the object is not). And I have no problem with the light working the same way. What that way is, is what I'm trying to get you to tell me with this question. The problem is coming from your account, because it is your account that cannot specify any previous location for these photons. And finally, this question does not say anything at all about what is bringing an image to the film (not the eye, as there are still no eyes involved here).

So answer the question already:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

You are acting like a spoiled child who can't get his way. Why can't we end this discussion on friendly terms, because this discussion must end. In time, the truth will come out one way or another. In your effort to be right, you cannot push me against the wall, like you're trying to do. Does this mean we are done with the entire book? That's up to you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are acting like a spoiled child who can't get his way. Why can't we end this discussion on friendly terms, because this discussion must end. In time, the truth will come out one way or another. In your effort to be right, you cannot push me against the wall, like you're trying to do. Does this mean we are done with the entire book? That's up to you. LadyShea, of all people here, is encouraging me to speak my truth, and yet when I do, she makes fun of me. It makes no sense and because it makes no sense, you can't expect me to continue this way.

I'm not posting these questions to wind you up. I'm posting them because I want you to actually answer them. Please do so.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not posting these questions to wind you up. I'm posting them because I want you to actually answer them. Please do so.

The problem you are now experiencing, in real time mind you, has everything to do with why you can't follow the other parts of Lessans' book. I really do wish you the best of happiness Spacemonkey, but there is no basis for us to communicate any further. I'm sincerely sorry.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem you are now experiencing, in real time mind you, has everything to do with the problem that won't allow you to understand why man's will is not free, and why conscience works in a very predictable way. I really do wish you the best of happiness Spacemonkey, but there is no basis for us to communicate any further. I'm sincerely sorry.

Is this you fake-leaving or are you just putting me on fake-ignore? The only problem I'm experiencing is the complete and utter absence of any answers from you to the questions I have asked.


1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop making ridiculous excuses. The question must have an answer on your account, if that account is to be plausible or even possible. You agree that the photons concerned existed and had to have a location 0.0001sec beforehand. So either you know what that location is or you don't. Anything else is a red herring-weasel hybrid.

I'm not trying to separate the photons from the object (though you've already done that, for they are at the film while the object is not). And I have no problem with the light working the same way. What that way is, is what I'm trying to get you to tell me with this question. The problem is coming from your account, because it is your account that cannot specify any previous location for these photons. And finally, this question does not say anything at all about what is bringing an image to the film (not the eye, as there are still no eyes involved here).

So answer the question already:

You don't even realize what you're doing. I'm not interested in answering your questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this you fake-leaving or are you just putting me on fake-ignore? The only problem I'm experiencing is the complete and utter absence of any answers from you to the questions I have asked.


1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Oh my god. Would you please stop repeating yourself because it doesn't change a thing, especially the truth of how we see.