A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is disagreement or there wouldn't be any controversy.

Yet you've repeatedly stated your model does not violate the laws of physics nor require a change in the properties of light. My question is STILL UNANSWERED after weeks of asking. Why do you keep making those statements?

[LadyShea]

I have a feeling that you are here to be the winner. I know this because if I leave here, you would never be interested in buying the book (on kindle) or the mp3 which would cost pennies. I really want to know the truth, because it will help me to know how to proceed. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Why would I buy the book? I can view most of it on the web for free and you have posted excerpts and been unable to answer my questions or respond to my criticisms about any of it.

I've made no secret of anything. My purpose in this thread is to challenge the ideas presented. Valid ideas stand up under challenge and scrutiny. You have been unable to demonstrate that Lessans ideas are valid.

Now, how do I at all factor into your choices regarding how to proceed and why am I a factor? That's ridiculous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would I buy the book? I can view most of it on the web for free and you have posted excerpts and been unable to answer my questions or respond to my criticisms about any of it.

If you can view it on the web, why aren't you? You unfairly state that Lessans' proof of determinism is a modal fallacy. You didn't even know what a modal fallacy was yet you are insisting that this is what Lessans is committing. I understand that there are a lot of fraudulent claims out there, and you are protecting yourself for good reason, but it's also getting in the way. Anyone with this kind of attitude is never going to understand this work because you're closing yourself off before you even begin. And believe me in all of these pages the conversation hasn't touched the surface.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've made no secret of anything. My purpose in this thread is to challenge the ideas presented. Valid ideas stand up under challenge and scrutiny. You have been unable to demonstrate that Lessans ideas are valid.

That's just not true. You are not the person who gets to decide this. No offense, but it's a joke that you, David and Spacemonkey are the ones who get to make this determination, when Nageli, the leading authority of his time in genetics, got it wrong when he said that the core of Mendel's discovery was wrong. I'm sorry to say, but you don't come close to being an authority on the subject of determinism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now, how do I at all factor into your choices regarding how to proceed and why am I a factor? That's ridiculous.

No it's not. If I'm standing before a bunch of naysayers, and they all answer this way because they all follow the leader (which is the one who talks the most and the loudest), then I'm in trouble but not for reasons you think.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't even know what a modal fallacy was yet you are insisting that this is what Lessans is committing.

I learned what it was after being introduced to it, it wasn't a difficult concept to learn, and once I understood it was able to see that this was in fact a fallacy Lessans committed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not the person who gets to decide this.

I get to decide for myself, of course, whether I think ideas are valid, or likely to be valid, or convincing or have been adequately supported. That's what critical thinking and analysis and debate are all about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not reflected. White light is reflected.

That's an answer to one of the three questions you were here replying to. What about the other two?

This answer is also incompatible with your above claims. If the nonabsorbed light is not reflected, then it cannot be subject to dispersion or the inverse square law as you claim. For these to apply, the nonabsorbed light must be traveling away from the object, and it cannot be doing that unless it has been reflected.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answer every question, but because it doesn't fit into your logic, you say I didn't answer the question.

It's posts like these - where you make claims so obviously false that you couldn't possibly believe them without the most extreme self-delusion - which lead people to say you are dishonest and a liar.

What leads you to post such transparent falsehoods?

Is it delusion or dishonesty?

You'll spend weeks straight doing nothing but weaseling and evading while openly refusing to answer questions, then out of nowhere you'll straight-up assert that you never weasel, or that you've been answering everyone's questions. What's up with that?

[Spacemonkey]

Here's another clear example of your cognitive failure and inconsistency, Peacegirl:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that I agree with that?

I'm saying that we're not going to get an image from that dispersed light...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not reflected.

Can you see your own self-contradiction here? You state that you agree the nonabsorbed light cannot be dispersed unless it has been reflected. You state that the light does get dispersed. Then you deny that the light has been reflected. That's a straight contradiction (on any model).

At which point here were you again not saying what you really mean? Do you even know?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I learned what it was after being introduced to it, it wasn't a difficult concept to learn, and once I understood it was able to see that this was in fact a fallacy Lessans committed.

You are so wrong I find this whole discussion disturbing. It's like you are reading Einstein's work (I don't mean this facetiously either), have no conception of what he's saying but think you do, and then jump to the false conclusion that you're right and he's wrong. Of course you don't see it because you don't think he's an Einstein, therefore you give yourself permission to confront him without ever reading the book in its entirety. Is that the way an investigator is suppose to proceed in an investigation? You don't even know what the discovery is, yet you tell me that you understand it. You understand what? That probable actions and actual actions never meet? That doesn't prove his knowledge of greater satisfaction wrong. Well, let me clue you in. You are ignorant when it comes to this knowledge, so stop acting like you have the qualifications to disprove it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not the person who gets to decide this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I get to decide for myself, of course, whether I think ideas are valid, or likely to be valid, or convincing or have been adequately supported. That's what critical thinking and analysis and debate are all about.

This is not under debate. I didn't come here for approval. I came here to share a discovery and in order to know whether it is a discovery is to read it, not take things out of context and call it a day. You've done that all along. He would not claim a discovery, and I certainly wouldn't come online and subject myself to such ridicule, if I didn't know for sure that he had a discovery. You can think anything you want about me, but your critical thinking is not that critical, trust me. And if this is your final take on this knowledge, I really don't want to continue the conversation anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here's another clear example of your cognitive failure and inconsistency, Peacegirl:

Can you see your own self-contradiction here? You state that you agree the nonabsorbed light cannot be dispersed unless it has been reflected. You state that the light does get dispersed. Then you deny that the light has been reflected. That's a straight contradiction (on any model).

At which point here were you again not saying what you really mean? Do you even know?

I know exactly what I said, and it's not a contradiction. Light travels Spacemonkey, but the image itself does not get reflected meaning that the image is not in the light, part of the light, a pattern in the light, etc. that travels far and wide and can be detected without the object present. Let me repeat: You can get an image only when the object is present, for then the non-absorbed light will be at the retina or film. But if the object is not present, there will be no image, there will be no reflection (as if to say all you need is light), and there will be no resolution (because you can't resolve light and get an image without the object present in some form). That's what makes these two models diametrically opposed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know exactly what I said, and it's not a contradiction.

Obviously you don't know what you said, because what you said was contradictory.

You said you agree that the nonabsorbed light cannot be dispersed unless it has been reflected, and that the light does get dispersed, and yet you denied that the light has been reflected.

You can say that this was not what you meant to say, but you can't deny that it is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels Spacemonkey, but the image itself does not get reflected meaning that the image is not in the light, part of the light, a pattern in the light, etc. that travels far and wide and can be detected without the object present...

Blah blah blah. I didn't say anything about any image. Stay on topic.

Does the non-absorbed light get reflected or not?

If it doesn't, then it can't disperse or be subject to the inverse square law.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's posts like these - where you make claims so obviously false that you couldn't possibly believe them without the most extreme self-delusion - which lead people to say you are dishonest and a liar.

What leads you to post such transparent falsehoods?

Is it delusion or dishonesty?

You'll spend weeks straight doing nothing but weaseling and evading while openly refusing to answer questions, then out of nowhere you'll straight-up assert that you never weasel, or that you've been answering everyone's questions. What's up with that?

In my opinion, I am not weaseling just because you don't like my answers. I am answering them Spacemonkey but some of them don't even apply. You say that the inverse square law is somehow inconsistent with efferent vision. It is not. As long as the object is within visual range, regardless of how far away the object is, we will get a mirror image on our retina or on film because it meets the requirements. It is a fact that light travels, but as the light gets dispersed to the point where we can no longer see the object (which means the object is too far away or too small to be seen), light alone will no longer bring us the image, which is the opposite of what scientists claim. According to them, we will get an image from the light when the conditions arise that allow for this, even when the object from which this light originated, is no longer present. This is completely erroneous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In my opinion, I am not weaseling just because you don't like my answers.

I'm referring to the weaseling you do when you don't answer at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering them Spacemonkey but some of them don't even apply.

Refusing to answer a question because you don't think it applies does not count as answering the question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say that the inverse square law is somehow inconsistent with efferent vision. It is not.

That's not what I've said at all. I said rather that you cannot apply the inverse square law to the non-absorbed light unless that light gets reflected and travels away from the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a fact that light travels, but as the light gets dispersed...

So then this non-absorbed light has been reflected, right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's an answer to one of the three questions you were here replying to. What about the other two?

This answer is also incompatible with your above claims. If the nonabsorbed light is not reflected, then it cannot be subject to dispersion or the inverse square law as you claim. For these to apply, the nonabsorbed light must be traveling away from the object, and it cannot be doing that unless it has been reflected.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so wrong I find this whole discussion disturbing.

You don't even know what the discovery is, yet you tell me that you understand it. You understand what? That probable actions and actual actions never meet? That doesn't prove his knowledge of greater satisfaction wrong.

I'm not wrong. You also commit a modal fallacy every time you try to support the premise. I've shown why this is the case and you have not shown that it's not.

You still do not understand the difference between possible, actual, and necessary actions (what do you mean they "never meet"? What does that mean?), nor can you understand that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a universal human compulsion to "move in the direction of greater satisfaction" anymore than it is possible to prove or disprove that God exists. It's simply not an empirically testable hypothesis.

I am only talking about a single premise, peacegirl, that man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction. I have not proven it wrong nor claimed to have proven it wrong because it is not provable or disprovable. Therefore, Lessans claiming it is an invariable law of nature with no exceptions is a false statement, because he didn't and can't prove it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, when 5 minutes later you start denying it again. When this new light replaces the old light at the retina, how did it get there? Did it travel there at light speed? Where was it 0.0001sec before it replaces the old light at the retina?

Flip flop flip flop. So now you agree that that the nonabsorbed light does get reflected, does travel away, and does continue traveling away indefinitely? So then why do you keep denying these things?

Do you also agree that this nonabsorbed light travels away from the object in a pattern with red light traveling away from the red parts of the object, and blue light traveling away from the blue parts of the object?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not under debate.

Of course it is under debate, that's what we're doing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't come here for approval. I came here to share a discovery and in order to know whether it is a discovery is to read it, not take things out of context and call it a day.

We've read it, you've posted excerpts and they've been read. When questions are asked or criticisms made about passages you start spouting nonsense. If you don't want to debate, discuss, or respond to criticism then don't come to a discussion forum. That's what websites, blogs, and books are for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would not claim a discovery, and I certainly wouldn't come online and subject myself to such ridicule, if I didn't know for sure that he had a discovery.

You are personally convinced he made an important discovery. That is quite clear. That doesn't mean anything for anyone else. Lots of people are convinced about lots of things that may or may not be true- from Creationism to ESP to extraterrestrials living here on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can think anything you want about me, but your critical thinking is not that critical, trust me.

LOL ad hom.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if this is your final take on this knowledge, I really don't want to continue the conversation anymore.

Then don't continue the conversation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to them, we will get an image from the light when the conditions arise that allow for this, even when the object from which this light originated, is no longer present. This is completely erroneous.

Hubble Deep Field images

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light is reflected.

I know this has been explained to you before, but you're still operating under the erroneous assumption that 'white light' is some kind of independent substance, a thing which exists as a separate phenomenon from other sorts of light. This is not true. 'White light' is a conglomeration of light from all wavelengths of the visible spectrum. There are no 'white' photons, nor individual photons that are perceived as white. Every photon has its own wavelength, and it is only en masse that they are perceived as a color, or as an image (which is in fact nothing more than a pattern of colors and also is not a thing which exists independently), whether that be with a camera or the Mk I Human Eyeball.

There are in fact many, many more wavelengths of light than what we can see, from radio and microwaves all the way to X-rays and gamma rays. They are all the same thing, every bit of it is light. Do radio stations 'see' efferently as well? What about X-ray machines? Cell phones? If not, what is the miraculous mechanism that separates eyes and cameras from these devices?

[LadyShea]

Light travels Spacemonkey, but the image itself does not get reflected

Nobody here is saying "the image itself" gets reflected, that's the same strawman you keep putting up there. All anyone has said is that light gets reflected.

Depending on the source, light travels in a pattern of intensity and wavelength...the beam of a flashlight, or a colored laser pointer, is nothing more than light traveling in a pattern of intensity and wavelength. But the pattern is not something sepearte.The pattern of intensity is not "the image itself".

Surely you can't deny the existence of differentiations in intensity and wavelength of light when you can see it every day?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Surely you can't deny the existence of differentiations in intensity and wavelength of light when you can see it every day?

Anyone care to take a wager?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble Deep Field images

A supernova explosion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm referring to the weaseling you do when you don't answer at all.

Refusing to answer a question because you don't think it applies does not count as answering the question.

That's not what I've said at all. I said rather that you cannot apply the inverse square law to the non-absorbed light unless that light gets reflected and travels away from the object.

So then this non-absorbed light has been reflected, right?

So let' solve the problem. Light gets reflected, but what we see is not due to light alone. Do you get this at all Spacemonkey, or do I have to repeat this fact another 100 times?