A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm talking about eyes which changes the entire phenomenon. Lessans never said light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but this does not relate to the efferent position, so when you say his claim changes the properties of light, that's a false accusation.

YOUR claims change the properties of light. When you say that mirror image photons can be somewhere without being emitted there or traveling there, then YOU are changing the properties of light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying my best to explain why light is at the eye in the efferent account...

No you're not. You're deliberately refusing to answer any questions about it. And we're not asking for the Why, we're asking for the How. If you want us to understand, then try answering instead of evading our questions.

It is quite obvious that YOU don't know how these mirror image photons get to be there, so why don't you try answering our questions so that together we can work out what the various possibilities here might be? If there is a plausible answer then we will find it by considering all possibilities, and if there is no plausible answer then you will have learned that efferent vision is not plausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't. You've merely evaded everyone's questions to the best of your ability. It is not beyond your ability to answer a simple Yes, No, or I don't know to straightforward Yes or No questions.

I have done the best I can. The only thing that I see as a problem is your misunderstanding that light has to reach Earth first in order for vision to occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had known what I was going to have to go through in this thread, I would never have joined.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true. You knew what to expect because you had years of experience receiving the exact same responses and treatment in other threads at previous websites. And you also know what you will face if you stay here, yet you still willingly choose to stay.

I am not thinking that much about whether I stay or go. I am following my instincts and when I don't feel like coming here, I won't. I did not know coming here would be this difficult, even having had some bad experiences. I would not have joined knowing what I know now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am sorry but I do feel persecuted at times. I feel completely misunderstood and treated as if I'm wrong just for believing that my father was right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not just that you believe your father. It's that you do so without evidence or rational grounds, and that you do so in the face of all contrary evidence, and while refusing to answer reasonable questions about your own claims and position. You have been completely unreasonable.

You are stuck on your ideas to the point that you cannot see beyond. I really don't think you have paid much attention to anything I have posted or tried to relate. All you do is prepare yourself for your refutation. You have a one track mind and you cannot see beyond it. That is causing a serious obstacle in your understanding, not my explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have had no one to defend me at all, and it starts to wear you down to the point where you feel there's no hope of getting across your ideas.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you're not trying to get your ideas across. If you were then you'd be happy to answer our questions about those ideas. But you keep refusing to do so.

Maybe because the questions you are asking cannot be answered in the way you want. Think about what But said regarding photons and what you mean by them? Maybe that's the problem. All I know is that we're not making any progress, and it's not all my fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOUR claims change the properties of light. When you say that mirror image photons can be somewhere without being emitted there or traveling there, then YOU are changing the properties of light.

I'm sorry but they don't Spacemonkey. I am saying that light becomes a condition of sight, where you are still in the mode of believing that light alone is bringing the image to the eye through space/time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but they don't Spacemonkey. I am saying that light becomes a condition of sight, where you are still in the mode of believing that light alone is bringing the image to the eye through space/time.

When you say that light can be somewhere without either being emitted there or traveling there, you ARE changing the properties of light. This is a fact.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have done the best I can.

No, you haven't. You've only evaded and protected your faith as best you can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I see as a problem is your misunderstanding that light has to reach Earth first in order for vision to occur.

How is it a misunderstanding? You haven't even tried to explain how light can be on Earth without reaching Earth. I've asked you about it and you've unreasonably refused to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not thinking that much about whether I stay or go. I am following my instincts and when I don't feel like coming here, I won't. I did not know coming here would be this difficult, even having had some bad experiences. I would not have joined knowing what I know now.

Still not true. You knew exactly what to expect, and you know now that if you stay things will not change. Yet you stay anyway.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are stuck on your ideas to the point that you cannot see beyond. I really don't think you have paid much attention to anything I have posted or tried to relate. All you do is prepare yourself for your refutation. You have a one track mind and you cannot see beyond it. That is causing a serious obstacle in your understanding, not my explanation.

You are projecting again. You haven't offered me any explanation to understand. I've asked you reasonable questions about your own claims, and you still unreasonably refuse to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe because the questions you are asking cannot be answered in the way you want.

Don't be ridiculous. They are Yes or No questions, and you can answer them in any way that you wish. What I want has nothing to do with it. You aren't trying to answer them at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I know is that we're not making any progress, and it's not all my fault.

But it absolutely is. You could answer Yes or No questions if you tried.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The big letters aren't meant to scare. They were for emphasis. Of course the questions are repetitive. I have repeated them because you keep unreasonably refusing to answer them. How am I being a bully by expecting you to answer simple Yes or No questions about your own claims? Can you explain why you are not answering them? Better yet, can you just try answering them:

1. Were these mirror image photons always at the retina?

2. Did they come into existence there as newly existing photons?

3. Are they photons that came from the Sun?

You keep telling me I don't understand and that I just don't get it, but how am I meant to understand you when you won't answer my questions about what you are saying?

Bump. You won't be committed to any answers you give. You can always change your mind. Think of it as a hypothetical investigation of the possibilities. Try answering the questions one way and see what this forces efferent vision to say about light. If you don't like what you find we can then go back and try different answers instead. That way if there are any plausible solutions we will eventually hit upon them. What have you got to lose?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're deliberately refusing to answer any questions about it. And we're not asking for the Why, we're asking for the How. If you want us to understand, then try answering instead of evading our questions.

It is quite obvious that YOU don't know how these mirror image photons get to be there, so why don't you try answering our questions so that together we can work out what the various possibilities here might be? If there is a plausible answer then we will find it by considering all possibilities, and if there is no plausible answer then you will have learned that efferent vision is not plausible.

There is a plausible answer and it's in keeping with the efferent account. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not plausible, and just because you might not see that the knowledge that man's will is not free means anything in terms of predicting behavior when the environmental conditions change, does not mean that you're right. If this causes you to find greater satisfaction in giving up on this discovery, it will be your loss, but it won't stop the new world from becoming a reality.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a plausible answer and it's in keeping with the efferent account.

Then what is it? Or if you don't yet know, then why won't you work with me to find it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not plausible...

But you don't see it either. So other than faith, how do you know there is one?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and just as you might not see that greater satisfaction does not mean anything in terms of predicting behavior, does not mean that you're right.

I never raised any objection to his satisfaction principle based upon the prediction of behaviour.

Why won't you answer my simple Yes or No questions? Don't you want to discover a plausible solution?

[But]

WHAT IS A FUCKING PHOTON

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm talking about eyes which changes the entire phenomenon. Lessans never said light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but this does not relate to the efferent position, so when you say his claim changes the properties of light, that's a false accusation. All he said was that the EYES are not a sense organ. That makes light a condition of sight, not a cause. Although our eyes detect light, that is not the only thing necessary for vision.

Do the eyes change the properties of light? Yes or no?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

WHAT IS A FUCKING PHOTON

A flash light stuck up your ass?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm talking about eyes which changes the entire phenomenon. Lessans never said light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but this does not relate to the efferent position, so when you say his claim changes the properties of light, that's a false accusation. All he said was that the EYES are not a sense organ. That makes light a condition of sight, not a cause. Although our eyes detect light, that is not the only thing necessary for vision.

If you can't or won't answer questions regarding the role of light in your model, let's talk about the eyes.

If the eyes are not a sense organ, why do they contain receptor neurons as found in the other senses?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I see as a problem is your misunderstanding that light has to reach Earth first in order for vision to occur.

You've moved the goalpost. You were insisting that light didn't have to reach Earth for light to also be located at the eye or also located on the surface of camera film, being absorbed as is needed to cause the photochemical reaction?

Now you are only claiming light doesn't have to reach Earth "for vision to occur". This is actually more in keeping with Lessans statements, but it is very different than your previous statements.

Do you still maintain that in Lessans scenario of the Sun being newly turned on at noon, that one would be able to photograph the Sun at noon, even though no light is on Earth (also as per Lessans scenario), and therefore no light is touching the film to be absorbed by it?

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I truly respect you for calling Spacemonkey out on his bullying. It is so tough for me to fight against established truth. It's like David fighting Goliath and it's almost impossible.

Seriously? Do you even know the story of David and Goliath? I can't stand bad analogies and you can double that when they're biblical.

David and Goliath: Goliath offered to reduce bloodshed if the Hebrews sent forth their best fighter to fight him, the best fighter of the Philistines. The Hebrews were distraught for two days until David, a shepherd, showed up to bring food and said "What the hell is going on? Are you all pussies that are letting this uncircumcised heathen mock us? I'll go kill him." He was not overwhelmed, he didn't struggle, he didn't even break a sweat. He walked up and while Goliath was still laughing at him, he loaded a slingshot and struck Goliath between the eyes with a rock, killing him instantly. Then he strolled over and used Goliath's own sword to cut his head off.

So how is your battle with Spacemonkey anything like David and Goliath?


eta: my bad... the pussies sat around being mocked twice a day for forty days, not just for two, before David showed up and ended it in a day.

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

Seriously? Do you even know the story of David and Goliath? I can't stand bad analogies and you can double that when they're biblical.

David and Goliath: Goliath offered to reduce bloodshed if the Hebrews sent forth their best fighter to fight him, the best fighter of the Philistines. The Hebrews were distraught for two days until David, a shepherd, showed up to bring food and said "What the hell is going on? Are you all pussies that are letting this uncircumcised heathen mock us? I'll go kill him." He was not overwhelmed, he didn't struggle, he didn't even break a sweat. He walked up and while Goliath was still laughing at him, he loaded a slingshot and struck Goliath between the eyes with a rock, killing him instantly. Then he strolled over and used Goliath's own sword to cut his head off.

So how is your battle with Spacemonkey anything like David and Goliath?


eta: my bad... the pussies sat around being mocked twice a day for forty days, not just for two, before David showed up and ended it in a day.

David and Goliath: There was a fighter who wandered the worlds searching for enlightenment. Everything was a fight to him, because that was the strongest force and law of nature that he knew. He trained hard, he trained day and night, he was awake when his muscles were relaxed and his eyes were closed, he slept with his eyes open, always looking for someone who could teach him better techniques to harness that overwhelming force that he was resting in.

He was hard and unforgiving with himself and with other beings. He wasn't afraid of death, he had seen forms change into other forms, he had seen animals and people die, he had experienced death many times. He had a big heart and a lot of compassion for other beings, but in his eyes most of them were weak and ignorant. He challenged everyone to attack him, because he knew of no other way of interacting with people.

He was a reptile inside, he was intelligent and perceptive and could smell fear from miles away. He found training partners that weren't afraid of him and he killed them, one after the other. He assumed they were exactly like him and that his purpose was to teach them valuable lessons, to be their master. He knew that in the moment of death lay the greatest potential to learn, to experience one's limits and to transcend them, he attracted all the beings that were looking for him, in one way or another.

One day when he was dreaming with his eyes wide open, he realized that there was nothing new to be found in his world and he prayed to the gods of fire, chaos and change to send him a sign. He didn't really know why, but he felt a sudden urge to go visit the Hebrews, the biggest pussies he had ever encountered in his world. Normally, he would just laugh at them in his friendly and open manner, he would laugh at them like a child would, offering to show them the true power of chaos and destruction.

Usually, being as weak and ignorant as they were, they would feel a glimpse of that power and would defecate in fear. The stronger ones always managed to run away and the weaker ones fell to the ground paralyzed. The weakest ones just stood there, unable to move because their spirits had left them in a hurry. He didn't even get to perform his ritual of smashing huge rocks with his head and ripping out trees by the root that he so enjoyed. He couldn't figure out what made them so weak inside, so he looked. He looked in their hearts, in their stomachs, in their heads, to no avail. This terrified the others even more, but his purpose wasn't to kill, but to help them and teach them.

Suddenly, he saw something strange. There was a small man, a kid, who pretended that he was not afraid. He was so brazen that he pretended to bring food to the others, but he didn't make the common mistake of pretending to ignore him. He greeted him with a single word, an almost imperceptible nod and a smile, and carried on to bring food to the others. At least he wasn't an asshole. He followed the small guy.

The kid took out a child's toy, even smaller than the strange contraptions the pussies always used to wear as protection and which they used to throw stuff at him, sometimes hitting him by accident. His theory was that this was a magic ritual, but it never seemed to work. His laughter grew louder and louder as he looked carefully into the strong kid's face, trying to sense the moment he called his bluff, but it didn't happen. The kid pointed the toy at his face slowly and carefully, preparing a magic ritual with a small stone. When the toy was pointing at his head, right between his eyes, he stopped laughing. He looked at the kid in amazement. Then everything happened in an instant.

He saw a flash of light and felt his skull crack. At that moment, he was enlightened.

[peacegirl]

added to prevous post:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're deliberately refusing to answer any questions about it. And we're not asking for the Why, we're asking for the How. If you want us to understand, then try answering instead of evading our questions.

I have not evaded your questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is quite obvious that YOU don't know how these mirror image photons get to be there, so why don't you try answering our questions so that together we can work out what the various possibilities here might be? If there is a plausible answer then we will find it by considering all possibilities, and if there is no plausible answer then you will have learned that efferent vision is not plausible.

No, I am not going to consider all possibilities because I know that efferent vision is not only plausible, but accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've moved the goalpost. You were insisting that light didn't have to reach Earth for light to also be located at the eye or also located on the surface of camera film, being absorbed as is needed to cause the photochemical reaction?

Now you are only claiming light doesn't have to reach Earth "for vision to occur". This is actually more in keeping with Lessans statements, but it is very different than your previous statements.

No, I meant what I said. I said that light does not have to reach Earth for light to also be located at the eye or also located on the surface of camera film. I don't see the difference in the two statements. If someone is in space taking pictures, of course light does not have to reach Earth for vision to occur, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you still maintain that in Lessans scenario of the Sun being newly turned on at noon, that one would be able to photograph the Sun at noon, even though no light is on Earth (also as per Lessans scenario), and therefore no light is touching the film to be absorbed by it?

Of course I am. That is exactly what I'm saying and it's the only explanation possible if efferent vision is true and time is not involved. I will repeat that the eyes being efferent and looking outward place the light at the retina as a mirror image. This does not violate physics LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what is it? Or if you don't yet know, then why won't you work with me to find it?

I've offered it already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not plausible...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you don't see it either. So other than faith, how do you know there is one?

I do see it and I've already gone over his observations and his reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and just as you might not see that greater satisfaction does not mean anything in terms of predicting behavior, does not mean that you're right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I never raised any objection to his satisfaction principle based upon the prediction of behaviour.

So then don't bring up that "greater satisfaction" doesn't play a vital role. Whatever we choose is in this direction but if man's will is not free, it's a one way street, and that's a very important principle.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why won't you answer my simple Yes or No questions? Don't you want to discover a plausible solution?

No. He already has the solution. I brought up the fact that it's plausible for your sake, not mine. I don't need to discover a plausible solution, as if I need your help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Seriously? Do you even know the story of David and Goliath? I can't stand bad analogies and you can double that when they're biblical.

David and Goliath: Goliath offered to reduce bloodshed if the Hebrews sent forth their best fighter to fight him, the best fighter of the Philistines. The Hebrews were distraught for two days until David, a shepherd, showed up to bring food and said "What the hell is going on? Are you all pussies that are letting this uncircumcised heathen mock us? I'll go kill him." He was not overwhelmed, he didn't struggle, he didn't even break a sweat. He walked up and while Goliath was still laughing at him, he loaded a slingshot and struck Goliath between the eyes with a rock, killing him instantly. Then he strolled over and used Goliath's own sword to cut his head off.

So how is your battle with Spacemonkey anything like David and Goliath?


eta: my bad... the pussies sat around being mocked twice a day for forty days, not just for two, before David showed up and ended it in a day.

Wow, it's amazing to me how a simple statement that I made and which you all understand turns into another mockery. I like that analogy and I will continue to use it when I feel it's appropriate.

We all know the general story: David, sometimes seen as a young boy ultimately has to fight a giant man, maybe as big if not bigger than Shaq and David kills Goliath with a slingshot to the head and then beheads Goliath. One moral of the story is that with the right amount of faith and determination, small people (either in stature or otherwise) can compete and dominate those who appear to be bigger and more powerful. This moral is often invoked figuratively in adversarial competitions or arenas, be they physical, intellectual, etc. However the perception has always been that on paper, Goliath had no business losing to this smaller sized human being.

Marwan's Mind over Matter: David & Goliath - Why David Won

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded your questions.

Of course you have. Responding to my posts without answering their questions is to evade them, and that is what you have done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am not going to consider all possibilities because I know that efferent vision is not only plausible, but accurate.

Where is your plausible account of how the mirror image photons at the retina get to be there? What plausible answers to my previous (and still evaded) questions can you offer?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've offered it already.

I do see it and I've already gone over his observations and his reasoning.

What plausible answer have you already offered and do you presently see for how the mirror image photons at the retina get to be there without having traveled there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then don't bring up that "greater satisfaction" doesn't play a vital role. Whatever we choose is in this direction but if man's will is not free, it's a one way street, and that's a very important principle.

If you want to take this up again, then reply to my refutation in the other thread which you ran away from.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No. He already has the solution. I brought up the fact that it's plausible for your sake, not mine. I don't need to discover a plausible solution, as if I need your help.

What plausible solution does Lessans already have for how photons get to be instantaneously at the retina as soon as the Sun is first ignited and without traveling there or teleporting there? What answers can you or he offer to the following questions?

1. Were these mirror image photons always at the retina?

2. Did they come into existence there as newly existing photons?

3. Are they photons that came from the Sun?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I meant what I said. I said that light does not have to reach Earth for light to also be located at the eye or also located on the surface of camera film. I don't see the difference in the two statements. If someone is in space taking pictures, of course light does not have to reach Earth for vision to occur, but that's not what I'm talking about.

The difference is in the location of light, which is what I've been talking to you about for over a year.

Your bolded statement above has light in two different places simultaneously. That is bi-location (Bilocation, or sometimes multilocation, occurs when an individual or object is located (or appears to be located) in two distinct places at the same instant in time)

This bi location is the problem I have with your account. That would be an unusual property of light, to say the least, if it can be physically located two places at once.

It would be the greatest scientific discovery of our time if light can physically exist in two places simultaneously. Physicists work with light all the time and would be shouting from the rooftops if this phenomena was found to occur...but it doesn't.

So, once again, the efferent account requires that light has different properties than it is known, observed, and measured to have. This is why we tell you that your model violates the known laws of physics.

Do you get why this is such a huge issue? It is not one of not understanding what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I am. That is exactly what I'm saying and it's the only explanation possible if efferent vision is true and time is not involved. I will repeat that the eyes being efferent and looking outward place the light at the retina as a mirror image. This does not violate physics LadyShea.

If it is the only possible explanation, then a consequence of that is that light must have different properties than it is known to have for efferent vision to be true.

So you need to stop saying that nothing about light changes in efferent vision, because it does. You need to stop saying it does not violate current physics because it does. Light can be in two places at once if efferent vision is true. That violates the known laws of physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you need to stop saying that nothing about light changes in efferent vision, because it does. You need to stop saying it does not violate current physics because it does. Light can be in two places at once if efferent vision is true. That violates the known laws of physics.

Even if Peacegirl tries to amend her account of efferent vision to say that light is not two places at once, but is one place at one time and another place the next instant, she still needs to explain how it got there. How can light, emmited from the Sun, be at a person's retina the next instant without traveling 8.5 minutes, 93 million miles, to get there. The sun and the observer are physically at two different, and distant places, and yet Peacegirl claims that photons can be emmited from the Sun and then instantly be at a Person's retina on Earth. Physics, as we know it, states that this cannot happen. I know she says that efferent vision is 180 degrees from afferent vision, but then she claims that known physics does not change, yet this aspect of photons being instantly at one location and then at a distant location does need some explaining as to how it fits into the known laws of physics. How can the Brain/Eye in efferent vision negate millions of miles of distance? How can it even negate 10 feet of distance when I look at something across the room? Peacegirl needs to offer some hypothesis as to how this happens rather than just falling back on the unsupported assertion that it does happen.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded your questions.

At this stage of the game I would have to say that you are not evading anyone's questions. Evasion would imply that you are in control of yourself as opposed to having a sick mind full of compulsions and delusions.