A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is corrupt because there's a virus in here. That's why my coming here and discussing this again, when everyone has made up their minds, is suicidal.

More dramatics, but then this leads to the question...why are you suicidal?

[LadyShea]

If I state that 1+1=3 that is not me offering an opinion, that is me making an assertion of fact that is incorrect.

[Spacemonkey]

I see light and vision are back on the table...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture, which no one has proven. I know this is not proof, but for people to say that dogs can do this, is absurd.

You cannot prove that they cannot recognize their masters from a picture. So your belief in this matter is baseless. There is evidence from experiment that they can recognize human faces from photographs....not proof no. But definitely evidence.

All you have offered is anecdotes about the family dog and Skype, with the dog's behavior being interpreted through your strong bias towards Lessans being 100% correct in his statements about this issue.

So, you are the absurd one in my opinion.

You believe that the circumstantial evidence that the afferent account provides proves him wrong, but you really don't know for sure.

I know for sure that light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed or transmitted, reflects and travels. This can be directly observed by anyone and can be replicated at will under controlled conditions and accurately measured.

You assert that light that is not absorbed does not reflect and does not travel, meaning that you are 100% wrong.

You do not understand why everything we see is already within optical range because of how the eyes work, not how light works.

I do not understand that because you have been unable to offer any explanation of how the eyes supposedly work in your account, and your explanation attempts to date require that light works differently than it is known and observed to work.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of this thread was about this book. That was the original purpose. Now it's morphed into something completely different. But the truth is people think they proved Lessans wrong. They did no such thing.

"Morphed into something completely different"...All right.....now we (as in you and I) are getting somewhere! Oh...well, I thought so, until you turned around again and said "But the truth is people think they proved Lessans wrong." Again...for the (broken?) record: I am not in the least bit concerned with proving Lessans wrong or right (you'll notice that I do not contribute to anything about particular aspects of his argument - this is because I haven't read his work and cannot speak to it). But I will say that if you are typical of Lessans' followers, I am far, far less inclined to read his work in the future. And that remark is directed at you, peacegirl - not Lessans. Try and understand the difference I'm making here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't talk to people who are so disrespectful to me.

LOL...and yet, to quote another reader...."here you are." Freud said it best in Beyond the Pleasure Principle: compulsive repetition really is a primordial force that unworks our drive to achieve a zero-level of stimulation....

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More dramatics, but then this leads to the question...why are you suicidal?

Words have certain meanings WITHIN A CERTAIN CONTEXT LADYSHEA.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words have certain meanings WITHIN A CERTAIN CONTEXT LADYSHEA.

The context seemed to be that coming back here and talking to us is not a good or beneficial thing for you to do, so my question is, why do you keep doing it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was a human being LadyShea, but the mistakes you are talking about are inconsequential. These mistakes have nothing to do with his discovery. You cannot seem to separate them, and you reason that I just can't allow myself to see that he may have been wrong here too.

Peacegirl, it is you who claim that Lessans concept of efferent vision is essential to his other work, and the efforts here have been to demonstrate that Lessans was wrong about vision. Therefore if Lessans concept of efferent vision is wrong, and that concept is essential to the rest of his discovery, then his discovery is incorrect also. If what Lessans wrote about efferent vision is inconsequential and a mistake of no importance, why don't you let it go and drop it from the book? Lessans idea of projectiion is accurately explained in psychology as an internal process and the efferent vision is totally unecessary.

How are the grandchildren, I forget how old they are. 2 of mine were just here and were picked up by their mother. the 3 year old was taking a nap. The 7 year old was playing with Legos.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

"Morphed into something completely different"...All right.....now we (as in you and I) are getting somewhere! Oh...well, I thought so, until you turned around again and said "But the truth is people think they proved Lessans wrong." Again...for the (broken?) record: I am not in the least bit concerned with proving Lessans wrong or right (you'll notice that I do not contribute to anything about particular aspects of his argument - this is because I haven't read his work and cannot speak to it).

Thank you. That's the first honest thing I've heard all day.

Originally Posted by Traumaturgist"

But I will say that if you are typical of Lessans' followers, I am far, far less inclined to read his work in the future. And that remark is directed at you, peacegirl - not Lessans. Try and understand the difference I'm making here.

I'm sorry that you've gotten a bad impression, but your feelings about me have nothing to do with anything. Only the facts can speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't talk to people who are so disrespectful to me.

Originally Posted by Tramturgist"

LOL...and yet, to quote another reader...."here you are." Freud said it best in Beyond the Pleasure Principle: compulsive repetition really is a primordial force that unworks our drive to achieve a zero-level of stimulation....

I'm here at the moment. Compulsive repetition is one way to look at it. There are other ways to analyze why I'm here. Pick whichever one suits your fancy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More dramatics, but then this leads to the question...why are you suicidal?

I do not believe that Peacegirl is suicidal, that is just more drama to get attention. She seems to really crave attention, even negative. It makes you wonder what the relationship between her and her father was really like, and if Mother just stood by and let it happen?

[LadyShea]

I know she is not literally suicidal. I was using the same histrionic word she did in my response.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The context seemed to be that coming back here and talking to us is not a good or beneficial thing for you to do, so my question is, why do you keep doing it?

I told you that I saw people using my thread as a dumpster. It bothered me. Now I'm here; tomorrow I might not be. And praytell, who is this Cioran who had the gall to come to the other forum I'm on and give a tell all about my past history at this site. It's none of her business. This is getting out of hand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, it is you who claim that Lessans concept of efferent vision is essential to his other work, and the efforts here have been to demonstrate that Lessans was wrong about vision. Therefore if Lessans concept of efferent vision is wrong, and that concept is essential to the rest of his discovery, then his discovery is incorrect also. If what Lessans wrote about efferent vision is inconsequential and a mistake of no importance, why don't you let it go and drop it from the book? Lessans idea of projectiion is accurately explained in psychology as an internal process and the efferent vision is totally unecessary.

It is an important part because words have been a source of so much injustice, but the two discoveries are separate. One is not dependent on the other. I am not touching the book anymore. If people don't have an open mind, and cannot get beyond the idea that we see in real time, then they should not be reading the book. There's so much good content, it's their loss.

Originally Posted by thedoc

How are the grandchildren, I forget how old they are. 2 of mine were just here and were picked up by their mother. the 3 year old was taking a nap. The 7 year old was playing with Legos.

They're doing fine, thanks. I have three grandsons so far. The oldest turned 4 on Janurary 29th, the day my dad passed away. This is Justin's son (the doctor). The other two are brothers. One will be 4 March 11th; it's coming up. The other will be 3 May 9th. He was a preemie, and now he's in the uppermost percentile for weight and height.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I saw people using my thread as a dumpster. It bothered me. Now I'm here; tomorrow I might not be. And praytell, who is this Cioran who had the gall to come to the other forum I'm on and give a tell all about my past history at this site. It's none of her business. This is getting out of hand.

Which forum is that?

[LadyShea]

And praytell, who is this Cioran who had the gall to come to the other forum I'm on and give a tell all about my past history at this site. It's none of her business. This is getting out of hand.

No idea who that is, I hadn't seen that. But, anybody can join public discussion forums and say whatever they want, just as you do.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They're doing fine, thanks. I have three grandsons so far. The oldest turned 4 on Janurary 29th, the day my dad passed away. This is Justin's son (the doctor). The other two are brothers. One will be 4 March 11th; it's coming up. The other will be 3 May 9th. He was a preemie, and now he's in the uppermost percentile for weight and height.

My 7 year old was always right on in size for his age, the 3 year old is like your 3 year old, she is in the upper percentiles for weight and height, so at 3 she is wearing a size 4 and we expect that at age 4 she will be wearing a size 5 or larger. They really grow up quickly but when you see them everyday, you don't notice it as much. They just are what they are and you almost don't notice how much harder it is to hold them.

It reminds me of the legend of Hercules, when he was young and wanted to grow up to be strong, he got a very young calf and started to carry it around all day. By the time the calf had grown into a full sized steer Hercules was very strong to pick up and carry that sized animal around. Most people stop when the child gets too heavy.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And praytell, who is this Cioran who had the gall to come to the other forum I'm on and give a tell all about my past history at this site. It's none of her business. This is getting out of hand.

Get used to it peacegirl. Until you get help for your mental illness you will be the travelling internet freak show.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

If all you can say is "man's will is not free," then I don't think you know what you're talking about when you discuss determinism...in fact, it isn't even a discussion so much as a vague and indefensible statement. If you have more sophisticated thoughts about free will vs. determinism (assuming they are a binary dichotomy), the onus is on you to present your thoughts in a more coherent and thoughtful manner. Otherwise, if you simply leave it as "man is not free" then you deserve any criticism you get for making such a vague statement.

Traumaturgist, I have been here for two years. Don't you think I discussed why man's will is not free in all this time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Your belief is faith based because you have no evidence, have no promise of getting evidence in your lifetime, and you ignore contrary evidence. Pretty much the definition of a faith based belief.

We just happen to know why you have this faith based belief, and it explains so much about your posting history that it's entirely relevant, like knowing that the Creationist you're debating is a born-again Christian.

I will say, one last time, that this is a gang up. For whatever reason, people are using my online history as some sort of proof that this knowledge is false. Additionally, the fact that people resent his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, only adds fuel to the fire. The stumbling blocks remain, but they will be removed one day, and this new world will become a reality.

ABSTRACT

The extent of resistance to original contributions of obscure scientists is controversial. One view holds that such resistance is rare, and hence that it requires little study or remediation. A second view holds that, although not widespread, such resistance happens often enough to merit study and reform. A third view holds that this resistance is common, that it constitutes the single most formidable block to scientific advances, and that its disturbing regularity calls for a partial restructuring of the modern scientific enterprise. After documenting this crucial controversy and arguing that it cannot be resolved through citation analysis, this note tests one implication of the third view, viz., that even a cursory search of the historical and biographical literature should reveal many cases of bitter struggles for publication and recognition besides the ones which are customarily cited in discussions of this subject. Such a search has been carried out, yielding over fifty names of scientists and scholars who, by all counts, made decisive contributions to their respective fields, but who nonetheless had to struggle to have their results published or recognized. In most instances the original sources from which these cases have been culled are directly quoted, thereby showing that most historians and biographers of science tend to view the struggles they describe as rare and as owing to the peculiar circumstance of the case in question. Most likely, such struggles are traceable to many interdependent sociological, political, and psychological causes. Instead of providing a comprehensive causal analysis, this note highlights one psychological factor which may merit greater attention from social science theorists. Given these diverse roadblocks against obscure innovators, the surprising thing may well be that some unrenowned innovators, in science at least, have escaped the struggle, not that so many haven't. This note urges a systematic historical study to estimate the incidence of resistance. If such a survey shows that obscurity plus originality often lead to temporary or permanent oblivion, the case for structural reforms in science will become immeasurably stronger than it is now.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My 7 year old was always right on in size for his age, the 3 year old is like your 3 year old, she is in the upper percentiles for weight and height, so at 3 she is wearing a size 4 and we expect that at age 4 she will be wearing a size 5 or larger. They really grow up quickly but when you see them everyday, you don't notice it as much. They just are what they are and you almost don't notice how much harder it is to hold them.

It reminds me of the legend of Hercules, when he was young and wanted to grow up to be strong, he got a very young calf and started to carry it around all day. By the time the calf had grown into a full sized steer Hercules was very strong to pick up and carry that sized animal around. Most people stop when the child gets too heavy.

He is definitely hard to hold for too long. He's not overweight; he's just solid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No idea who that is, I hadn't seen that. But, anybody can join public discussion forums and say whatever they want, just as you do.

I have a feeling it's somebody who has participated for a long time, and is using a different username.

[LadyShea]

Well yeah, you are using a different username too. That's not a weird thing to do on the Internet

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a feeling it's somebody who has participated for a long time, and is using a different username.

Perhaps if one of us looked in on that forum we could tell who the user is going by that name? Which forum is that? We wouldn't even need to register, just read the thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is definitely hard to hold for too long. He's not overweight; he's just solid.

Sometimes it's not how heavy they are, it's that they wiggle so much.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Traumaturgist, I have been here for two years. Don't you think I discussed why man's will is not free in all this time?

I have no idea. But whether you've discussed it here before or not, it's still a vague and undefended statement as it was expressed. If we're going to date, we're really going to have to work on our communication.