A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen, the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range. Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye. I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If you wrote a summary you wouldn't have to change the book. Given that people have been denying the discovery for a decade now "undeniable" probably isn't the best choice of words either. I'm sure that there are some superlatives out there that might work for a replacement that wouldn't result in such a backlash. It's as if you want to wave a red flag in front of a scientific bull just for fun. Now watch, if that red cape thing is just a myth someone will laugh at me and I'll deserve it for being too lazy to google it. It's not just you .

I don't care if the whole world tells me he is wrong, I will not change the word "undeniable" because that's what I believe it is. The whole world at one time believed man's will was free. Did it make it free? No. Judging this book by the ten years I've been online is a crude way to determine whether this book has merit.

The standards that exist in this world won't hold in the new world, so if someone gets up to go to sleep somewhere else it will not be considered rude.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM]I just got called an "uppity feminazi bitch" on another forum so I should probably just stick to this old world. We don't have a spare bedroom and I don't want to sleep on the couch.[/quote]

In the new world you would have the money for an extra bed, so don't worry. ;)

[quote="Christina'There's probably no point in going over the concept and reality of conflicting desires again since it only resulted in hilarity last time. I see your point but I don't think that relationships are remotely that simple. In your example it seems to me that one person gets what they want and the other just has to suck it up.[/quote]

Yes, the person whose desire is not infringing on anyone is the one that has the right-of-way. If you demand that he satisfy your desire (which people mistake for selfishness), which is that he not go to another bed, even though he is sacrificing his desire to go to another bed, you are being selfish because he is making no demands on you at all. If you want to be selfish, go right ahead. No one is stopping you from doing anything, but when you realize that this is a big source of arguments, and when you also realize that the wrong person was being labeled selfish, you may want to change your ways, especially if you want a loving marriage.

[quote="ChristinaM

Because it's factually incorrect and therefore no one takes the work seriously. You never get to present the entire book because every thread gets stuck on that point.

How do you know it's factually incorrect Christina? Just saying it doesn't make it so. We have gotten farther along than the eyes, but there are snags that are stopping people from wanting to move forward. That's fine with me.

Mostly, we talk about our kids and grandkids, shopping and what's on sale at the grocery store. What do you expect, we're women.

I kinda meant that tongue in cheek. I actually hate shopping, especially for clothes.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Oh good. I thought that there was yet another reason why I was never going to fit into the new world. Not that everyone's kids and grandkids aren't wonderful and all but I can live without the potty training anecdotes and I'm not going if I have to talk about laundry detergent and diapers.

Nope, you'll fit into the new world just fine. And you won't have to talk about potty training or laundry detergent. They aren't my favorite subjects either.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The sermon title is "Saints and Sinners" so, yeah, it is basically about .

Damn, that's going to be a long sermon, you can do saints in a few minutes, but sinners will take all day if not longer. Are you serving lunch and dinner during the breaks?

I know, fish and bread, and you're standing on a mountain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen, the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range. Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye. I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

And that is because you have never explained it in a meaningful way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care if the whole world tells me he is wrong, I will not change the word "undeniable" because that's what I believe it is. The whole world at one time believed man's will was free. Did it make it free? No.

Actually there has been a debate going on for a long time with some people believing in free will and others do not, so it is doubtful if the "whole world" ever believed in free will. Even on this forum there is a difference of opinion on the subject, however the debate hasn't proven it either way, the debate is still going on and Lessans hasn't even been noticed by those who are seriously debating the idea. Lessans is not even a factor in the dialogue, a non-entity on the subject.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Oh good. I thought that there was yet another reason why I was never going to fit into the new world. Not that everyone's kids and grandkids aren't wonderful and all but I can live without the potty training anecdotes and I'm not going if I have to talk about laundry detergent and diapers.

I'm sure you will enjoy this, my grandson at 3 yrs. 10 months was showing no interest in the potty, and I had had enough of changing his diapers so I got him potty trained in 3 days, it's a really interesting story and not very long. My grandaughter, on the other hand, at 3 years expressed an interest in useing the potty and basicly potty trained herself with some encourgment and help from us. Enjoy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remember how you repeatedly said that if anyone invented a bionic eye that allowed its user to see by bypassing the retina, this would prove that Lessans was wrong about how we see?


Guess what?

*BUMP*

Goalposts moving in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...

Michael, sorry about not responding to your PM, I've just been offline as much as possible lately. I'll drop you a PM tomorrow.

Speaking of which, I briefly scanned something today or yesterday, somewhere, about how these bionic eyes may soon get so good that they will provide higher resolution imagery than our own mundane eyes. I'll try to dig it up. The wonders of real science.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen, the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range.

So then where did those photons come from? From the Sun? Then if they are at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, when were they located at the Sun?

I've been asking you to address this point for months now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

No-one understands it because it is incoherent. How can anything ever be anywhere without getting there? What does that even mean? Can you give an example from another context, where object X is at location Y without ever having gotten to Y? Some kind of analogy perhaps?

Wouldn't X have to have either always been at Y, or have come into existence at Y for this to make any kind of sense? How else could X be at Y without getting to Y?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen, the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range.

Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye.

And how do the photons get there?

I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

Do you know what you just said? You just said:

"I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye."

That's what you just said!

Yes, O peacegirl, this is VERY difficult for us lamebrains to understand! Do enlighten us, you nutter nonpareil! How can photons be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye?

Please do explain this!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way we can communicate, seriously.

Absolutely correct. One cannot communicate with you, because you are invincibly willfully ignorant.

You have certain ideas which are not consistent with Lessans' claim, yet you are taking for granted that they are true.

Nope! No one is taking for granted they are true. They ARE true, and we know this because they have been observed to be true literally for hundreds of years.

You say there will always be some photons reaching your camera per second, but what if the light from that source is so dispersed that it fades out, just like sound fades out if it's too far away.

Goddamn but you are one big cup of cockamamie dumb.

Light does not fade out, as has been explained to you a bazillion times. Nor does it "run out of steam," as you so idiotically put it a few pages back.

WTF do you think, peacegirl? That like a car, photons can only go so far before they stall like a car on the road, and then to get moving again someone has to give them "photon gasoline"? Maybe at the Mobil station, eh? (get it? "Mobil"? )

A photon that is not absorbed will travel forever at speed c in a vacuum. That is why we can see proto-galaxies dating back to shortly after the Big Bang era -- and why we are seeing them as they were thirteen billion years ago.

Telescopes work because the object is magnified...

Oh, I see! So when I look at the moon in a telescope, the telescope acts like a tire pump, and reaches up into the sky to inflate the moon like a big basketball so I can see it bigger and more clearly? How often do they let you out of the straitjacket to hunt and peck at your computer keyboard?

No it doesn't, but you can believe what you want.

Light propagation via the inverse square law shows that your father's claims were wrong. That you couldn't solve the equation that Dragar gave you is very telling. You didn't even understand the equation, did you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent means conveyed outward.

And yet nothing at all is conveyed outward in your own account of 'efferent' vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One of those requirements is that the object must be within visual range. [...] This is not tautological which you're unsuccessfully trying to make it appear.

It is tautological so long as you are defining visual range as the range within which something can be seen. And the afferent account agrees that things must be within range in order to be seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to this model, light does not have to be surrounding the viewer for the object to be seen, only the object. [...] If it is far away, we will get a few photons on our retina.

Contradiction. If there are photons at the retina, then light is not only surrounding the object but is also at the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it is out of range, we will get no photons on our retina and no matter how much light is present, we will never get an image.

The afferent account agrees that you will not get an image of things that are out of range.

And you still can't explain how light instantly at the retina when the Sun is first ignited could have come from the Sun.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen, the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range. Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye. I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

I don't understand it because you are being inconsistent. You have said many times that the laws of physics are not violated, yet if it is the case that when the Sun is turned on at 12:00 noon that light photons are instantly located on the retina at 12:00 noon, then efferent vision is not compatible with the laws of physics.

Light photons cannot be located somewhere unless they came into existence there or traveled there. The eyes cannot make light photons teleport...light has immutable properties and instant bilocation is not one of them.

Lessans never said anything about where the light must be located in order to see, he seemed to imply it only needs to be surrounding or illuminating the object, not in physical contact with the retinas. Where do you see anything to that effect in his writings?

Are you sure you want to stick with this instantly at the eye thing? If so, you need to account for the location of light photons prior to them being in physical contact with the retina as well as explain exactly when they were at that location and how they came to change locations from wherever they originated to the new location of the retina.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm sure you will enjoy this, my grandson at 3 yrs. 10 months was showing no interest in the potty, and I had had enough of changing his diapers so I got him potty trained in 3 days, it's a really interesting story and not very long. My grandaughter, on the other hand, at 3 years expressed an interest in useing the potty and basicly potty trained herself with some encourgment and help from us. Enjoy.

What I say: Congratulations! That's really great.

What I think: FFS I had my puppy housebroken in 3 days. Yet another reason why I'm glad that I never had kids...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never said anything about where the light must be located in order to see, he seemed to imply it only needs to be surrounding or illuminating the object, not in physical contact with the retinas.

Of course! This is absolutely correct. And it shows something worth noting, which is that peacegirl has no fucking clue what her father was talking about. Of course he had no clue, either, but his insane claims and hers are actually different.

This is easily shown. Lessans DID say that the photons did not have to be in contact with the eye to be seen. In his example of turning on the sun, he admits it takes the photons some eight minutes to reach the earth, which is why, he says, we couldn't see the person standing next to us for eight minutes, because the photons haven't arrived on earth. But he says we could see the sun immediately when it is turned on, because the photons are at the sun!

Which just shows how dumb he was. And because of peacegirl's tireless efforts, future generations will know how dumb he was, too. The Internet never forgets!

Hey peacegirl, you said that you know how hard it is for us losers not to understand how the photons can be at the eye when they have not yet reached the eye. Could you please explain this? Could you explain how the photons can be at the eye even though they are not at the eye? Thanks!

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the person whose desire is not infringing on anyone is the one that has the right-of-way. If you demand that he satisfy your desire (which people mistake for selfishness), which is that he not go to another bed, even though he is sacrificing his desire to go to another bed, you are being selfish because he is making no demands on you at all.

OK, so if he demands that she satisfy his desire to go to another bed and stretch out even though she would have to sacrifice her own desire to have him stay, why is he not the selfish one? She isn't making any demands on him at all since he doesn't even have to move, especially if they save that money for the second bed and get one giant king sized one so they wouldn't even bump into each other accidentally.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

OK, so if he demands that she satisfy his desire to go to another bed and stretch out even though she would have to sacrifice her own desire to have him stay, why is he not the selfish one? She isn't making any demands on him at all since he doesn't even have to move, especially if they save that money for the second bed and get one giant king sized one so they wouldn't even bump into each other accidentally.

If you read the book you will see that acording to Lessans it is always the mans desires that have the right of way, 'It's in the book'.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say there will always be some photons reaching your camera per second, but what if the light from that source is so dispersed that it fades out, just like sound fades out if it's too far away.

According to the inverse square law, that never happens.

Do you want to claim the inverse square law is wrong, now? You sure latched onto it when you mistakenly thought it helped your case!

[LadyShea]

Sound waves are mechanical in nature, and only travel through a medium; liquid, gas, or solid. They travel through mediums until absorbed, and can be reflected, or transmitted just as other waves. However, sound waves cannot travel in a vacuum, so cannot travel forever in space.

Light doesn't need a medium to travel through, so can travel forever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you read the book you will see that acording to Lessans it is always the mans desires that have the right of way, 'It's in the book'.

And while we are on the subject of books,

Johnny Standley.wmv - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

Happy days are here again!

Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen,

Wonderful! If we assume the sun is visible...

the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range.

...then photons must be assumed to be at the retina, because we have already assumed that something is visible! Everything becomes so simple once you start thinking in these kind of circles.

Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye. I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

Wow - so the light has not gotten to the earth, but photons have, and have done so faster that the speed of light? That IS rather hard to understand, as photons is what light seems to consist on. In boring old modern physics, anyway. Is this one of those cases where astute observation trumps boring old research again?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

but in order to identify a person we need a name.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That's why we can't get a visualization of a person unless the name of that person is retrieved.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

This allows us to identify that person whether it's in our minds or in real life.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your next step is going to be to say that while we may be able to do some distinguishing, it is not real distinguishing, as language helps distinguishing things,

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That is absolutely true. We can see differences, but the word helps us to identify and categorize.

You are so predictable. So let us recap: we cannot see without language. We cannot distinguish without words, only really we kind of can, and words just help with the distinguishing, because when you think about it for three minutes in stead of just automatically believing and admiring anything your father ever said, it turns out we distinguish things we do not know a word for all the time.

Also, we see things before we can see them: we cannot see them without projecting a relation, but in order to know which relation to project, we must first detect what is out there somehow.

There's no doubt about how language works in relation to objects, or we wouldn't need language. Language is a cognitive skill that is specific to humans.

No, you mean that you do not doubt that.

I don't believe a dog can visualize because he can't form a relation between object and name, but he can identify through smell and sound.

People who actually study dog behvior disagree.

My dog just had surgery and before they brought her out, she heard me talking to the receptionist way down the hall and she started barking like crazy. She recognized the inflection in my voice and responded. She will do the same with smell, but when I walk in the house, she is cautious until she gets close enough to recognize through her sense of smell that it's me.

Is this one of those "observations" that trumps proper research, which can be misleading, while anecdotal evidence like this (with it's wonderful leap to a desired conclusion) is way more solid?

I believe he is accurate when he writes this, so I will repeat it:

I know you do. That is why you do not mind how irrational it is.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the person whose desire is not infringing on anyone is the one that has the right-of-way. If you demand that he satisfy your desire (which people mistake for selfishness), which is that he not go to another bed, even though he is sacrificing his desire to go to another bed, you are being selfish because he is making no demands on you at all.

Person A desires to sleep together. Person B desires to sleep alone.

Person B is demanding that person A satisfy the desire to let person B sleep alone, sacrifing person A's desire to sleep together. This is not an infringement.

Person A is demanding that person B satisfy the desire to sleep together, sacrificing person B's desire to sleep alone. This IS an infringement.

All I see is two equally valid desires. But somehow PG and her book see a quality in these desires that makes one of them an infringement, and the other one a perfectly valid desire that should receive right of way. It has something to to with making demands.

The only difference I see is that desire A requires two people to satisfy, while desire B can be satisfied wether person A is there or not.

This is then further strengthened by the other example:

Person A is preparing dinner for the family that both A and B are a part of and desires person B to help. Person B desires not to help, but to go and see a movie.

In this case, person A is once again infringing, while person B is not: the desire to go do something else trumps the desire to get some help, as this requires person B to do something Person B does not want to do. The point of view that person B is making person A cook alone, which is something person A may not want to do, is not considered valid.

So despite the fact that person B is only satisfying a personal desire, while person A is doing something that deals with the needs of both, once again person B is required to get right of way in this system. But perhaps it is simply person A's turn to cook the dinner.

Once again the only discernible difference is that desire A requires both people to cooperate, while desire B can be fulfilled even if person A should suddenly cease to exist.

Therefor I present the tentative conclusion that it is the number of people required to bring about the desire that is the factor that decides if a desire should get right of way. If it is something you can do wether another is there or not, then that desire gets right of way. If it is something that requires another to participate, and that person is required to sacrifice a desire to do so, then that is an infringement.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe a dog can visualize because he can't form a relation between object and name

You've seen this, but here it is again.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...76635710002925

Four experiments investigated the ability of a border collie (Chaser) to acquire receptive language skills. Experiment 1 demonstrated that Chaser learned and retained, over a 3-year period of intensive training, the proper-noun names of 1022 objects. Experiment 2 presented random pair-wise combinations of three commands and three names, and demonstrated that she understood the separate meanings of proper-noun names and commands. Chaser understood that names refer to objects, independent of the behavior directed toward those objects. Experiment 3 demonstrated Chaser's ability to learn three common nouns – words that represent categories. Chaser demonstrated one-to-many (common noun) and many-to-one (multiple-name) name–object mappings. Experiment 4 demonstrated Chaser's ability to learn words by inferential reasoning by exclusion – inferring the name of an object based on its novelty among familiar objects that already had names. Together, these studies indicate that Chaser acquired referential understanding of nouns, an ability normally attributed to children, which included: (a) awareness that words may refer to objects, (b) awareness of verbal cues that map words upon the object referent, and (c) awareness that names may refer to unique objects or categories of objects, independent of the behaviors directed toward those objects.

World Smartest Dog? A New NOVA Special Shows a Border Collie That Can Identify More Than 1,000 Items - ABC News

Researchers suggest that Chaser's abilities represent far more than an impressive trick -- they could give insight into how human beings learn language. Other dogs have shown a similar knack for acquiring words.

"The flexibility we see in dogs seems to be very similar to what you see in young children at a very important age in their development," said animal researcher Brian Hare at the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences.

Hare studies primates, including chimps and bonobos, which have shown the ability to learn sign language and solve sophisticated problems. But their learning is slow compared with Chaser's ability to quickly learn and recall new words.

Hare believes that primates lag behind dogs in one key area -- social intelligence. Chimps often don't pay attention to their trainers, but dogs are always sensitive to their human masters.

Video: Smartest Dog Ever Can Pick Out 1,022 Toys By Name | Popular Science

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually there has been a debate going on for a long time with some people believing in free will and others do not, so it is doubtful if the "whole world" ever believed in free will. Even on this forum there is a difference of opinion on the subject, however the debate hasn't proven it either way, the debate is still going on and Lessans hasn't even been noticed by those who are seriously debating the idea. Lessans is not even a factor in the dialogue, a non-entity on the subject.

Unbelievable, after all this time you have understood absolutely nothing in regard to this discovery because it has been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that MAN'S WILL IS NOT FREE. There's no debate over this unless you don't grasp these principles, which you obviously do not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, who is the "They" that you claim are saying this? Perhaps if you had a specific reference it could be verified. Can you find where some one is actually quoted as saying this?

People say this all the time. All we have to do is detect the light and we will get an image no matter how far away the object is, or how long ago the object appeared.