A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no delay. That's the whole point. There is no time involved whatsoever. Remember, the second we see the object we're already in optical range. We're not waiting for light to arrive in order to see said object.

p. 120 The actual reason w e are able to see the moon is
because there is enough light p resent and it is large enough to be seen.
The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon –
although much larger – is because it is much much fart her away, which
is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the
distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between
someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because
the images are not traveling towards the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

The Theory of Relativity, by Einstein, has been tested and proven true by many different experiments, and there have been no tests or experiment that contradict this theory. The Theory states that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, so any claim that involves information being transmitted from one point to another faster than the speed of light violates this 'Known Law of Physics'. To claim that theyBrain/Eye can see an object over a great distance instantly is to claim that information is being transmitted instantly, which is faster than the speed of light, and this contradicts Relativity and violates the 'known laws of physics. To have an object in one location and an eye in another location some distance away means that information about that object must be transmitted over that distance. I doesn't matter if you claim that the light travels, or that the eye just sees the object, the result is that the information has been transmitted instantly and this is impossible according to Relativity, and Relativity has been tested and shown to be true.

(I know I am ignoring quantum entanglement, let's let that go till it becomes practical.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of what is known by science (i.e., optics) does not contradict Lessans' claims. I know what everyone thinks. I can't wait for the day that he is vindicated, because that day is coming.

"MOST" so you are now admiting that there are some details of what is known by physics that contradict Lessans? What is known by science has been tested and verified many times, what Lessans claims has not. Hang on to your dream, Peacegirl, because that's all that it is, a dream, for everyone else it's a nightmare. Someday Lessans will be vindicated, - in your dreams.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of what is known by science (i.e., optics) does not contradict Lessans' claims. I know what everyone thinks. I can't wait for the day that he is vindicated, because that day is coming.

When the magic day comes, scientists will have to admit that all the results they've obtained these last hundred years or so have been an illusion:

• Space probes haven't really visited, photographed and landed on distant planets - how could they have when their trajectories were calculated using the faulty pre-Lessans methods?
  
• Likewise the global positioning system that we thought we were using for navigation was really just a form of mass-hypnosis foisted upon us by the evil scientists - how we ever managed to arrive anywhere, heaven only knows.
  
• And it goes further (both literally in distance terms, and figuratively in terms of time). All our astronomical observations showing that more distant galaxies and quasars appear younger than nearby ones are either mistaken - or maybe god created the universe by starting at the earth and working outwards really slowly - so that the more distant objects really are billions of years younger than the nearby ones.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that's not what they said at the physics forum.

Oh, well if a random poster said something different at the physics forum, who am I to disagree!

Anything that supports what you already think is a perfect source of information, and anything that disagrees is part of the global conspiracy. What a way to function.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, well if a random poster said something different at the physics forum, who am I to disagree!

Anything that supports what you already think is a perfect source of information, and anything that disagrees is part of the global conspiracy. What a way to function.

That's right! If only you had read Lessans book all those years ago, you wouldn't have needed to waste your time in some college or university learning what all those misguided scientists think they know. You could have been the right-hand-man to the High Priestess of Lessanism, what an honor that would have been in the 'Golden Age'? And no-one could blame you for being proud and arrogant, it's not like you would be doing it of your own free will.

[But]

Light is one single particle that correlates all things. The more times it bounces between two objects, the stronger the correlation becomes.

And thedoc, which theory do you mean? There is an infinite number of them.

That's not just my opinion, it's a law of nature.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

And thedoc, which theory do you mean? There is an infinite number of them.

All of them.

[specious_reasons]

I just finished listening to Daniel Dennett on Point of Inquiry.

I think it would be interesting to the people who care about the free will debate - if you don't want to listen, the talk is based on his book, Intuition Pumps and other Tools for Thinking and other writings you can probably find online.

I found the talk interesting for 2 reasons.

1. Dennett seems to be taking his stance against free will because he thinks that people will use the "no free will" excuse to behave immorally. I'm 99.44% certain that Dennett is an atheist, so I wonder if he recognizes the irony of this argument.

2. Daniel Dennett has been accused of "moving the goalposts" on free will, and after listening to his definition of free will, I have to agree with his critics. Essentially, Dennett describes free will as having moral agency. Well, if you define it like that, well, yeah, I agree we have free will, more or less.

[thedoc]

Well that didn't take long, no-one has the right to tell anyone how to think or what to think. Arrogance is not appreciated.

Having spent 50 years as an influential thinker, Daniel Dennett has earned the right to tell us how to think. His latest book is a collection of 77 tools for thinking, which every self-respecting critical thinker should consider, if not actively use.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well that didn't take long, no-one has the right to tell anyone how to think or what to think. Arrogance is not appreciated.

Having spent 50 years as an influential thinker, Daniel Dennett has earned the right to tell us how to think. His latest book is a collection of 77 tools for thinking, which every self-respecting critical thinker should consider, if not actively use.

I think that Daniel Dennett has earned the right for me to listen carefully to what he has to say. He's very smart man and an accomplished thinker. Don't think I'm just rejecting what he say to say because I'm being a bit cheeky. There are no sacred cows, and it's easy to forget when you're dealing with a serious intellect like Dennett.

In fact, Dennett is saying much the same thing I believe - that we have the appearance of free will - we have a sense of agency and can make choices. That's not the same definition of free will that Sam Harris (for example) is arguing against.

I happen to agree with both men, and that's not a contradiction.

The part that I found ironic is that Dennett is really proclaiming we have free will because he's concerned about the moral implication for the uneducated masses. This is the same moral argument Christians bring against evolution and atheism. When someone says, "If there wasn't a God, I'd be killing people left and right, and sodomizing my children!" I really doubt it, unless they're a Catholic priest.


(BTW, I'm using Sam Harris as an example, but there are other people I trust more who have similar opinions.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think that Daniel Dennett has earned the right for me to listen carefully to what he has to say. He's very smart man and an accomplished thinker. Don't think I'm just rejecting what he say to say because I'm being a bit cheeky. There are no sacred cows, and it's easy to forget when you're dealing with a serious intellect like Dennett.

In fact, Dennett is saying much the same thing I believe - that we have the appearance of free will - we have a sense of agency and can make choices. That's not the same definition of free will that Sam Harris (for example) is arguing against.

I happen to agree with both men, and that's not a contradiction.

The part that I found ironic is that Dennett is really proclaiming we have free will because he's concerned about the moral implication for the uneducated masses. This is the same moral argument Christians bring against evolution and atheism. When someone says, "If there wasn't a God, I'd be killing people left and right, and sodomizing my children!" I really doubt it, unless they're a Catholic priest.

That part I can agree with and if I have the time I will look into what he has to say, but my internet time is limited and I would need compelling evidence to spend time reading anything.

[Vivisectus]

Yes, the word that identifies the object is projected.

...after it has been seen, with the eyes working like a camera, which also does not happen because the eyes work like movie projectors...

A camera focuses the light, that is true, but in order for there to be something to take a picture of, that object has to be in the field of view. You're saying the same thing but trying to make it sound different.

Lenses focus light - and if we need to wait for light to arrive, then sight is not instant. Even the book acknowledges that the eyes still have to work like cameras. However, cameras only detect light... they do not detect images.

You refuse to understand what I'm saying, or you are incapable of understanding what I'm saying. I'm not sure which one. If we are taking a picture of the object in real time, there is no waiting for light to arrive.

Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.

And right now you are just displaying your famous talent for circular reasoning again by saying that if we take a picture in real time, we do not have to wait.

"The conditions for sight are met, because we can see the object (which I think has something to do with a mirror image), and this does not require light.

It means exactly nothing!

- What do mirrors, or the images in mirrors, have to do with anything?
- How does any of that work?
- How do you know it is true?

These are the things that would feature in an explanation.

What do you think I've been trying to do?
[/QUOTE]

If you do not have answers to any of this, then your belief that it is correct is irrational: it is an item of faith.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The Theory of Relativity, by Einstein, has been tested and proven true by many different experiments, and there have been no tests or experiment that contradict this theory. The Theory states that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, so any claim that involves information being transmitted from one point to another faster than the speed of light violates this 'Known Law of Physics'. To claim that theyBrain/Eye can see an object over a great distance instantly is to claim that information is being transmitted instantly, which is faster than the speed of light, and this contradicts Relativity and violates the 'known laws of physics. To have an object in one location and an eye in another location some distance away means that information about that object must be transmitted over that distance. I doesn't matter if you claim that the light travels, or that the eye just sees the object, the result is that the information has been transmitted instantly and this is impossible according to Relativity, and Relativity has been tested and shown to be true.

(I know I am ignoring quantum entanglement, let's let that go till it becomes practical.)

There is no transmission of information which involves time. That would be breaking the laws of physics. You, as well as everyone here, are so caught up in distance and time (the afferent account) that it's no wonder you are failing to grasp this concept. The conditions that need to be met for efferent vision to work requires the object being present (in our field of view) regardless of how far away that object is. If it's large enough and bright enough, we will see it whether it's a huge star or a tiny ant. That's what you're failing to understand. You can argue with me all you want, which I'm sure you will, but it doesn't change the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You don't seem to grasp the fact -- actually, I think you do grasp the fact, which is why you are so contemptible; you're a serial liar -- that Lessans' idiotic "model" makes a prediction. If we fire a laser at the moon, we should see the beam on the moon about 1.25 seconds after we fire it, because the photons arrive at the moon in that time, which is all that is required to see the light.

First of all a beam on the moon is a far cry from light surrounding the moon. How could we see a beam that far away that only emits a small amount of light?

Originally Posted by davidm

Instead, as measured by atomic clocks that are accurate to picoseconds, we see the light on the moon about 2.5 seconds after it leaves the earth. This proves conclusively that we do not see in real time, because the reflected light has to make the journey back to earth before we see it. And that means we are seeing the moon as it was 1.25 seconds in the past, and that Lessans was wrong. So sorry!

You're wrong David. We see the light 2.5 seconds later because the light is traveling toward us and until it gets here we can't see it. You are getting the object, which can only be seen when enough light is present, and the light, that travels at a certain rate of speed, confused. A laser would not allow the moon to be seen on film; it's not bright enough. I am not interested in deconfusing your mind because you are a vindictive guy who is so terribly threatened by this knowledge that you're taking it out on the messenger. That's infantile behavior.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... how 'bout those bionic eyes which are now good enough to allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and read?

You know -- the very things you said would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?


Wait, let me guess: "Something else must be going on," and they're not really seeing; they just think they are, right?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What Lessans described as a healthy marrage is nothing that I would want any part of. When my wife and I disagree, we work it out according to our own personal preferences and not some "right of way" code book. FYI, in case you have forgotten the book does describe a "Big Brother" committee who will decide what is right and wrong, hurtful and not. It's in the book.

That's not true. These principles are just an extension of the knowledge that man's will is not free. Working it out doesn't change the fact that someone is not going to get his way, because two desires are involved. One is going to have to yield either way. Yes, you can work it out by making someone feel guilty because they don't want to do what you want them to do, but that's selfish behavior. If you want to be selfish, go right ahead. Selfish behavior can eventually cause enough resentment to mess up a marriage, but hey, who am I to tell you what to do?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then why does your own current explanation of efferent vision have light traveling at 4 times the speed of light?

Huh? This discussion is getting more and more discombobulated. Maybe the fault that it has degraded to this point is mine, but it's no use talking about it anymore.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? This discussion is getting more and more discombobulated. Maybe the fault that it has degraded to this point is mine, but it's no use talking about it anymore.

So you're just going to run away from the problem once again? Without even trying to resolve it?

You said the photons at the retina at 12:02 were located at the Sun at 12:00. That means they covered a distance of 93 million miles in 2 minutes, so either they teleported across that distance or they traveled at 4 times the speed of light.

There are no afferent assumptions here. This comes purely from what YOU have said about where the light at the retina came from. If you have given the wrong answers then you have demonstrated that efferent vision cannot explain where the light at the retina came from or how it got to be there.

But of course you won't face up to this, and will predictably do what you always do - weasel and evade.

[LadyShea]

The conditions that need to be met for efferent vision to work requires the object being present (in our field of view) regardless of how far away that object is.

The field of view varies, however. The field of view of the naked eye is less than the field of view for the eye aided by binoculars which is less than the field of view for the eye aided by a telescope. Agreed?

So, according to you the non absorbed light photons somehow extend instantly from the object and stop at the end of the field of view. How big is that field of view in concrete terms?

Let's say the field of view for a specific object X is 5 miles for an eye aided by a telescope. How did the light get 5 miles away from the object to be at the retina in the efferent account? Or are there light photons at the retina at all?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He may desire to stay in bed with her for the very reason that she's not demanding that he do this. Who wants to be told that they have to do something, or else get blamed for not doing it? On the other hand, he may stay with her and cuddle because he wants to make her happy, but after awhile he may then decide to go to sleep in another bed, as this is his preference. And she would never say a word in anger for this is his right-of-way.

I don't know what would give her greater satisfaction because I'm not her. It would probably depend on how much she enjoys being cuddled, knowing that her husband loves her that much to try and satisfy this desire of hers, and also knowing that she can't do this by herself. But after cuddling for awhile, she, as a loving wife, would want him to satisfy his desire which is to go to bed and stretch out.

And how would they communicate their desires to each other?

Lessans stated that if one wanted to have sex, instead of just announcing this, which would impose an obligation, and instead of touching their partner, they should instead wear sexy clothes to indicate their interest non-verbally and non physically and hope that the translucent robes cause their spouse to become interested as well.

How does one communicate a desire to cuddle without saying so directly, and without initiating cuddles physically?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.

What do you mean by "on a screen"? How does making a pattern on your back relate at all to what bionic eyes do?

Some bionic eyes use similar technology to cochlear implants to send impulses to the brain, and in fact the design was based on cochlear implants. Do you think hearing via cochlear implants is not 'real hearing" as well?

[LadyShea]

You're wrong David. We see the light 2.5 seconds later because the light is traveling toward us and until it gets here we can't see it. You are getting the object, which can only be seen when enough light is present, and the light, that travels at a certain rate of speed, confused.

So the Sun is an object we can see, but we can't see the light from the Sun until it reaches us? You are the one who is confused.

There is no "object" to see when we see the Sun, there is only its light. This is why we can't see the massive objects known as black holes- despite the fact that they are literally surrounded by visible, huge stars emitting enormous amounts of light and should be well illuminated-they don't emit light themselves, and so cannot be seen no matter how much light is "present".

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

Instead, as measured by atomic clocks that are accurate to picoseconds, we see the light on the moon about 2.5 seconds after it leaves the earth. This proves conclusively that we do not see in real time, because the reflected light has to make the journey back to earth before we see it. And that means we are seeing the moon as it was 1.25 seconds in the past, and that Lessans was wrong. So sorry!

This also proves conclusively
That when the damn thing GPS
The number of which is 26
And GO

You are a fucking idiot
The forum of yours is Fulla Shit
You 0
Oh Oh Oh

As measured by atomic Clox
The clock strikes 12 and metal shrapnel
BLOW



"As soon as I Submit Reply"
The first one of these Fuckers goes to
Hell

[ChristinaM]

So peacegirl, am I understanding this correctly so far?

- Asking someone to do something that you can do for yourself imposes an unfair obligation. That's not too awful since I generally wouldn't ask anyone to do something for me that I can do for myself but is it OK to ask someone to do something for you that you can do but they can do it much more easily? For example the nearest grocery store is about 30 minutes away so if I forget something I would have to waste gas and clean air to drive there just to pick up some milk. My husband is going to pass right by the store on his way home. Is it an imposition to ask him to get it? He doesn't seem to mind.

- It's OK to ask your partner to spend more time with you as long as you're considerate enough to think of something that they will enjoy too. That's not awful IMO either because my husband and I don't ask each other to do social or fun things that we know they don't like to do. We can do those things with friends. Enforced boredom isn't exactly the same as togetherness as long as there are other things that you share. Of course there are some things that I need him to do (like cope with my crazy mother occasionally) but he loves me so he does it even though it's not the least bit enjoyable.

Did I get those two right?

I'll probably have more questions as I understand it more fully but I think that this question from LadyShea is a good one to tackle next.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans stated that if one wanted to have sex, instead of just announcing this, which would impose an obligation, and instead of touching their partner, they should instead wear sexy clothes to indicate their interest non-verbally and non physically and hope that the translucent robes cause their spouse to become interested as well.

How does one communicate a desire to cuddle without saying so directly, and without initiating cuddles physically?