Not according to the laws of physics. What you are saying makes no sense, it's meaningless. Even though they are English words they are strung together in a nonsensical way at odds with observed reality.
I was trying to look for the date but I must have missed it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working.
Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.
Quote:
This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image.
Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly,
Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen of any kind in bionic eyes. WTF are you talking about?
Quote:
In the study, a majority of the participants had functional vision restored and two of the subjects developed visual ability considerably more substantial than seen in the initial clinical study of the Alpha IMS. Three of the people were able to read large printed letters spontaneously post implantation. Retinal Implant Alpha IMS Brings Sight to Blind in New Study (w/video)
Right here it says this:
The implants capture light and in turn stimulate the optic nerve, which delivers visual signal data to the brain.
Yes, it does the job of the photoreceptors in the retina...captures light then delivers the signal. Where is the screen you think exists?
Quote:
My question is if the optic nerve is intact, how do they know these signals from the newly created retina are being transduced into signals that are being interpreted inside the brain.
Because that's what it is designed to do...transduce signals and send them to the brain, and we know it is working as designed because the test patients can see something.
Do you think they designed it to work this way, to do this exact thing that it does, but it accidentally successfully works some completely different way (which is what you seem to think has happened to cameras)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Why can't the brain be doing what the brain does when the retina is working?
It is doing exactly what it does when the retina is working. The implant does the job that the damaged or non-functional retina isn't doing....receives the light and tranduces it into signals to the brain.
Quote:
It's a replacement part basically, which could still create limited vision, but this does not prove what the brain is actually doing. Sorry, I don't think this proves what you think it proves.
Then you are a liar, because it does exactly what you said you would accept as solid evidence for the standard model of vision.
It's a way to maintain your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claims. With religious people we call that Lying for Jesus. With you we'll call it Lying for Lessans.
Oh my god, the light doesn't get anywhere LadyShea. The light and the object are one, two sides of the same coin. Do you not understand English?
Nothing to do with magic. They are just...one.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Not according to the laws of physics. What you are saying makes no sense, it's meaningless. Even though they are English words they are strung together in a nonsensical way at odds with observed reality.
Let's not start there, okay? Tell me Ms. Ego (don't deny that you have a big ego that needs to be constantly filled), how I"m stringing words together in relation to the right-of-way system. I won't even go to the other portion of our argument until you admit that you have not analyzed the right-of-way system correctly.
Not according to the laws of physics. What you are saying makes no sense, it's meaningless. Even though they are English words they are strung together in a nonsensical way at odds with observed reality.
Let's not start there, okay? Tell me Ms. Ego (don't deny that you have a big ego that needs to be constantly filled), how I"m stringing words together in relation to the right-of-way system. I won't even go to the other portion of our argument until you admit that you have not analyzed the right-of-way system correctly.
Caught talking complete nonsense about light again? Better change the subject!
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
The problem I described has nothing to do with waiting for the Sun to be bright enough to be seen, for Lessans said the Sun is bright enough to be seen straight away at 12:00, and you face exactly the same problem anyway if the Sun is seen at 12:02. And the problem has nothing at all to do with traveling images. The problem is that you are putting light at the retina and saying it came from somewhere where you are unable to have it located at any previous time. Suppose the light is at the retina at 12:02. And suppose that there are no traveling images. Fine. Now tell me when was this light located at the Sun which you say it came from?
12:00. I don't understand what you're getting at Spacemonkey. Light travels, but the object that is seen is not time related.
Yay! A direct answer! Thank you.
But do you see the problem now? Firstly, you no longer have us seeing things in real time, but instead at a 2 minute delay. The Sun is ignited at 12:00, but you now say we will see it only two minutes later at 12:02. That is not real time vision.
Secondly, you have the same light at the Sun at 12:00 and then at the retina 93 million miles away two minutes later at 12:02. How did these particular photons get from the one place to the other? If they managed this without traveling through the intervening distance, then by definition they have just teleported there. And if they have gotten from the Sun to the retina by traveling, then you have this light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.
Do you agree that this is a problem? Or are you happy to have vision delayed by 2 minutes and light traveling 4 times faster than light?
How do you intend to fix this? Remember that any solution you offer must explain when light is first at the retina, where that specific light came from, when it was located at wherever it came from, and how it got from the one place to the other.
You're talking about time the minute you talk about traveling photons. As long as you come from this perspective you'll never grasp this concept because time implies distance which implies space/time travel. We're right back to the afferent position.
No, Peacegirl. YOU are talking about time when you say that photons from the Sun are at the retina at 12:02 and were at the Sun at 12:00. And YOU are talking about traveling photons as soon as you claim that these photons got from the Sun to the retina without teleporting.
If you want to concede that these things YOU have said were all wrong, then you are welcome to do so. But then you are back at square one and still need a new solution for explaining when the photons will be at the retina in Lessans' scenario, where they came from, and how they got there.
Every time that you try to explain this you succeed only in proving efferent vision to be completely impossible. Efferent vision cannot be considered plausible until you can address this problem. You can't ignore the reality of time and distance just because they cause you problems. Did the photons at the retina come from the Sun? If so, when were they at the Sun, and how did they get from the Sun to the retina?
Bump.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I was trying to look for the date but I must have missed it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working.
Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.
Quote:
This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image.
Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly,
Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen of any kind in bionic eyes. WTF are you talking about?
Quote:
In the study, a majority of the participants had functional vision restored and two of the subjects developed visual ability considerably more substantial than seen in the initial clinical study of the Alpha IMS. Three of the people were able to read large printed letters spontaneously post implantation. Retinal Implant Alpha IMS Brings Sight to Blind in New Study (w/video)
Right here it says this:
The implants capture light and in turn stimulate the optic nerve, which delivers visual signal data to the brain.
Yes, it does the job of the photoreceptors in the retina...captures light then delivers the signal. Where is the screen you think exists?
Quote:
My question is if the optic nerve is intact, how do they know these signals from the newly created retina are being transduced into signals that are being interpreted inside the brain.
Because that's what it is designed to do...transduce signals and send them to the brain, and we know it is working as designed because the test patients can see something.
Do you think they designed it to work this way, to do this exact thing that it does, but it accidentally successfully works some completely different way (which is what you seem to think has happened to cameras)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Why can't the brain be doing what the brain does when the retina is working?
It is doing exactly what it does when the retina is working. The implant does the job that the damaged or non-functional retina isn't doing....receives the light and tranduces it into signals to the brain.
Quote:
It's a replacement part basically, which could still create limited vision, but this does not prove what the brain is actually doing. Sorry, I don't think this proves what you think it proves.
Then you are a liar, because it does exactly what you said you would accept as solid evidence for the standard model of vision.
It's a way to maintain your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claims. With religious people we call that Lying for Jesus. With you we'll call it Lying for Lessans.
I have always said that the signals being given by the optic nerve should not involve the retina in order to be proven true. You are the one that's trying so hard to discredit Lessans because that would make you important, but you won't be able to LadyShea. In your eyes this would make you the queen not only of this thread, but of all other threads relating to this issue. You would be on top of the world. It's not going to happen unless the proof is conclusive, which it IS NOT. But keep trying. I will bow down to you as the most important woman in all of history if you can prove that we see afferently. I will give homage to you. Holy of all holies is LadyShea. It doesn't sound too shabby, does it?
I was trying to look for the date but I must have missed it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working.
Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.
Quote:
This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image.
Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly,
Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen. WTF are you talking about?
Quote:
In the study, a majority of the participants had functional vision restored and two of the subjects developed visual ability considerably more substantial than seen in the initial clinical study of the Alpha IMS. Three of the people were able to read large printed letters spontaneously post implantation. Retinal Implant Alpha IMS Brings Sight to Blind in New Study (w/video)
Right here it says this:
The implants capture light and in turn stimulate the optic nerve, which delivers visual signal data to the brain.
Yes, it does the job of the photoreceptors in the retina...captures light then delivers the signal. Where is the screen you think exists?
Quote:
My question is if the optic nerve is intact, how do they know these signals from the newly created retina are being transduced into signals that are being interpreted inside the brain.
Because that's what it is designed to do...transduce signals and send them to the brain, and we know it is working as designed because the test patients can see something.
Do you think they designed it to work this way, to do this exact thing that it does, but it accidentally successfully works some completely different way (which is what you seem to think has happened to cameras)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Why can't the brain be doing what the brain does when the retina is working?
It is doing exactly what it does when the retina is working. The implant does the job that the damaged or non-functional retina isn't doing....receives the light and tranduces it into signals to the brain.
Quote:
It's a replacement part basically, which could still create limited vision, but this does not prove what the brain is actually doing. Sorry, I don't think this proves what you think it proves.
Then you are a liar, because it does exactly what you said you would accept as solid evidence for the standard model of vision.
It's a way to maintain your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claims. With religious people we call that Lying for Jesus. With you we'll call it Lying for Lessans.
I have always said that the signals being given by the optic nerve should not involve the retina in order to be proven true. You are the one that's trying so hard to discredit Lessans because that would make you important, but you won't be able to LadyShea. In your eyes this would make you the queen not only of this thread, but of all other threads relating to this issue. You would be on top of the world. It's not going to happen unless the proof is conclusive, which it IS NOT. But keep trying. I will bow down to you as the most important woman in all of history if you can prove that we see afferently. I will give homage to you. Holy of all holies is LadyShea. It doesn't sound too shabby, does it?
The retina is the light sensor. A light sensor must be involved to see things. This device is the light sensor in place of the non-functional retina. In the external camera models, the retina is not involved.
Did you figure out yet what you really meant when you repeatedly used the phrase "on a screen"?
I'm being polite. When Vivisectus analyzed the right-of-way system, he actually took it to the absurd by saying that a man would choose to go play golf (just because he had the right-of-way) rather than desire to be at the hospital when his wife was in labor with his child. Now do you see why I said that?
Not really since my name isn't Vivisectus. You seem to be advance blaming me for what someone else said.
Quote:
Because you're making more out of this than needs be.
I'm making more out of this than it needs to be? FFS who needs a 500 page manual to figure out who should get the milk? That book can be summed up as "just do what I want, don't complain and while you're at it bring me the paper". It's the longest justification for selfishness in the world. This might come as a shock to you but most married people want the comfort of sleeping together more than they want to stretch out and if stretching out was very important to them they would get a larger bed. Somehow you've convinced yourself that as long as the person that wants the least amount of intimacy is satisfied, life is good.
Quote:
In most cases the husband wouldn't mind picking up milk on the way home. But if he said, I'm sorry I'm just too tired to stop, he would have the right-of-way and because you know he has the right-of-way, you would lose the justification to blame him or get angry.
First of all, I have a sense of perspective about what I get upset about and a lack of milk isn't on the list. If Lessans could have just learned not to be so selfish you wouldn't need the bible of relationship advice.
I think that you missed the part where I asked you if you made your kids clean their rooms or do any chores after school given how exhausted they must be.
I think that you missed the part where I asked you if you made your kids clean their rooms or do any chores after school given how exhausted they must be.
For several years I was picking my one grandson up at school and bringing him back to the house. the general rule was that he came home and did his homework to get it out of the way for the rest of the evening, and the justification was that he was still in the 'school mode' and coul just keep going. However there were times when he sat down and just couldn't seem to focus on what he was doing and I figuted he was just too tired, so I would tell him to put it away till later and go rest or do something else. People are too complex for a "One Size Fits All" rule book and this is why Lessans right-of-way system will not work.
Also LOL at the personal attacks on me, peacegirl. You are blaming my ego for your saying stupid things? That is deflection...another of your favorite weasels.
I'm making more out of this than it needs to be? FFS who needs a 500 page manual to figure out who should get the milk? That book can be summed up as "just do what I want, don't complain and while you're at it bring me the paper". It's the longest justification for selfishness in the world. This might come as a shock to you but most married people want the comfort of sleeping together more than they want to stretch out and if stretching out was very important to them they would get a larger bed. Somehow you've convinced yourself that as long as the person that wants the least amount of intimacy is satisfied, life is good.
The examples Lessans used are so specific and odd that they could only be personal. I think that whole section was just his fantasy life. It seems he wanted a wife that cooked his favorite meals and had sex with him and otherwise left him the hell alone and assumed the whole world wants those same kind of marriages.
The passage where he explained that asking your partner "where are you going?" is undeserving of any response at all because it's none of your damn business was very telling of this mindset in my opinion.
Makes you wonder what their marriage was like, and what she thought of his discoveries.
I was trying to look for the date but I must have missed it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working.
Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.
Quote:
This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image.
Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly,
Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen. WTF are you talking about?
Quote:
In the study, a majority of the participants had functional vision restored and two of the subjects developed visual ability considerably more substantial than seen in the initial clinical study of the Alpha IMS. Three of the people were able to read large printed letters spontaneously post implantation. Retinal Implant Alpha IMS Brings Sight to Blind in New Study (w/video)
Right here it says this:
The implants capture light and in turn stimulate the optic nerve, which delivers visual signal data to the brain.
Yes, it does the job of the photoreceptors in the retina...captures light then delivers the signal. Where is the screen you think exists?
Quote:
My question is if the optic nerve is intact, how do they know these signals from the newly created retina are being transduced into signals that are being interpreted inside the brain.
Because that's what it is designed to do...transduce signals and send them to the brain, and we know it is working as designed because the test patients can see something.
Do you think they designed it to work this way, to do this exact thing that it does, but it accidentally successfully works some completely different way (which is what you seem to think has happened to cameras)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Why can't the brain be doing what the brain does when the retina is working?
It is doing exactly what it does when the retina is working. The implant does the job that the damaged or non-functional retina isn't doing....receives the light and tranduces it into signals to the brain.
Quote:
It's a replacement part basically, which could still create limited vision, but this does not prove what the brain is actually doing. Sorry, I don't think this proves what you think it proves.
Then you are a liar, because it does exactly what you said you would accept as solid evidence for the standard model of vision.
It's a way to maintain your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claims. With religious people we call that Lying for Jesus. With you we'll call it Lying for Lessans.
I have always said that the signals being given by the optic nerve should not involve the retina in order to be proven true. You are the one that's trying so hard to discredit Lessans because that would make you important, but you won't be able to LadyShea. In your eyes this would make you the queen not only of this thread, but of all other threads relating to this issue. You would be on top of the world. It's not going to happen unless the proof is conclusive, which it IS NOT. But keep trying. I will bow down to you as the most important woman in all of history if you can prove that we see afferently. I will give homage to you. Holy of all holies is LadyShea. It doesn't sound too shabby, does it?
The retina is the light sensor. A light sensor must be involved to see things. This device is the light sensor in place of the non-functional retina. In the external camera models, the retina is not involved.
Did you figure out yet what you really meant when you repeatedly used the phrase "on a screen"?
The retina is not involved, but the technology is in place of the retina. It still serves the same function. I am saying that unless we can prove that only impulses allow the brain to see the image, there is no proof that the brain interprets images from signals. And I'm asking you to please stop patronizing me LadyShea. You are not all that. You really don't know the truth, but you think you do. It's disturbing to me because you have a confrontational style that tells me you think you know more than you do. That is called arrogance.
I'm making more out of this than it needs to be? FFS who needs a 500 page manual to figure out who should get the milk? That book can be summed up as "just do what I want, don't complain and while you're at it bring me the paper". It's the longest justification for selfishness in the world. This might come as a shock to you but most married people want the comfort of sleeping together more than they want to stretch out and if stretching out was very important to them they would get a larger bed. Somehow you've convinced yourself that as long as the person that wants the least amount of intimacy is satisfied, life is good.
The examples Lessans used are so specific and odd that they could only be personal. I think that whole section was just his fantasy life. It seemse wanted a wife that cooked his favorite meals and had sex with him and otherwise left him the hell alone and assumed the whole world wants those same kind of marriages.
The passage where he explained that asking your partner "where are you going?" is undeserving of any response at all because it's none of your damn business was very telling of this mindset in my opinion.
Makes you wonder what their marriage was like, and what she thought of his discoveries.
You are like Vivisectus and Davidm. I could care less what you think LadyShea. You are the most serving individual I have met online other than these people. I don't know what your problem is, but it's not objective in the least. Think what you want. I'm done talking to you about this, and I mean it. Don't ask me anymore questions about the right-of-way system. I hope you are happy in your marriage. That's all that matters.
Makes you wonder what their marriage was like, and what she thought of his discoveries.
I've been wondering what Peacegirl's marrage was like and what her Ex thought about the book and the discoveries. If they were practicing the advice in the book, it doesn't demonstrate that advice as valid. But I'm sure these thoughts will be seen as some kind of attack on Peacegirl.
Makes you wonder what their marriage was like, and what she thought of his discoveries.
I've been wondering what Peacegirl's marrage was like and what her Ex thought about the book and the discoveries. If they were practicing the advice in the book, it doesn't demonstrate that advice as valid. But I'm sure these thoughts will be seen as some kind of attack on Peacegirl.
I keep trying to come up with examples of things that won't touch on her personal life because in general I'd prefer to stay away from things like that but seeing as she and Lessans are the only two people that have ever agreed with this stuff it's pretty hard not to keep bringing it back to how they practiced what they preach.
Lady Shea has correctly pointed out that peacegirl's "model" is different from Lessans' "model."
Lessans did NOT say that photons had to be at the retina in order for us to see. He explicitly stated otherwise in his "god turns on the sun at noon" example.
According to Seymour the Simple, since light is a condition of sight but not a cause of it, then if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see the sun instantly on earth, not because the photons from the sun are magically "at the retina," but only because they are at the sun.
This is why, he says, we would still have to wait for the photons to make the trip to the earth, eight and a half minutes long, before we could see our neighbor standing next to us. It's because, he says, it takes the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth, ergo they cannot be at the retina at the same time the sun is turned on! He SAYS this.
What he claims is that anywhere the light IS, we will see it, instantly. Since it's AT the sun in his scenario, we see it at once.
Seymour the Simple charmingly seems to have felt that looking at photons was rather like looking at runners lining up at a distant starting line. We see them from a distance, because they are there. Then, after the gun sounds, it may take the runners eight and a half minutes to arrive where we are standing, and until they arrive, we won't see them running past us. Seymour seems to have believed that light works like this.
That's how charmingly dense he was. Of course, we know the reason why we see the runners at the starting line from a distance. It's because light is reflected off of them, and impinges upon our eyes. That's how we see everything!
But what is the explanation for seeing light at the sun at noon from the vantage point of the earth, when God turns the sun on? His "explanation" is that we see the light at the sun via the brain "looking out through the windows of our eyes." That this explains exactly NOTHING, Lessans did not seem to notice or care about. It's like peacegirl's "Voila! We see."
But the main point is that Lessans did NOT say that the light has to be at the retina to see. It only has to be at the sun! Lessans' account is incoherent, naturally, but if it is possible for claims to have degrees of incoherency, I would say it's LESS incoherent than peacegirl's "model." Peacegirl is reduced to saying that the light is at the retina, even though it has not reached the retina! She even said that she knows it is hard to understand this claim! Of course it is hard, peacegirl: It is in violation of the Law of Noncontradiction, first mooted some 2,000 years ago! Your claim is not just physically impossible; it is logically impossible.
So peacegirl's model contradicts that of Lessans. I don't know when she drifted away from her God's model, or whether she realizes how blasphemous this makes her. Remember, she said Lessans's book was her "bible."
I imagine she drifted away from it, and concocted this "light is at the retina even though it hasn't reached the retina yet" nonsense when she realized she could not defends Lessans' model, which itself is just wrong as well as incoherent, though not quite as incoherent as peacegirl's "model."
What I still fail to understand is why people keep pressing peacegirl to explain her "model" (which is at variance with Lessans' "model"). All that needs to be pointed out, again and again, is that both these incoherent and unexplainable "models" are at observed variance with reality. If some model is at observed variance with reality with no hope of repair, it is simply useless even to discuss it. That is why I keep pointing out reality to her, like bouncing lasers off the moon -- which, note, she is now completely ignoring, because she is a
It's worth pointing out (though everyone but peacegirl understand this) that NO model of real-time seeing is coherent except for one: the model that light travels infinitely fast. That is a logically coherent claim. But it's also a FALSE claim, since empirically we know light travels at a finite rate of speed.
Any claim such that "we see in real time but light travels finitely" is bound to entail logical impossibility (peacegirl's model), or physical impossibility (Lessans' model).
The examples Lessans used are so specific and odd that they could only be personal. I think that whole section was just his fantasy life. It seemse wanted a wife that cooked his favorite meals and had sex with him and otherwise left him the hell alone and assumed the whole world wants those same kind of marriages.
The passage where he explained that asking your partner "where are you going?" is undeserving of any response at all because it's none of your damn business was very telling of this mindset in my opinion.
He's almost a perfect parody of the quintessential crappy husband that you see on dumb sitcoms except that he's for real and not funny even as satire. So much effort and sacrifice to hang on to a hubby that isn't worth having...
Makes you wonder what their marriage was like, and what she thought of his discoveries.
I've been wondering what Peacegirl's marrage was like and what her Ex thought about the book and the discoveries. If they were practicing the advice in the book, it doesn't demonstrate that advice as valid. But I'm sure these thoughts will be seen as some kind of attack on Peacegirl.
I keep trying to come up with examples of things that won't touch on her personal life because in general I'd prefer to stay away from things like that but seeing as she and Lessans are the only two people that have ever agreed with this stuff it's pretty hard not to keep bringing it back to how they practiced what they preach.
Yes, it is best to keep the discussion of the book on a non-personal level and I think it would be so if Peacegirl herself hadn't engaged in personal 'ad hominem' attacks. Without looking back over the thread I can't say who started it, but even when addressed this way, to reply in kind is only to decend to that level of dialogue, and I'm as guilty as anyone else.
I would add that some of my own exchanges with Peacegirl have been very personal in nature but not about the book. One factor was that we had some dialogue on another forum and after she came here I was following the thread here and commented on the other forum that she had not been well received here. Peacegirl took offence and has been hostile to me ever since, including her brief stay on 'Project Reason'.
You are like Vivisectus and Davidm. I could care less what you think LadyShea. You are the most serving individual I have met online other than these people. I don't know what your problem is, but it's not objective in the least. Think what you want. I'm done talking to you about this, and I mean it. Don't ask me anymore questions about the right-of-way system. I hope you are happy in your marriage. That's all that matters.
Did you stomp your little feet and storm off and slam your bedroom door after you typed that? Am I allowed to keep asking questions about the right-of-way system or are you just going to refuse to talk about it all because you can't think critically about it without brain cells giving off sparks?
I would add that some of my own exchanges with Peacegirl have been very personal in nature but not about the book. One factor was that we had some dialogue on another forum and after she came here I was following the thread here and commented on the other forum that she had not been well received here. Peacegirl took offence and has been hostile to me ever since, including her brief stay on 'Project Reason'.
Oh, I wasn't criticizing anyone - I'm already being far snarkier than I would normally be to someone that I think can't do any better too. She's not being any more polite than anyone else is IMO and after a decade it isn't like she's some noob that needs white knighting. She knows exactly what will happen when she takes this stuff to forums with real live scientists and philosophers and given that Lessans was so obsessed with sex the subject is unavoidable.
You are like Vivisectus and Davidm. I could care less what you think LadyShea. You are the most serving individual I have met online other than these people. I don't know what your problem is, but it's not objective in the least. Think what you want. I'm done talking to you about this, and I mean it. Don't ask me anymore questions about the right-of-way system. I hope you are happy in your marriage. That's all that matters.
I think I have an idea what the problem is, and that is that Peacegirl's world is black and white. Either you believe in daddy's book and accept it without question, or you are a bad person, mean and ignorant, without any understanding of the truth. To Peacegirl there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, those who accept the book (her), and those who don't (everyone else), and in her mind she's right and everyone else in the world is wrong.
Not according to the laws of physics. What you are saying makes no sense, it's meaningless. Even though they are English words they are strung together in a nonsensical way at odds with observed reality.
To you it's meaningless; that doesn't mean it is. Observed reality can be deceitful. The only way to know what's going on is indirectly.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
