A revolution in thought - Page 1139

Vivisectus · #**28451** 07-04-2013, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.

We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.

The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.

I don't really disagree with any of that but I think that she absolutely already knows that sight doesn't work in the way that her father believed that it did, she knows that this isn't science or formal philosophy even by lay understandings of the terms and I don't think she's at all as befuddled as she appears. I think that she just has an extreme case of daddy-worship, some very weird ideas about relationships that no one would have been shocked at 100 years ago,she's stubborn as hell, has nothing much else to do with her time and as she says, this is her social life. Maybe I'm just a meanie but it doesn't ring true to me anymore.

And when you consider that she has been on the very BRINK of really starting to market this book for at least a year and a half on this board alone, and possibly for about a decade elsewhere, then I can certainly see what you mean.

But I think she truly believes in the book, and that she believes it is 100% correct. It is just that it occupies a different kind of space in her mind than ordinary everyday reality, in the same way that people compartimentalize their religious beliefs and treat them different than any other kind of belief.

peacegirl · #**28452** 07-04-2013, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.

We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.

The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.

I don't really disagree with any of that but I think that she absolutely already knows that sight doesn't work in the way that her father believed that it did, she knows that this isn't science or formal philosophy even by lay understandings of the terms and I don't think she's at all as befuddled as she appears. I think that she just has an extreme case of daddy-worship, some very weird ideas about relationships that no one would have been shocked at 100 years ago,she's stubborn as hell, has nothing much else to do with her time and as she says, this is her social life. Maybe I'm just a meanie but it doesn't ring true to me anymore.

And when you consider that she has been on the very BRINK of really starting to market this book for at least a year and a half on this board alone, and possibly for about a decade elsewhere, then I can certainly see what you mean.

But I think she truly believes in the book, and that she believes it is 100% correct. It is just that it occupies a different kind of space in her mind than ordinary everyday reality, in the same way that people compartimentalize their religious beliefs and treat them different than any other kind of belief.

I wish people would stop psychoanalyzing me. I am not treating this discovery differently than any other kind of belief. The things people come up with in order not to take this book seriously is a study in itself.

peacegirl · #**28453** 07-04-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object absorbs yellow and the next object (a shirt) that the light strikes happens to be yellow, does this mean we won't be able to see the shirt as yellow? So some objects reflect their true color based on the full spectrum, and others don't? :eek:

What is the light source in this thought experiment? Is that source the only light? What objects are you talking about? A shirt is the second object, what is the first?

I was giving a hypothetical situation. If light strikes an object (it doesn't matter what the object is) and it absorbs the yellow wavelength, will the object it strikes next not have the ability to reflect yellow? You say no because light is coming from all over and striking that object. Like I said earlier, this sounds very haphazard to me and nature is not haphazard.

peacegirl · #**28454** 07-04-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just don't see how catching some of it is going to give us an exact replica of what existed billions of years ago. Maybe when we're able to travel to distant planets we'll be able to catch, in a small patch of sky, some of the light that was from the days before the Roman Empire fell. Wouldn't that be interesting? It would be like watching old reruns.

If the day ever comes where we can achieve FTL travel we may be able to travel far enough to capture the light from such an event in the past. If we had the technology for FTL we would probably have the technology to capture enough light to form an image, perhaps even a movie of an event.

This is where it gets absurd, but those who are believers can't see it because this is what they've been taught and it's ingrained. It's interesting how we frame things: religious folks are fundies, but people who say things with the back up of science are not fundies. It sounds like fundamentalism to me, just under the banner of science.

Spacemonkey · #**28455** 07-04-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish people would stop psychoanalyzing me.

And we wish you'd stop lying and evading. Besides, there's not much else for us to do when you refuse to answer our questions.

peacegirl · #**28456** 07-04-2013, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish people would stop psychoanalyzing me.

And we wish you'd stop lying and evading. Besides, there's not much else for us to do when you refuse to answer our questions.

Sure there is. Go and and do something you like to do instead of sitting here wasting your time day after day discussing claims that you believe aren't plausible.

Spacemonkey · #**28457** 07-04-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where it gets absurd, but those who are believers can't see it because this is what they've been taught and it's ingrained. It's interesting how we frame things: religious folks are fundies, but people who say things with the back up of science are not fundies. It sounds like fundamentalism to me, just under the banner of science.

There's no absurdity or fundamentalism on our part here. You're merely projecting yet again. The points we are making are supported by scientific experiment, observation, and evidence. They are also simple points that you could confirm for yourself in 5min with a darkened room and a flashlight. You are merely desperate to find a way to convince yourself that established science is somehow just as ridiculous and nonsensical as your father's account of vision.

Spacemonkey · #**28458** 07-04-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Go and and do something you like to do instead of sitting here wasting your time day after day discussing claims that you believe aren't plausible.

No. I'd rather stay here and remind you how much of a fool you're making of yourself - and your father - with your dishonest weaseling and evasion.

peacegirl · #**28459** 07-04-2013, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you did read the article didn't you? And do you understand that medical X-ray equipment that your son uses does not employ infrared light. Please try to get you information straight.

However the article was interesting and reminded me that photographers knew for years that some filters could make some fabrics used in clothing seem to disapear. You could photograph someone fully dressed and they would appear to be without clothing. Photographers had to be careful, and this also points up the fact that cameras respond to photons that have traveled from the person through the clothing to the camera. If cameras functioned efferently the photo would only show the clothing, the same as the eye can see. In some cases the eye can see a fully dressed person and the camera takes a photo of a nude person.

I have no idea why you keep saying that I wouldn't see the person nude when the same exact light is at the film regardless of the direction we see? We would still see the effect of the filters.

Are you useing filters over your eyes? The filters effect the light reaching the camera film but not the eyes. If this is an example of your thinking along with everything else you have posted on this thread, I seriously question your ability to think rationally and clearly. I also question the value of any book you may have authored, and would seriously question the validity of any claimed research you claim to have done. If Lessans book and research is any indication, you have done 'none at all' and your child safety book would be of little or no value in the real world. I intend to research any school that my grandchildren are attending and strongly recomend they closely examine the book if it is in the library. Your brain is not functioning properly.

Oh boy, this is yet another example of character assassination. How can you be that disgruntled that you are now using the worst tactics yet; putting down a children's safety book (one that can teach children about avoiding serious risk and can potentially save lives) because you want to believe that everything I do has no value. How low can you go?

Spacemonkey · #**28460** 07-04-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

If you understood that in the efferent account size and brightness are the only requirements for sight because it puts the film/retina within optical range of the object, you would understand why light doesn't have to travel millions of miles for us to see it, and why we would be able to see a distant object before we would see each other, which would take another 8.5 minutes. I am so tired of trying to explain this. I know I'm going to be considered a fundie as long as this goes on. No one will ever take this seriously [not in here anyway]. If you think it's all hot air and makes no sense, then let's let it rest? This would be a good time.

That was another evasive weasel response. Not a single answer to anything I just asked. You are again just ignoring the problem and begging me to let it rest. And you can't be tired of trying to explain this, because you've never once even tried to explain where the light at the retina came from or how it got there. All you've ever done is evade and weasel. You are a fundamentally dishonest person.

Peacegirl, are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? _____

Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? _____

Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? _____

Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? _____

Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either? _____

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28461** 07-04-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example...

1) Will there be photons at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited (i.e. 12:00)?

2) If so, where did these photons come from? (Name a location)

3) When were these photons located at that location? (Specify a time)

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28462** 07-04-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or, if the mechanism works in reverse, what is it that is being shot out of the eyes? Photons maybe? What exactly happens in your odd idea to make perspective occur?

Huh? Why does something have to be shot out of the eyes? Amazing the stuff people come up with.

peacegirl · #**28463** 07-04-2013, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the difference if the afferent account says traveling to the lens, and the efferent account says the light is at the lens. In both accounts light and the lens intersect.

The difference is that the afferent account can, without contradiction, explain where the light at the retina came from and how it got there.

Didn't I say that the afferent account is logical? But logic is not always right.

peacegirl · #**28464** 07-04-2013, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?

No, it does not. It is exactly what happens, as you could verify for yourself with a darkened room, some colored cellophane, and a flashlight.

A darkened room? We're talking about a room that is filled with daylight. Obviously if it's dark, we won't get a true color because there aren't enough photons to allow the true color to be seen.

peacegirl · #**28465** 07-04-2013, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we can all agree that there are a few major stumbling blocks here:

1: You do not understand enough about optics to understand what it actually is you are disagreeing with. Because of this, you regularly argue against positions that no-one actually holds: your famous recurring travelling images are a good example of this.

2: Efferent vision is not really a theory: it is a conclusion. No-one, including you, knows how it works! Based on some (undisclosed) other ideas, the conclusion that sight must be efferent has been reached by you and your father, but as far as I can tell neither of you ever knew, or spent any time finding out, how it is supposed to work.

3: The reasons why this conclusion that sight is efferent was reached by you and your father has not been shared so far. We are simply expected to assume that there is a good reason to assume this is how sight works: the reason itself is not present in my version of the book.

But you are absolutely wrong. It is present. He carefully explains how we become conditioned due to words. The eye can only become conditioned (and I've explained that this is a different type of conditioning than the conditioning of the other senses) by means of projection. You haven't examined this carefully enough, yet you now feel capable of rejecting what you have little understanding of.

No, he merely states what he believes. He does not explain why he believes it.

He simply claims THAT the things you say happen. But he does not explain how it works, why he believes it, why we should believe it... he just bluntly states it works a certain way and leaves it at that.

If I am wrong, feel free to point out where he explains why he believes sight works that way, and how it actually works.

He has explained his observations in detail. If you don't think they are an adequate explanation, that's a different story, but he has been very transparent about why he believes light is a condition of sight, and doesn't bring any images of past events (e.g., such as suddenly seeing the time of Socrates through light that has just arrived).

peacegirl · #**28466** 07-04-2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

However the article was interesting and reminded me that photographers knew for years that some filters could make some fabrics used in clothing seem to disapear. You could photograph someone fully dressed and they would appear to be without clothing. Photographers had to be careful, and this also points up the fact that cameras respond to photons that have traveled from the person through the clothing to the camera.

Are you serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

If cameras functioned efferently the photo would only show the clothing, the same as the eye can see. In some cases the eye can see a fully dressed person and the camera takes a photo of a nude person.

You are going to have to dissect this for me because I don't get where efferent vision would show any difference at all.

According to you and Lessans there would be no difference in efferent vision because the camera and the eye would see exactly the same thing. But with different filters what the camera sees is different than what the eye sees. The filter blocks some wavelengths of light and allows others, and this is only possible in afferent vision where the light is traveling through the lens to produce an image on the film.

What is the difference if the afferent account says traveling to the lens, and the efferent account says the light is at the lens. In both accounts light and the lens intersect.

No, you have consistantly stated thet the photons are 'instantly at the retina' which can only mean that they have bypassed anything between.

No, that is not true. Light is at the retina because it meets the conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

And people do not usually use photographic lenses and filters to look through. the lenses used in eye glasses do not have the properties that the photographic lenses and filters have, and do not produce the same results. It appears that photography is another subject you know nothing about.

What does a filter have to do with anything? Obviously, whatever light is filtered out will not be at the lens, so we won't see the same thing as lenses in eyeglasses. There is never going to be any resolution (no pun intended) between these two opposite accounts. Science's logical construct will end up making this model appear implausible due to a gap between the light (which has not yet arrived) and the eyes. So what's the point of continuing with this discussion?

Spacemonkey · #**28467** 07-04-2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? Why does something have to be shot out of the eyes?

The meaning of the word 'efferent' for starters.

Spacemonkey · #**28468** 07-04-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the difference if the afferent account says traveling to the lens, and the efferent account says the light is at the lens. In both accounts light and the lens intersect.

The difference is that the afferent account can, without contradiction, explain where the light at the retina came from and how it got there.

Didn't I say that the afferent account is logical? But logic is not always right.

No, you haven't said it is logical. For the last couple of days you've been trying to tell us it doesn't make any sense. And if your account has no possible explanation for where the light at the retina came from or how it got there, then that account is obviously wrong.

Spacemonkey · #**28469** 07-04-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?

No, it does not. It is exactly what happens, as you could verify for yourself with a darkened room, some colored cellophane, and a flashlight.

A darkened room? We're talking about a room that is filled with daylight. Obviously if it's dark, we won't get a true color there aren't enough photons to allow the true color to be seen. (brightness)

No-one's been saying that you won't see true colors in daylight. It is only when there is no such direct light source that light absorption by one object will prevent you seeing the correct color of a second object. And no, this effect has nothing to do with brightness or the number of photons involved.

peacegirl · #**28470** 07-04-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?

No, it does not. It is exactly what happens, as you could verify for yourself with a darkened room, some colored cellophane, and a flashlight.

Or just go to a parking lot that uses sodium vapor lights...jeez this is not some big mystery.

What is color rendering index? | Light Sources and Color | Lighting Answers | NLPIP

I'm not sure how we got here, or how this disproves Lessans' claims, but it's interesting, especially since public safety is one of the things I research.

In proportion to what we spend for other preventive measures, however, we do not deal so generously with a highly important life-saving agency - street and highway lighting. We invest millions in better reads, which are used to an increasing extent at night. The traffic over them is enormous; but, unfortunately, so is the toll of causalities that attends this use. Rural night traffic accidents inflict and estimated money damage in this country of $400,000,000 a year. Worse than that, this rural night traffic alone results in about 6000 fatal accidents and 160,000 non-fatal accidents annually. Traffic accidents take a terrible toll each year. During the 18 months we were engaged in the World War, 50,510 members of the A.E.F. were killed in action or died of wounds, and 182,674 were wounded. In the 18 months ending December 31, 1931, 53,650 persons were killed and 1,576,840 were injured in traffic accidents in our city streets and on our rural highways.

It is not sufficient to think about these figures; we should do something about them. And we can. We can install adequate lighting for about 10 per cent of the cost of an improved highway; and the annual cost of operating such a lighting system is approximately 5 per cent of the cost of the improved highway.

Statistics show that for every thousand dollars of lighting cost, there is an economic saving of more than two thousand dollars by prevention of deaths and accidents.

Engineers have worked successfully on this problem. We have suitable equipment to light highways adequately. One of the latest lighting units for this purpose is the new sodium-vapor lamp described in this publication. Its soft, golden-orange glow, its lack of glare, adapt it admirable to give maximum comfort and safety in driving.

The need for adequate highway lighting is obvious. The physical means of obtaining it are available. Let's unite in an effort to combat a menace to public comfort and safety that looms greater year by year.

I can offer no better summary than that given by Osborne S. Mitchell, Editor, Electrical News and Engineering:

1. To the nation, it would mean greatly improved transportation facilities at little extra cost. In addition, it would mean a great saving in life and a large saving in what is now a direct economic loss amounting to millions of dollars annually.
2. To the farmer, where there are no existing distribution lines, it would mean electrification with all its increased efficiency on the farm.
3. To the motorist, it would mean fewer accidents and less nervous tension.
4. To the central station, it would mean lower overhead on rural lines.
5. To the states, it would mean fewer crimes and less policing, and greatly increased tourist traffic.
6. To the electrical industry, it would bring a large potential rural market.

Spacemonkey · #**28471** 07-04-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example...

1) Will there be photons at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited (i.e. 12:00)?

2) If so, where did these photons come from? (Name a location)

3) When were these photons located at that location? (Specify a time)

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28472** 07-04-2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected.

Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without the object present, there IS no image, which means we're back to square one.

You mean you're back to square one, and again back to making unsupported assertions that contradict observable reality.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28473** 07-04-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

What does it say about the plausibility of efferent vision that you're so completely incapable and/or unwilling to answer simple questions about it?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28474** 07-04-2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?

No, it does not. It is exactly what happens, as you could verify for yourself with a darkened room, some colored cellophane, and a flashlight.

A darkened room? We're talking about a room that is filled with daylight. Obviously if it's dark, we won't get a true color there aren't enough photons to allow the true color to be seen. (brightness)

No-one's been saying that you won't see true colors in daylight. It is only when there is no such direct light source that light absorption by one object will prevent you seeing the correct color of a second object. And no, this effect has nothing to do with brightness or the number of photons involved.

All I'm saying is that we get a true color from full spectrum light. LadyShea explains that light coming from everywhere fills in the gap when light that was absorbed from the previous object does not provide the wavelength that the object needs to reflect its true color. Science has an answer for everything, but is it the correct answer? :chin:

Spacemonkey · #**28475** 07-04-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that we get a true color from full spectrum light.

No-one was ever disputing that point, so why are you making it? The point you took issue with was the idea that if the only light hitting a red object lacks red photons due to them being absorbed by a previous object then we won't see the second object as red. Obviously this effect will only be observed when there are not other red photons in the daylight streaming directly at the red object in addition to the light lacking the red photons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science has an answer for everything, but is it the correct answer? :chin:

In this case, yes. The answers we are giving you are the correct ones, as you are welcome to verify for yourself.