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.
This has nothing to do with psychoanalysis: it is simply the conclusion of our little examination into the different standards that you apply to your ideas and to other claims. We saw that when you apply the standards that you require for your ideas, we cannot come to the conclusion that fairies do not exist, or that the earth is not flat.
And yet you have no problem dismissing these two ideas as implausible. This is because you use different standards for whatever is int he book than you use for everyday reality.
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).
No, actually. It really is not very clear why he feels this is the case. Nor is there an explanation about how it actually works. He seems to (once again) equate claiming something with proving it.
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.
Because optics works with travelling photons: if the same mechanism works in reverse, something needs to travel out of the eyes.
You came up with the idea that it works in reverse, not me...
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?
Actually, that becomes rather pertinent when you consider that this is a case where you make claims about science, trying to give yourself an air of authority that you have not earned.
But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.
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?
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.
A thought experiment usually is a hypothetical situation, and in this one it seemed that the reflected light was the only light source, the reference to other reflected light was to illustrate everyday experience, and not a thought experiment. Do try to keep things straight in your mind.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
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.
If scientists are just a bunch of fundies with absurd beliefs, why do you so desperately want them to approve of, and support your book? Perhaps Wayne Dyer would give it a look?
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
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?
Many years ago I won a Limbo contest.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
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.
Just curious, did you learn your research techniques from your father?
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
"Poor Design" in nature is only a result of human misunderstanding of nature
That's why I had design in quotes. There are examples of things that, had they [I]actually [/I]been designed by an intelligent being, would be much more efficient and less stupid.
Basically the argument from poor design is used to show that if there is really a designer, it is crazy and incompetent.
Sorry but this is wrong, every organism is fitted to the niche it inhabits.
Yes, however evolution doesn't go about fittings as a designer would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Nature designs each organism to a purpose, and if humans do not understand that purpose, that is not the fault or inefficiency of the organism, any stupidity is strictly in human understanding of the organism.
Nature doesn't "design" anything, that's the point. Adaptation isn't always neat and orderly and optimal.
It's like the difference between designing a house and building it using the best materials, technology, and tools you have acquired for that purpose and brought with you to the area, and constructing a shelter with what you have available in the immediate environment and making do the best you can with what you have
The MacGyvered shelter may be very adequate in protecting you from the elements, but wouldn't be as optimal as the specially designed and built house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
The Camel was thought to be a poorly designed horse, till scientists were able to examine one more closely and determine that the Camel was well designed to survive in the environment it was inhabiting.
No, the camel is well adapted to its environment, not well designed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
The criticizm that any creature could be designed more effeciently, is only from ignorance of the real purpose and environment the organism is inhabeting.
No, it comes from an understanding that adaptation doesn't look like design. Evolution much better describes why organisms are the way they are than does the idea of an intelligent creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Organisms are designed to be adequate to survive where they are, any improvment would upset the balance and require other organisms to evolve to restore the balance of nature.
As has happened throughout the worlds history. Some species adapt and survive, some go extinct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
One example of the upset of nature is the elimination of large predators from the eastern part of the US. Now human hunting of prey animals is necessary to keep the herd in check, otherwise the animal population would increase to the detriment of all living creatures in the area.
Human technology has moved too fast for many species to evolve mechanisms by which to survive and/or thrive with us as part of the equation. The Chinese river dolphins are gone. Alien species introduced by humans have taken over and disrupted many habitats.
There are exceptions. Coyotes have adapted much better than wolves, for example, so we see their populations increasing as they are able to live in a larger variety of environments, while their cousins the wolves have dwindled to the point of being saved by the humans who almost wiped them out.
Jellyfish populations are exploding as their natural predators populations are dwindling.
"Poor Design" in nature is only a result of human misunderstanding of nature
That's why I had design in quotes. There are examples of things that, had they [I]actually [/I]been designed by an intelligent being, would be much more efficient and less stupid.
Basically the argument from poor design is used to show that if there is really a designer, it is crazy and incompetent.
Sorry but this is wrong, every organism is fitted to the niche it inhabits.
Yes, however evolution doesn't go about fittings as a designer would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Nature designs each organism to a purpose, and if humans do not understand that purpose, that is not the fault or inefficiency of the organism, any stupidity is strictly in human understanding of the organism.
Nature doesn't "design" anything, that's the point. Adaptation isn't always neat and orderly and optimal.
It's like the difference between designing a house and building it using the best materials, technology, and tools you have acquired for that purpose and brought with you to the area, and constructing a shelter with what you have available in the immediate environment and making do the best you can with what you have
The MacGyvered shelter may be very adequate in protecting you from the elements, but wouldn't be as optimal as the specially designed and built house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
The Camel was thought to be a poorly designed horse, till scientists were able to examine one more closely and determine that the Camel was well designed to survive in the environment it was inhabiting.
No, the camel is well adapted to its environment, not well designed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
The criticizm that any creature could be designed more effeciently, is only from ignorance of the real purpose and environment the organism is inhabeting.
No, it comes from an understanding that adaptation doesn't look like design. Evolution much better describes why organisms are the way they are than does the idea of an intelligent creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Organisms are designed to be adequate to survive where they are, any improvment would upset the balance and require other organisms to evolve to restore the balance of nature.
As has happened throughout the worlds history. Some species adapt and survive, some go extinct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
One example of the upset of nature is the elimination of large predators from the eastern part of the US. Now human hunting of prey animals is necessary to keep the herd in check, otherwise the animal population would increase to the detriment of all living creatures in the area.
Human technology has moved too fast for many species to evolve mechanisms by which to survive and/or thrive with us as part of the equation. The Chinese river dolphins are gone. Alien species introduced by humans have taken over and disrupted many habitats.
There are exceptions. Coyotes have adapted much better than wolves, for example, so we see their populations increasing as they are able to live in a larger variety of environments, while their cousins the wolves have dwindled to the point of being saved by the humans who almost wiped them out.
Jellyfish populations are exploding as their natural predators populations are dwindling.
I must appologize, I can see that I was useing 'design' in the sense of adapting adequately to the environment, which is what you were saying and I agree. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I understand that nature does not intentionally 'design' anything, organisms adapt to the environment and that adaptation is how it fits into that environment.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
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?
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.
Yes, I know, see how I used the phrase "thought experiment"? In a good thought experiment we need to know all the variables to make predictions based on current knowledge.
Quote:
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?
Again, we need to know the light source and the configuration of the objects. Is the yellow absorbing object completely blocking any light from the source from reaching the yellow object?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
It's not haphazard. Light travels away from the source in all conceivable directions unless the source is a laser. Only an object that completely and totally blocks the source light from reaching the second object could cause it to not reflect yellow.
So, this is why its important that you set up your thought experiment more carefully with actual objects and light sources specified.
See the image below. As you can see where the source light is blocked by an item that absorbs yellow, you cannot see it as yellow, but orange or green
I must appologize, I can see that I was useing 'design' in the sense of adapting adequately to the environment, which is what you were saying and I agree. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I understand that nature does not intentionally 'design' anything, organisms adapt to the environment and that adaptation is how it fits into that environment.
Yes. So for example, one would think an intelligent designer would have given humans the ability to synthesize Vitamin C, since it is necessary for survival and other organisms have this ability. But, we have to acquire it from our diet... which we've adapted to, but that makes no sense from an optimal design standpoint.
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).
Nobody has ever said that humans should be able to see the time of Socrates. This is an absurdity that Lessans dreamed up. This is part of his elaborate strawman.
The equipment needed to see people on Earth from 2500 light years away is far beyond our technology. It is merely conceivable that such equipment might someday exist, just as 75 years ago it was conceivable that humans might travel to the moon some day.
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.
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.
Not sure what all that highway lighting stuff was about. My point was that sodium vapor lights do not render the colors of objects the same as daylight does. The properties of the light provided by the source and the absorption/reflective properties of the matter it interacts with, are what determine the color we see. That's why there is no such thing as "true color"
Rendering metamerism « Eclat Digital Metamer materials under D65 light source, differentiated by sodium arc lamp Using a spectral renderer, predicting accurately the colorimetry of objects is possible. This requires to work only with spectral data for both surfaces and light sources. This way, very subtle effect such as metamer color differentiation may be visualized.
Same mechanism? So light travels and hits the retina, signal goes down the optic nerve etc?
No, I said optics works the same way in either model.
Yeah, optics is the scientific model of vision and light physics, so optics can't work the same in both models. As you said, they are complete opposites. Right?
Peacegirl, something you can try, randomly ask drivers "What color is a Yield sign?" and see how many still think they are 'Yellow and Black', especially older drivers.
That's not surprising. That's what they remember. They just stop noticing any changes. Who said that what we remember happens outside of the brain? Duh!
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
I said that unobstructed light (light that has the full spectrum) will give us a true color of what object we are looking at. What is it you don't understand? If a shadow of one object falls on another object, the true color of the other object will be compromised by the shadow. So what? What are you trying to prove other than to try to show me up?
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
How about you answer my questions about your statement?
This doesn't apply because the moon actually exists. We only can see the hemisphere that is facing us as the moon orbits the earth.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
I said that unobstructed light (light that has the full spectrum) will give us a true color of what object we are looking at. What is it you don't understand?
The irony of you asking others what they don't understand is just so precious. Lost on you, of course.
1. Hey, here's an idea: Let's shine "unobstructed light (that has the full spectrum)" on a two yellow yield signs. Make sure one of those signs is set against a blue background, and the other against a red background. Will they look alike? Discuss!
Of course, Lady Shea already gave you an example of this, showing two patches of orange against backgrounds of different colors. The two squares looked like different colors. But if you had put them side by side against a white background, they would have looked exactly alike. So what is the "true" color of these squares? Answer: they don't have a "true color."
Jesus fuck, even in something as simple as this, you have no idea what you are gibbering about.
Actually, if sight works efferently, then the colour of the light should not matter: light is only a condition, and does not change the colour of the object... so why do we see a difference? Why does a white ball look red under red light?
And since light does change the way we see an object, it cannot be happening instantly: the light requires time to get there, and then to reach the eye.
You are looking at this the wrong way round: since light does cause "special effects", sight cannot work the way you say it does.
Red photons would be at the eye if the object were red Vivisectus. Light can create special effects, but in order to see these images (in real time), the photons have to be at the film/retina, so I don't know where you're coming from when you say that this negates efferent vision.
Tell me which square is darker, the one marked A or the one marked B?
They are the same color. I cannot see it even knowing the truth, because my brain is seeing what it expects to see. I had to open a photo editor and use the color tool to get the value and verify that they are identical. This is the color of both squares
It is
Red 120
Blue 120
Green 120
I know the brain fills in things but I don't get how both squares are the same color because that's what we expect to see. I don't have any expectations.
I think she would love positive attention for the book. The problem is that any serious attention reveals the enormous flaws in the book, while even the smallest criticism is automatically considered to be caused by either ignorance, malice or bias. As a result all attention turns into negative attention, because she seem incapable of admitting to even the slightest flaw in the book, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Maybe I have a bad habit of assuming that in the absence of mental health issues or developmental disabilities people generally do things in a way that achieves their goal and when their tactics don't work they change them. She won't change hers no matter how many decades this ridicule goes on for so it seems to me like the payoff is in the ridicule for her. I'm not going to assume that she has a serious mental health problem since I'm not a psychiatrist and if I were I wouldn't be diagnosing strangers online. There's lots of room for weird in between neurotypical and crazy IMO.
Once I work out a marketing plan, I won't have time to come here.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
