A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

If Peacegirl really wants to discuss the chapters in the book, she needs to give real answers to the questions that are asked, and not constantly insist that people should go back and read the book again. If people don't get the answers when they do read the book, reading it again isn't going to help without some clarification from Peacegirl.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And my attempts have not been dishonest, although they may have been misunderstood.

Yes, they have. You have lied repeatedly. In the same conversation with me, here is an example lie:

You said:
"Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon."

I said:
"Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite."

And then you lied:
"I never said the opposite."

You're a liar, peacegirl.

[The Lone Ranger]

Remember when you said that if anyone invented a functioning bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?

Remember how, when it was pointed out that these already exist, you denied ever having made such a claim? That's called lying, you know.

Then, when LadyShea provided links, demonstrating that you had indeed made the claim that you'd just denied making, you immediately shifted tactics and tried to distract everyone, hoping they'd forget that you had been caught in yet another blatant lie.


But thedoc is right; quoting all of your blatant lies would be a rather lengthy and time-consuming process.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you notice that David is always right there to chime when he thinks I'm down for the count? This must give him such great satisfaction!

LOL, you've been down for the count ever since you got here. That doesn't mean you'll ever leave -- you've been declaring that you're "done" for two years, yet here you still are, proving again what a liar you. You can't leave, because the negative attention you get here is all that you have.

Of course you've said that the photons are both at the eye and not at the eye, and you even said you "understand how hard it is" for us to understand this! Want me to go dig up the quote, and expose yet another lie of yours?

Now, I see you are asserting that the photons keep traveling and are replaced by new photons! Really? This is not what you said before. Crucially, it is the opposite of what Lessans said. He claimed the photons that "smile on us in the morning" are the same photons that arrived on the other side of the earth while we were asleep! So now you are contradicting Lessans. You can't even keep track of your own lies, which is indeed an occupational hazard of lying.

You are a never-ending source of lulz. That is your sole role here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If Peacegirl really wants to discuss the chapters in the book, she needs to give real answers to the questions that are asked, and not constantly insist that people should go back and read the book again. If people don't get the answers when they do read the book, reading it again isn't going to help without some clarification from Peacegirl.

They have not read the book thedoc. I have never minded answering questions if they were relevant, but instead all I get are rebuttals that he is wrong. I'm just glad this group isn't representative of the entire populace.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Well, I don't know how anyone else feels and I'm sure that they'll continue to discuss the first 2 discoveries for as long as you'd like to but if you're serious about beginning to do things about marketing instead of just think about it I'll talk to you about it. I'm not an expert at marketing but I can help break it down into manageable tasks to do in an order that makes sense.

Thanks! LadyShea came up with a lot of ideas. I now have to form an outline and decide what to do first. I wrote to quite a few philosophers through email, and only one person responded. I gave him the website and he never wrote back. I am limited in that I cannot travel all over the country and do book tours. I will have to do everything from home, which is not a problem with today's technology. I also have a very small budget but with a little creativity, I can probably overcome that hurdle too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you serious! This thread is alreaty 1145 pages long, are you going for 2000 all at one time?

What does the page count have to do with the price of eggs?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually you did say that, in effect. You stated that an object had to be 'surrounded by light' (photons), and when we looked at the object photons would be instantly at our retina. An instant transfer means that the photon much disapear at one location (the object) and reappear at the same time at another location (the retina). That means that at the instant of transfer the photon is 2 places at once. However you never stated that the photon disappears at the object, so we could assume that you mean that the photon continues to exist at the object while it appears at the retina, thus being 2 places at once.

The only reason it would be at the retina is due to efferent vision (which is inexplicable to those who think in terms of traveling photons) which puts the eye in optical range of whatever we see in the real world. Anyway, I'm ending this discussion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason it would be at the retina is due to efferent vision (which is inexplicable to those who think in terms of traveling photons) which puts the eye in optical range of whatever we see in the real world. Anyway, I'm ending this discussion.

No, it's inexplicable to anyone who has a brain, which excludes you. How can the photons be at the retina when God turns on the sun at noon, when according to Lessans the photons won't arrive at the retina for eight and a half minutes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They have not read the book thedoc. I have never minded answering questions if they were relevant, but instead all I get are rebuttals that he is wrong. I'm just glad this group isn't representative of the entire populace.

It is obvious from the questions and comments that "They" have read the book, some have made notes and refer to them in fraiming the questions. The content of the questions and comments is not possible without actually reading the book, it would also not be possible to just randomly go to a page in the book and pull out a specific quote, without knowing where it is in the book. In order to paraphrase and satirize the book one must first know what is in the book. You're only basis for the claim that people have not read the book is that they disagree with what is written in the book and to disagree with it "They" must have read it first. Otherwise you are doing what Peacegirl is doing, dismissing knowledge without knowing what that knowledge is. Much that has been questioned or commented on, was not always stated before so the only source must have been in the book

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remember when you said that if anyone invented a functioning bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?

Remember how, when it was pointed out that these already exist, you denied ever having made such a claim? That's called lying, you know.

Then, when LadyShea provided links, demonstrating that you had indeed made the claim that you'd just denied making, you immediately shifted tactics and tried to distract everyone, hoping they'd forget that you had been caught in yet another blatant lie.

I didn't think this whole thing through Lone Ranger. A bionic eye is a replacement for eyes that don't work. It does not prove the direction we see. Obviously, the optic nerve has to be stimulated by electrodes. Even if the brain sees light and dark patterns, and the person can make out what appears to be the shape of a tree, does not prove that this is how we see under normal circumstances.

The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System can provide sight -- the detection of light -- to people who have gone blind from degenerative eye diseases like macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa. Ten percent of people over the age of 55 suffer from various stages of macular degeneration. Retinitis pigmentosa is an inherited disease that affects about 1.5 million people around the globe. Both diseases damage the eyes' photoreceptors, the cells at the back of the retina that perceive light patterns and pass them on to the brain in the form of nerve impulses, where the impulse patterns are then interpreted as images. The Argus II system takes the place of these photoreceptors.
The second incarnation of Second Sight's retinal prosthesis consists of five main parts:
A digital camera that's built into a pair of glasses. It captures images in real time and sends images to a microchip.
A video-processing microchip that's built into a handheld unit. It processes images into electrical pulses representing patterns of light and dark and sends the pulses to a radio transmitter in the glasses.
A radio transmitter that wirelessly transmits pulses to a receiver implanted above the ear or under the eye
A radio receiver that sends pulses to the retinal implant by a hair-thin implanted wire
A retinal implant with an array of 60 electrodes on a chip measuring 1 mm by 1 mm

HowStuffWorks "How does a "bionic eye" allow blind people to see?"

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But thedoc is right; quoting all of your blatant lies would be a rather lengthy and time-consuming process.

What a cop out! Liar liar pants on fire!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, it's inexplicable to anyone who has a brain, which excludes you. How can the photons be at the retina when God turns on the sun at noon, when according to Lessans the photons won't arrive at the retina for eight and a half minutes?

Efferent vision makes this possible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anyway, I'm ending this discussion.

The discussion will end when people stop posting questions and comments about it. Your contribution is only relavent as fodder for jokes and satire, there are no answers to questions or comments with any real content. The only part of the discussion that you have any control over are your own contributions, but there is some doubt that you can control that. The prevailing opinion is that you are obecessed with the forum because it is your only social contact and hasn't been shut down yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is obvious from the questions and comments that "They" have read the book, some have made notes and refer to them in fraiming the questions. The content of the questions and comments is not possible without actually reading the book, it would also not be possible to just randomly go to a page in the book and pull out a specific quote, without knowing where it is in the book. In order to paraphrase and satirize the book one must first know what is in the book.

People skimmed the book and when they heard the claim regarding the eyes, that was the end of any serious conversation. Be truthful, haven't you ever read a book more than once and kept getting new meaning from it each time?

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're only basis for the claim that people have not read the book is that they disagree with what is written in the book and to disagree with it "They" must have read it first.

They disagree because they don't have a full understanding. They think they do, but they really don't. They call his claims assertions and modal fallacies, but that's not what they are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL, you've been down for the count ever since you got here. That doesn't mean you'll ever leave -- you've been declaring that you're "done" for two years, yet here you still are, proving again what a liar you. You can't leave, because the negative attention you get here is all that you have.

Of course you've said that the photons are both at the eye and not at the eye, and you even said you "understand how hard it is" for us to understand this! Want me to go dig up the quote, and expose yet another lie of yours?

Now, I see you are asserting that the photons keep traveling and are replaced by new photons! Really? This is not what you said before. Crucially, it is the opposite of what Lessans said.

Originally Posted by davidm

He claimed the photons that "smile on us in the morning" are the same photons that arrived on the other side of the earth while we were asleep! So now you are contradicting Lessans. You can't even keep track of your own lies, which is indeed an occupational hazard of lying.

Look, I have been trying to explain this in terms of your understanding of light. I did not learn all this because that is not how he came to these conclusions. He came to these conclusions by understanding how we learn words and, consequently, how the eyes must work. So if I make a mistake, it was not done on purpose. Another point I'd like to make: he did not say light doesn't travel. He said light does travel, so it is YOU that misunderstood him.

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side.

Originally Posted by davidm

You are a never-ending source of lulz. That is your sole role here.

Maybe to you I am, but you can't speak for everyone.

[Stephen Maturin]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They have not read the book thedoc. I have never minded answering questions if they were relevant...

Two more lies. You just can't help yourself, can you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason it would be at the retina is due to efferent vision (which is inexplicable to those who think in terms of traveling photons) which puts the eye in optical range of whatever we see in the real world. Anyway, I'm ending this discussion.

"Due to efferent vision" is not an explanatory mechanism. Is the presence of the photons at the retina explicable when you think in terms of non-traveling photons? Is there some reason why people shouldn't think in terms of traveling photons when you agree that all photons travel?

Let me guess: This discussion is over and you aren't discussing this anymore because you are a fundamentally dishonest person who would rather lie, weasel, and evade than face reality by honestly and directly addressing reasonable questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision makes this possible.

How? Where did the photons at the retina come from and how did they get there? If there are photons at the retina as soon as the Sun is ignited, then where did they come from? If they came from the Sun, then when were they at the Sun?

Can you answer? Or is it time for you to weasel and evade some more?

[The Lone Ranger]

Peacegirl, you are quite possibly the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered.

That you think you're serving a "higher purpose" with your "Lying for Lessans" doesn't excuse your blatant dishonesty.

If you think I've been at all dishonest, then provide quotes proving it. Go on. I dare you. I double-dog dare you. After all, plenty of people -- myself included -- have quoted you saying things that you know perfectly well aren't true.

If you can't do this (and you can't), then you're admitting that this is just one more example of your rampant dishonesty.

[Stephen Maturin]

Does anyone remember offhand whether peacegirl ever tried to spread her "Lessans was just a friend of the family" bullshit here? She's told that whopper on at least two other forums but I don't recall if she ever deposited that particular turd at .

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People skimmed the book and when they heard the claim regarding the eyes, that was the end of any serious conversation. Be truthful, haven't you ever read a book more than once and kept getting new meaning from it each time?

They disagree because they don't have a full understanding. They think they do, but they really don't. They call his claims assertions and modal fallacies, but that's not what they are.

I've read the book at least twice and some parts several times just to look for some specific reference, but no, I did not get any new meaning from each reading. To get any meaning from a book, there has to be meaning there in the first place, and Lessans book has no meaning to find.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Could you describe this process in a little more detail. What happens to the photons that have been replaced?

Light travels. No more talk about photons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hee Haw!!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How? Where did the photons at the retina come from and how did they get there? If there are photons at the retina as soon as the Sun is ignited, then where did they come from? If they came from the Sun, then when were they at the Sun?

Can you answer? Or is it time for you to weasel and evade some more?

I told you EFFERENT VISION! I know that's not good enough for you. I don't want to continue the conversation. If you believe I failed in my efforts, oh well.