A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no understanding of the efferent model because if you did you would see why seeing in reverse of what is believed would produce the results my father claimed.

You have no understanding of that either. More specifically, you have no understanding of how light could be at the places you need it to be in your account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did I miss something? I didn't know my name was Steve. Post over. You're digging your own hole.

A misplaced tag, now corrected. You'll need a new excuse for your continued weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have no understanding of that either. More specifically, you have no understanding of how light could be at the places you need it to be in your account.

This model automatically places the object in visual range if the object can be seen (the substance in the physical world that light reveals). The only difference is that there is no travel time in the efferent account since the conditions that need to be met don't require it. If you are so sure he was wrong Spaemonkey, then let it go. I'm not forcing you to believe these claims, nor am I forcing you to be here at all. Why are you still here? I would think you would be bored by now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did I miss something? I didn't know my name was Steve. Post over. You're digging your own hole.

Yet another excuse to ignore and not answer the question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I need to know is that this model places the object in visual range in real time. The only difference is that there is no travel time in the efferent account since the conditions that need to be met don't require it. If you are so sure he was wrong, then let it go. I'm not forcing you to believe these claims.

Not to worry, I don't think anyone believes these claims.

And you don't know that, you just believe it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Go back and study why removing all licensing in the new world creates greater responsibility.

I have studied it, and it just doesn't work. It just gives license to anyone to claim anything they want. It all rests on Lessans claim that eliminating blame will increase responsibility, and there is no proof of that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model automatically places the object in visual range if the object can be seen (the substance in the physical world that light reveals). The only difference is that there is no travel time in the efferent account since the conditions that need to be met don't require it. If you are so sure he was wrong Spaemonkey, then let it go. I'm not forcing you to believe these claims, nor am I forcing you to be here at all. Why are you still here? I would think you would be bored by now.

"No Travel time" violates all the known laws of Physics that you claim efferent vision does not violate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model automatically places the object in visual range if the object can be seen (the substance in the physical world that light reveals). The only difference is that there is no travel time in the efferent account since the conditions that need to be met don't require it.

Models don't physically 'place' things in any literal sense. All this means is that your model states the light will be there. That doesn't mean your model has actually explained how the light could get to be there. The conditions you specify don't explain it either. So you still have absolutely no answer to how the light at the film/retina could get to be there instantaneously without travel time and without teleporting. 'My model says so' isn't an explanation.

[The Lone Ranger]

Your "explanation" is functionally identical to "it's magic."


You really need to learn what the word "explanation" means! Among other things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have studied it, and it just doesn't work. It just gives license to anyone to claim anything they want. It all rests on Lessans claim that eliminating blame will increase responsibility, and there is no proof of that.

This is exactly why I refuse to answer anymore of your questions. You are 100% wrong, and if you keep telling me that you do understand, when I know you don't, there is no possible way I can continue discussing this book with you. It's sooo easy to make fun of what you are ignorant of. You did not study this book at all. You don't even understand the two-sided equation and why his observations regarding conscience forces man to veer in a completely different direction for satisfaction. Never mind, it's a losing battle in here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model automatically places the object in visual range if the object can be seen (the substance in the physical world that light reveals). The only difference is that there is no travel time in the efferent account since the conditions that need to be met don't require it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Models don't physically 'place' things in any literal sense. All this means is that your model states the light will be there. That doesn't mean your model has actually explained how the light could get to be there. The conditions you specify don't explain it either. So you still have absolutely no answer to how the light at the film/retina could get to be there instantaneously without travel time and without teleporting. 'My model says so' isn't an explanation.

You keep talking about light getting there when I'm talking about what the eyes see in real time. There is no time involved in efferent vision, so getting there is not part of the equation. Light is there when the object is within optical range because the distance between the object and the eye (when viewed in reverse) does not require the photons to travel 186,000 miles to reach the eye or film. Therefore when we see the object because it's large enough and the light is bright enough, that is all that is required. Optics works in the same way it always has. If the object is too small to be seen, there will be no photons at the retina. If light reveals the real world, as Lessans' claimed, instead of the object reflecting the image as it travels through space/time, then science got it backwards. You are never going to be satisfied with my explanation, but that does not warrant you lashing out at me and telling me I'm a martyr or need help. Please stop saying these things or I'll ignore you too.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about light getting there when I'm talking about what the eyes see in real time. There is no time involved in efferent vision, so getting there is not part of the equation.

If light is there without ever getting there from anywhere else, then you have light coming into existence at the retina/film. You already rejected his option because you know this doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is there when the object is within optical range because the distance between the object and the eye (when viewed in reverse) does not require the photons to travel 186,000 miles to reach the eye or film.

Where did the photons come from? If from the Sun, then yes, they do have to travel the intervening 93 million miles - otherwise you have them teleporting again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are never going to be satisfied with my explanation, but that does not warrant you lashing out at me and telling me I'm a martyr or need help.

You still don't have any explanation. Stamping your feet and insisting the photons are just there doesn't explain how they get to be there. And I know you don't like being reminded of your illness, but denial is no solution.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly why I refuse to answer anymore of your questions. You are 100% wrong, and if you keep telling me that you do understand, when I know you don't, there is no possible way I can continue discussing this book with you. It's sooo easy to make fun of what you are ignorant of. You did not study this book at all. You don't even understand the two-sided equation and why his observations regarding conscience forces man to veer in a completely different direction for satisfaction. Never mind, it's a losing battle in here.

In your mind understanding equals agreement, if someone disagrees with your's and Lessans ideas, they obviously don't understand them. There is no room in your universe for people who do not agree with your fathers ideas. What do you plan to do with them in Lessans new world order. Is that where your extermination squads come in? I understand the book better than you because you do not understand why it won't work, human nature does not work the way your father thought, he had reduced everyone to being exactly the same, and this is just not true. People do not fall in love with another persons genitalia, in our society those parts are concealed by clothing, but people still fall in love. How do you explain that? Your father wrote a really perverted idea of human love that had no basis in reality. Nothing in his description of relationships has any validity in the real world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about light getting there when I'm talking about what the eyes see in real time. There is no time involved in efferent vision, so getting there is not part of the equation. Light is there when the object is within optical range because the distance between the object and the eye (when viewed in reverse) does not require the photons to travel 186,000 miles to reach the eye or film. Therefore when we see the object because it's large enough and the light is bright enough, that is all that is required. Optics works in the same way it always has. If the object is too small to be seen, there will be no photons at the retina. If light reveals the real world, as Lessans' claimed, instead of the object reflecting the image as it travels through space/time, then science got it backwards. You are never going to be satisfied with my explanation, but that does not warrant you lashing out at me and telling me I'm a martyr or need help.

The eyes do not somehow reach out and contact photons that are any distance away. The eyes only receive light that travels to them. That is all they do, that is all they can do, there is no mechanism, or function that could explain anything else.

I believe there are treatments for delusions and confusion like your's.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I did lie at that moment it was only because I did not want people to use my mistake to give up on my father's claim, but that does not make me a liar.

Actually, it does. Someone who lies, for whatever reasons, is a liar. Saying that someone is a liar doesn't imply that they are always and in every circumstance a liar or that they are only a liar. However, the fact that they did lie makes them a liar in the context of that lie.

So, if you did lie then, in relation to that particular lie, you are a liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If light is there without ever getting there from anywhere else, then you have light coming into existence at the retina/film. You already rejected his option because you know this doesn't happen.

You are still grappling with the fact that although light travels at a high rate of speed, it is not a requirement in order to use the light coming from an object in order to see it, if it is bright enough. You are assuming, once again, that the object is reflecting the image (or frequency/wavelength) and has to travel through space/time in order for it to be received. I'm sorry that you cannot understand why light's function is to allow us to see the real world in real time. Efferent vision only requires the object to be large enough and bright enough for it to put our eyes in optical range. You will not let go of the afferent position, which does require travel time. Your assumption that light has to travel to Earth first (which it does if we are to see each other) is logical, but if you analyze the efferent model carefully there is nothing that violates physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is there when the object is within optical range because the distance between the object and the eye (when viewed in reverse) does not require the photons to travel 186,000 miles to reach the eye or film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where did the photons come from? If from the Sun, then yes, they do have to travel the intervening 93 million miles - otherwise you have them teleporting again.

This has nothing to do with teleportation Spacemonkey. You are fixated on photons when you need to concentrate on how the eyes and brain work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are never going to be satisfied with my explanation, but that does not warrant you lashing out at me and telling me I'm a martyr or need help.

Originally Posted by "Spacemonkey

You still don't have any explanation. Stamping your feet and insisting the photons are just there doesn't explain how they get to be there. And I know you don't like being reminded of your illness, but denial is no solution.

I need a break from you and I've only talked to you two or three times. I don't like your MO. Sorry Spacemonkey but you DO NOT learn. Maybe you think I'm bluffing. Well, I'm not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, it does. Someone who lies, for whatever reasons, is a liar. Saying that someone is a liar doesn't imply that they are always and in every circumstance a liar or that they are only a liar. However, the fact that they did lie makes them a liar in the context of that lie.

So, if you did lie then, in relation to that particular lie, you are a liar.

Absolutely not!!! That would make a little child a liar just because he fibs. Labels are very damaging and can cause someone to live up to the label he was given since he feels that he will always be condemned. God would never call someone a liar from some past action. God wouldn't even call someone a liar if he has been a liar all of his life but is working to become better. According to Christianity, God forgives and forgets all past "sins" if one has accepted Christ and is trying to become more righteous. You aren't even abiding by your own tradition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The eyes do not somehow reach out and contact photons that are any distance away. The eyes only receive light that travels to them. That is all they do, that is all they can do, there is no mechanism, or function that could explain anything else.

I believe there are treatments for delusions and confusion like your's.

You're back on ignore. I knew you couldn't keep your mouth shut for long and I was right. Now who's left as this thread slowly dies?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still grappling with the fact that although light travels at a high rate of speed, it is not a requirement in order to use the light coming from an object in order to see it, if it is bright enough. You are assuming, once again, that the object is reflecting the image (or frequency/wavelength) and has to travel through space/time in order for it to be received. I'm sorry that you cannot understand why light's function is to allow us to see the real world in real time. Efferent vision only requires the object to be large enough and bright enough for it to put our eyes in optical range. You will not let go of the afferent position, which does require travel time. Your assumption that light has to travel to Earth first (which it does if we are to see each other) is logical, but if you analyze the efferent model carefully there is nothing that violates physics.

If you had bothered to read my words you'd see that I'm obviously not stuck on the afferent position, the object reflecting an image, or light traveling to Earth first. I quite clearly just pointed out that your efferent account must have light coming into existence at the film/retina if the light you speak of didn't get there from anywhere else as you just claimed. But you know that doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with teleportation Spacemonkey. You are fixated on photons when you need to concentrate on how the eyes and brain work.

I'm sticking to photons because that is where your nonsense about vision falls apart, and you know it. As I just explained, if the photons came from the Sun without teleporting, then they obviously do have to travel the intervening 93 million (not 186,000) miles to get there. And if they didn't come from the Sun, where did they come from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need a break from you and I've only talked to you two or three times. I don't like your MO. Sorry Spacemonkey but you DO NOT learn. Maybe you think I'm bluffing. Well, I'm not.

You are projecting. I'm not the one who has been stuck on the exact same problem with photons for the past 5 years without learning how to resolve it. That would be you. It won't surprise me in the least if your cognitive dissonance forces you to put me one fake ignore once again, so you can avoid having to honestly face up to this problem and deal with it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not!!! That would make a little child a liar just because he fibs. Labels are very damaging and can cause someone to live up to the label he was given since he feels that he will always be condemned. God would never call someone a liar from some past action. God wouldn't even call someone a liar if he has been a liar all of his life but is working to become better. According to Christianity, God forgives and forgets all past "sins" if one has accepted Christ and is trying to become more righteous. You aren't even abiding by your own tradition.

So you're not really a liar because God - who as I recall you don't actually believe in - wouldn't call someone a liar even when they are in fact a liar?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're back on ignore. I knew you couldn't keep your mouth shut for long and I was right. Now who's left as this thread slowly dies?

At this point we can all but guarantee that this thread will never die before you do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you had bothered to read my words you'd see that I'm obviously not stuck on the afferent position, the object reflecting an image, or light traveling to Earth first. I quite clearly just pointed out that your efferent account must have light coming into existence at the film/retina if the light you speak of didn't get there from anywhere else as you just claimed. But you know that doesn't happen.

I'm sticking to photons because that is where your nonsense about vision falls apart, and you know it. As I just explained, if the photons came from the Sun without teleporting, then they obviously do have to travel the intervening 93 million (not 186,000) miles to get there. And if they didn't come from the Sun, where did they come from?

You are projecting. I'm not the one who has been stuck on the exact same problem with photons for the past 5 years without learning how to resolve it. That would be you. It won't surprise me in the least if your cognitive dissonance forces you to put me one fake ignore once again, so you can avoid having to honestly face up to this problem and deal with it.

You win Spacemonkey. You will receive the Nobel Prize for not only disregarding Lessans' claims, but giving your own "evidence" on how the world works and how Lessans has to be wrong, and if his daugher thinks Spacemonkey is wrong, he will attack her with such laughter that no one in their right mind would even listen. Thank you Spacemonkey. You've done a superb job of keeping out the liars. I will follow you on Twitter. I wish you the best, but unfortunately we have nothing more to say to each other.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won Spacemonkey. I will receive the Nobel Prize for not only disregarding Lessans' claims, but giving your own take on how the world works. I will follow you on Twitter, seriously. I wish you the best.

Ooh, fake conceding. Not like we've ever seen that before.

Why don't you try actually facing up to the problem for once?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're back on ignore.

TWIMC, since Peacegirl is pretending to ignore me again. Peacegirl demands that we ignore photons and concentrate on how the eye and brain work, but is every account she claims that there are photons at the retina in the efferent account of vision. She has failed to give any account of how the photons got there, they are just there if there are photons at the object we are looking at. No explanation, just an unsupported assertion. As far as how the eye and brain work, she has also failed to give any explanation of this either, just that efferent vision is how is works with no further explanation, very vague on details. Since Peacegirl won't, or more likely can't, explain it we are left to invent some plausible explanation ourselves, but the problem is, there is none.

FYI, this post is for the benefit of the thousands of lurkers out there viewing this thread, I just hope it's not too crowded inside Peacegirl's head.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At this point we can all but guarantee that this thread will never die before you do.

How can you project this Spacemonkey? I thought you were into science. I could die tomorrow. Your statistics and predictions are truly fabricated. I know you won't listen. I'm done with you because you are using underhanded tactics to make yourself convinced that you are right and Lessans had to be wrong. You are threatened. Compatibilism is a joke. It is an effort to blame and punish and keep compatibilism intact. It's a sleight of hand way to feel good about this philosophy so you can punish everyone who doesn't fit the mold because "holding people responsible" will set them straight. This whole thing is sick as sick can be. You never answered me as to why you are still hanging out in this decrepit thread if not for lulz? Is that what you believe it is? Don't answer me because it will not be pretty. You will never admit to being unsure, yet you condemn me to no end. I can't deal with you anymore Spacemonkey.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You win Spacemonkey. You will receive the Nobel Prize for not only disregarding Lessans' claims, but giving your own "evidence" on how the world works and how Lessans has to be wrong,

Photos please, and I understand they serve a very nice dinner with that, along with some other nonsense.