A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course I don't understand how it is plausible. It quite obviously isn't. Talking about the brain and eyes is also a completely pointless weasel-move, given that you need cameras to be able to do the same thing without any brain or eyes. Your father never addressed this massive and obvious problem because he was too clueless to even be aware of it. YOU need to address the photon problem, because you are half a step ahead of your father by at least recognizing that vision requires light to be present at the retina - and this means you need to explain where the light came from and how it got there.

Wrong. He did not have to analyze photons to understand the truth of what we're seeing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He can't contemplate what you are unable to explain in any way. You just keep asserting that physical laws aren't broken while offering scenarios where they clearly are broken.

No, not when the eyes are efferent. It reverses everything, and no one has carefully analyzed it. All you do is go right back to "traveling" photons which has no bearing on this model of sight. I am tired of repeating myself. You can believe he was wrong. This entire group can believe he was wrong, just as you can believe his observations regarding determinism were wrong, but it doesn't make him wrong. It just makes you unable to understand (for whatever reason) why his observations were spot on and why his explanation as to what is actually going on in reality is crystal clear.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not when the eyes are efferent.

Even if the eyes are efferent, according to the laws of physics and direct empirical observation and over a century of practical use, camera film and sensors require a localized physical interaction with light photons to create an image, and light cannot be located on camera film without having traveled there.

Every time you say the light is at the camera film without having traveled there, you are offering a scenario where the laws of physics are broken.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if the eyes are efferent…

LadyShea, I would respectfully suggest that the above is what happens after too much time responding to a lunatic. One starts down the slippery slope of "for the sake of argument…"

The eyes are NOT efferent, as was proved three years ago in this very thread by the Lone Ranger in his splendid essay on light and sight, which Meathead admitted that she did not read, and specifically said she would NOT read.

But it's worse than that.

Lessans and Meathead have hijacked the very meaning of "efferent" sight. Efferent means "signals going out." Everyone knows (except for Meathead) that there are no efferent nerves in the optic system. But if there were, this would mean NOTHING like what Lessans and Meathead are arguing for. The old idea about efferent sight was that the eyes somehow gave off their own light. A pretty dumb idea, because even when people proposed it, they should have noticed that the eyes did not behave like flashlights at night, as would have been expected under efferent seeing. The point, though, is that the "models" proposed by Blockhead (Lessans) and Meathead (peacegirl) also have nothing to do with efferent seeing. The two bozos have simply hijacked a term, the meaning of which is opaque to them.

I reiterate my suggestion that people simply stop responding to peacegirl and cut off the attention-cocaine that she seeks. You all are going over, yet again, the exact same stuff, in almost the exact same words, that was discussed three years ago. Why?

[LadyShea]

I am not conceding that the eyes are efferent, obviously, but I am showing her the corner she painted herself into. She can't retreat to "the brain looking through the eyes" with brainless cameras, and she can't backpedal to "eyes and cameras work the same way" without dismissing the necessity of the brain in seeing...which in turn would dismiss Lessans whole idea.

Originally Posted by davidm

You all are going over, yet again, the exact same stuff, in almost the exact same words, that was discussed three years ago. Why?

If I pick up an argument I rarely ever drop it until my mind is changed or the other person's is, or unless a more entertaining debate comes along

I've had years long arguments with my husband. Hell I debated Christians and Creationists for over a decade (all the same arguments, sometimes different people), and have had many abortion debates that were like that as well. I have really wished a Libertarian that will actually try to respond to points would come along.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I pick up an argument I rarely ever drop it until my mind is changed or the other person's is, or unless a more entertaining debate comes along

Carry on, then. You are a bulldog with an ankle in your teeth who won't let go.

My only point about "efferent seeing" is that Lessans and peacegirl have proposed a model that has nothing to do with efferent seeing, even if efferent seeing were true, which it is not. Efferent seeing proposed that the eyes somehow provided the light by which we see, and obviously, this has nothing to do with the nonsense that Lessans and peacegirl are proposing. This is perhaps a little-noted point here, along with the also heretofore little-noted but obvious fact that the "model" of light and sight that peacegirl is flogging is different from what Lessans proposed.

So my only real quibble is that when you write, "even if efferent sight were true…" you are admitting of an arguendo that actually has nothing to do with what Lessans or peacegirl have argued. What they are arguing has actually nothing to do with the (discredited) hypothesis of efferent seeing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am the same poster.

Well that makes you a big fat hypocrite then, doesn't it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You accused me of using caps when you used huge fonts, so I responded to YOU that size 30 font in bold isn't going to get me to respond any quicker.

Nope, that is not what happened.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I usually use caps for a reason such as highlighting something important.

You're not highlighting anything when you type entire posts in caps. You do that when you get angry and frustrated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually do...

No, you actually don't have any plausible alternative. Your account still requires light to be somewhere it cannot get to, in order to explain how cameras and eyes do not produce different images.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but your mind is completely blocked as it is with understanding why compatibilism is just another way to define free will so you can blame and punish without resorting to contra-causal free will. You can't see that it's still a big fat contradiction because free will and determinism are incompatible concepts; polar opposites.

Still pathetically trying to change the subject, I see.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong on all levels.

And yet you can't explain how. What an idiot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to focus my attention on photons and how they got there.

Of course you won't. That would require some honesty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just can't get outside of the frame of thought that you're in to even contemplate why efferent vision is a closed system that does not violate any physical laws.

What frame of thought do I need to get out of? I showed you all of my assumptions by making them explicit, and you've refused to even look at my reasoning. You have also said things that violate physical law every single time you've tried to explain how you think efferent vision might work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. He did not have to analyze photons to understand the truth of what we're seeing.

He didn't even know photons existed. If he had bothered to learn about them he'd have discovered, as you have, why his ideas do not and cannot work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not when the eyes are efferent. It reverses everything...

Not everything. Efferent vision can't change what constitutes a violation of physical law. It cannot make the real distance between objects and eyes disappear. It cannot change the need for photons to be in contact with the retina or film in order for anything to be seen or photographed. It cannot obviate the need to explain where photons came from and how they got there, whenever you need them to be in a particular place.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and no one has carefully analyzed it.

We have done so. YOU have refused to analyze it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is go right back to "traveling" photons which has no bearing on this model of sight.

No-one is doing that. We are only going back to the photons YOU have said are at the film/retina. Whether they have traveled there or not is up to you to explain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am tired of repeating myself.

So STOP doing it, and start honestly addressing our questions and objections instead.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

This entire episode of ff just shows how difficult it is for people to understand this position. I cannot keep doing this in order defend myself, therefore I will not answer anymore questions regarding photons. To my friend Spacemonkey, I have nothing against you. I just know you're wrong. You have to dig deep into your ideas and worldview to begin to understand that Lessans was not wrong. Until then, you will accuse him of being a crank. I truly get it, but I can't keep defending him in order to get you to understand that efferent vision violates NOTHING. I may start new threads just because I need diversion. I am done with this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This entire episode of ff just shows how difficult it is for people to understand this position.

You mean YOU don't understand it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot keep doing this in order defend myself, therefore I will not answer anymore questions regarding photons.

There's a big surprise to absolutely no-one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To my friend Spacemonkey, I have nothing against you. I just know you're wrong.

No you don't. You know your father was wrong. You just lack the honesty to admit it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to dig deep into your ideas and worldview to begin to understand that Lessans was not wrong. Until then, you will accuse him of being a crank.

No, I'll accuse you of being a dishonest weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am done with this thread.

Sure you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean YOU don't understand it.

There's a big surprise to absolutely no-one.

No you don't. You know your father was wrong. You just lack the honesty to admit it.

No, I'll accuse you of being a dishonest weasel.

Sure you are.

Yes I am. If there is no change I truthfully cannot keep repeating the same thing which you believe is lacking in proof. It's just too hard for me. If you want to play games with me and depend on more than I can give, it's okay, but you will have to do this on your own. It's really okay Spacemonkey if you throw everything I have ever talked about out down the drain. I'm used to the criticism from every forum I've ever been to (which means nothing when someone has a genuine discovery). I get the reason why people are so taken aback because he does not fit into the mold. The people here have been taught one thing (which appears logical and consistent), and Lessans (who was an unknown) comes along and dismantles these teachings. He is looked at as another crackpot; I get it. But it doesn't change a thing as far as what is true and what he observed. I think you know that, which is why you are sticking around, otherwise, you would be long gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Carry on, then. You are a bulldog with an ankle in your teeth who won't let go.

Of course I won't let go because [I believe] he was right. She might be a bulldog, but I am a Rotweiler!!

Originally Posted by davidm

My only point about "efferent seeing" is that Lessans and peacegirl have proposed a model that has nothing to do with efferent seeing, even if efferent seeing were true, which it is not. Efferent seeing proposed that the eyes somehow provided the light by which we see, and obviously, this has nothing to do with the nonsense that Lessans and peacegirl are proposing.

Oh really? Show me where it has nothing to do with it when I say it has everything to do with it.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is perhaps a little-noted point here, along with the also heretofore little-noted but obvious fact that the "model" of light and sight that peacegirl is flogging is different from what Lessans proposed.

My model and his model are the same. You assumed that when he said "if the Sun was turned on we would see it instantly," that this meant the light would not be at the retina. He never said this. He also said that he was leaving the trail to science but you are so emotional you can't even begin to look at his claims objectively.

Originally Posted by davidm

So my only real quibble is that when you write, "even if efferent sight were true…" you are admitting of an arguendo that actually has nothing to do with what Lessans or peacegirl have argued. What they are arguing has actually nothing to do with the (discredited) hypothesis of efferent seeing.

What the *#$(* are you talking about david? Talking to LadyShea does not absolve you of responsibility to learn what Lessans has discovered. What a cop-out. You just want science to confirm what you believe is true so you don't have to be in conflict; you are not actually looking for the truth at all. THAT'S THE GODDAMN TRUTH.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no change I truthfully cannot keep repeating the same thing which you believe is lacking in proof.

There has been no change in years and years over multiple forums, and yet here you are. Who do you think believes you when you say you are leaving forever ?

Lessans never realized his idea violated the known laws of physics and that photography easily refuted his claims. He didn't know enough about optics to understand...but you now know this to be the case. So rather than admit that Lessans missed something important, you just want to drop the subject. Dishonest, peacegirl.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I won't let go because [I believe] he was right.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to LadyShea. She's the bulldog, you're the ankle, chewed to the bone.

Oh really? Show me where it has nothing to do with it when I say it has everything to do with it.

Because you say something it's true? Go re-read my post. My explanation is right there. Efferent seeing was conceived as the idea that the eyes somehow produce light. Your idiot model, and Lessans' idiot (different) model have nothing to do with that idea, which is also wrong.

You are trying to make his claim incomplete to serve your purpose which is to justify your position by making him look foolish. He said in the very beginning that he was leaving the trail to science but you are so emotional you can't even begin to look at his claims objectively.

Which misses my point. My point is that Lessans specifically denied that light (which he stupidly thought was made of molecules) had to be in contact with the retina. You say it does. So, you are contradicting Lessans. Both your models are demonstrably wrong.

What the *#$(* are you talking about david? Talking to LadyShea does not absolve you of responsibility to learn what Lessans has discovered. What a cop-out. You just want science to confirm what you believe is true so you don't have to be in conflict; you are not actually looking for the truth at all. THAT'S THE GODDAMN TRUTH.

Look at you throw another tantrum.

Oh, you're leaving for good again, are you? See you tomorrow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To my friend Spacemonkey, I have nothing against you. I just know you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you don't. You know your father was wrong. You just lack the honesty to admit it.

May the best man win! It's not over until the fat lady sings.

[peacegirl]

added more:

Originally Posted by davidm

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to LadyShea. She's the bulldog, you're the ankle, chewed to the bone.

Because you say something it's true? Go re-read my post. My explanation is right there. Efferent seeing was conceived as the idea that the eyes somehow produce light.

You are wrong right there.

Originally Posted by davidm

Your idiot model, and Lessans' idiot (different) model have nothing to do with that idea, which is also wrong.

My model is not different from Lessans' model. You have failed to analyze it properly.

You are trying to make his claim incomplete to serve your purpose which is to justify your position by making him look foolish. He said in the very beginning that he was leaving the trail to science but you are so emotional you can't even begin to look at his claims objectively.

Originally Posted by davidm

Which misses my point. My point is that Lessans specifically denied that light (which he stupidly thought was made of molecules) had to be in contact with the retina. You say it does. So, you are contradicting Lessans. Both your models are demonstrably wrong.

No again. Lessans never specifically denied that light had to be in contact with the retina. This is your ridiculous assumption which is why you laugh at his claim. It's out of total ignorance.

Of course there is an argument which entitled her to say "even if efferent vision were true", although her conclusion that the light would not be at the film or retina is not true. You just want science to confirm what you believe is true so you don't have to be in conflict; you are not actually looking for the truth at all. THAT'S THE GODDAMN TRUTH.

Originally Posted by davidm

Look at you throw another tantrum.

I'm not throwing a tantrum; in fact, I'm quite composed considering what I'm up against.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, you're leaving for good again, are you? See you tomorrow.

Why did you come back?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He didn't even know photons existed. If he had bothered to learn about them he'd have discovered, as you have, why his ideas do not and cannot work.

Absolutely not true. I will continue to support his claim and work from there. If something doesn't fit, it does not automatically mean that he was wrong. Everything has to be reexamined in view of this new model. Light is a necessary condition of sight but it does not travel away from the source and bring an image to the brain, through the eyes, to be decoded. It only reveals what exists in the real world. Now if you can't prove me wrong, I will stick to my version of reality and you can stick to yours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There has been no change in years and years over multiple forums, and yet here you are. Who do you think believes you when you say you are leaving forever ?

Lessans never realized his idea violated the known laws of physics and that photography easily refuted his claims. He didn't know enough about optics to understand...but you now know this to be the case. So rather than admit that Lessans missed something important, you just want to drop the subject. Dishonest, peacegirl.

There has been no change through multiple forums because this claim goes against the grain of what everyone believes is true. It's no wonder I couldn't make headway, but eventually I will or someone else will if I'm not around. I told you why I'm here. I'm not sure how to market. I don't like Twitter or Facebook for this type of work. I can't seem to get in contact with philosophers who may be interested in pursuing his discoveries. So I'm stuck for the moment. I'm also not going to any more forums, so I'm back here at the moment, not that it's going to do me any good.

LadyShea, I will repeat that what he did perceive was accurate. Photography does not easily refute his claims, as you so glibly retorted. Scientists can follow the trail if they think there may be something to this. If not, we will continue to believe the eyes are a sense organ and live in ignorance for another thousand years. But the truth always comes out eventually. He didn't have to talk about optics. It follows that if the eyes are efferent, and if the actual object is in our field of view, our eyes have to be in optical range. He did not miss anything when it comes to his claims. I have nothing to admit.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get the reason why people are so taken aback because he does not fit into the mold.

People disagree with Lessans because he is wrong and the things he wrote don't make sense. They are not "taken aback" because Lessans doesn't fit some mold. This is just one of the lies that you tell yourself so that you can justify to yourself your continuing defense of his nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you know that, which is why you are sticking around, otherwise, you would be long gone.

This is another one of the lies that you tell yourself in an effort to justify your obsessive and delusional behavior in defense of Lessans nonsense. People are here for a variety of reasons, none of which is a secret belief that Lessans just might be right.

You don't just lie to others. You lie to yourself. Those lies are the fuel that keeps you going. Without them you would have to face the fact that you have wasted both time and money in pursuit of a worthless and unobtainable goal.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It follows that if the eyes are efferent, and if the actual object is in our field of view, our eyes have to be in optical range. He did not miss anything when it comes to his claims. I have nothing to admit.

The eyes are not efferent. You are starting with a false premise. You cannot build a sound argument on a false premise.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

May the best man win! It's not over until the fat lady sings.

Science has won, Lessans has lost, Afferent vision is how we see and efferent vision is nonsense.

Kate Smith: The Party's Over (comedy sketch) -...