A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doesn't matter. Obviously you are more concerned with this discovery than with the discovery that can save lives. I am done talking about light and sight. If you are so sure about your position, this will not give you a problem at all.

Nope. You're not done until we tell you you're done. And you don't get to change the topic until we let you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am done talking about light and sight.

Since you don't get to dictate the topic being discussed to the rest of us, and we will continue to discuss light and sight, the only way for you to actually "be done" with any topic in this discussion, peacegirl, is for you to stop posting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. You're not done until we tell you you're done. And you don't get to change the topic until we let you.

Oh my gosh, who are you to tell me that I don't get to change the topic. I know you're kidding, you have to be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you don't get to dictate the topic being discussed to the rest of us, and we will continue to discuss light and sight, the only way for you to actually "be done" with any topic in this discussion, peacegirl, is for you to stop posting.

Hmmm, not really. I will start a new topic called determinism and bluntly ask if people are interested in this topic. You are not the Gestapo! People are acting shell shocked. Who wants to respond to the likes of people who think they are god's gift to all knowledge. They know what the outcome will be; they will be clobbered and cursed at. Who wants to put themselves in this position? It's not worth it to them.

[Artemis Entreri]

nm

[davidm]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that the past doesn't exist, but we can't grab it and see it.

FYI, Peacegirl has, in the past, stated that only the present exists and the past and future do not exist. She was very clear and positive about this point.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

FYI, Peacegirl has, in the past, stated that only the present exists and the past and future do not exist. She was very clear and positive about this point.

Yep, she's lying again. And if you dig up her quotes and rub her snout in them, she'll keep on brazenly lying.

As for not being able to grab and see the past, regardless of whether it exists or not, it appears Peacegirl is ignorant of the existence of something called "photographs." Well, that's just another thing she doesn't know about!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who wants to respond to the likes of people who think they are god's gift to all knowledge. They know what the outcome will be; they will be clobbered and cursed at. Who wants to put themselves in this position? It's not worth it to them.

Then why do you do it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who wants to respond to the likes of people who think they are god's gift to all knowledge. They know what the outcome will be; they will be clobbered and cursed at. Who wants to put themselves in this position? It's not worth it to them.

Which brings up an interesting point, Why do people respond to Peacegirl at all? She certainly believes that she is her Father's (God's Brave New World Representative) gift to the world, and the high priestess of Lessanology. She talks to everyone as if they don't know anything, and she knows everything. She has even stated that she is not here to learn, but to teach others about Lessans Brave New world Order. She has definitely demonstrated that she will not learn what others try to teach her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yep, she's lying again. And if you dig up her quotes and rub her snout in them, she'll keep on brazenly lying.

As for not being able to grab and see the past, regardless of whether it exists or not, it appears Peacegirl is ignorant of the existence of something called "photographs." Well, that's just another thing she doesn't know about!

You have to be kidding David. A snapshot of something that happened in the past does not mean the past exists. It is a moment in time that was recorded on paper. It does not mean we live, see, or do anything in the past. You are really really confused.

[peacegirl]

deleted

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Keep it up David. Like I said, you will one day feel regret that you attacked my father as you did who not only did nothing to hurt you but who knew much more than you because his intellectual capacity was far greater than yours. If anyone is interested in hearing my father read and elaborate on the first chapter of his 6th book, click on the link below and go to the heading Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. Scroll down and you will see the audio:

- Decline and Fall of All Evil

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How are you defining "real time" that it can coexist with "the distant past"?

We are able to see light that has come from a distant galaxy, but we are seeing this light in the present. In actuality, everything that takes place is in the present.

p. 488 Chapter Ten: Our Posterity

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done by God Himself.
The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present.

I know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a
fraction of a second ago, and that I am still talking. The word ‘past’ is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there what is left behind as
you travel is called the past, and your destination is the future.

Here lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how
is it humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
never lived in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him allows us to think back to this time period. The
reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is because this particular
individual is no longer here. But is it possible for you to say that God
existed in the past? Does anyone ever sleep in the past; does the sun
ever shine in the past; is it possible for you to do anything in the past?
If you were sitting up on a high cloud these last ten thousand years,
never asleep, you would have watched Socrates in the present, just as
you are watching me write this book in the present. In order for me
to prove what seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I
deconfuse the mind of man so we can communicate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've explained, in detail, the problems I see with your explanations, and you are unable to address them without invoking impossibilities, contradicting yourself constantly, misusing terms, and fabricating fantastical phenomena, so you evade, lie, and attack instead. I am not the one with a problem.

I don't believe I am doing any of those things. At times it may have sounded like a contradiction because we're talking about two opposite accounts of vision which changes delayed to real time seeing. This discussion is far from over especially when scientists start taking it seriously. It certainly hasn't been shown to be implausible let alone impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How so? Both involve the arrival of traveling light that has left the surface of a distant star at some time in the past. There's no relevant difference at all.

I've answered this so many times Spacemonkey. We would see light just like we see light in the morning, only this light is coming from a star or galaxy that is much farther away. According to this model, one of the main functions of light is to reveal what exists; it serves as a bridge between the internal and external worlds. Due to efferent vision we see this world in real time because we are not waiting for light to arrive, although light does travel at 186,000 miles a second. I can only try to extend this knowledge in a way that makes sense. It seems to me that light which bounces off of objects does so at different angles, so by the time the light would reach us (over the course of millions of miles) there would be no resolution. You really don't have to accept this model of sight if you don't believe it's true. I can only offer what I believe is correct based on his observations. I feel bad that this discussion is upsetting to so many of you. That was not my intention when I came here.

[Artemis Entreri]

Lessans didn't have a very good grasp on tense did he.
Sure no person can sleep in the past.
However, people have slept in the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Look how much attention you are getting, Peacegirl! Isn't it wonderful? Why don't you try saying some more stupid stuff and then lead people on by pretending to be willing to address their points, only to then renege and weasel when pressed! Doesn't that sound like fun?

I have been answering you Spacemonkey, but now that you've called me dingbat again, you will have to go back to the end of the line. You just don't learn.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Lessans didn't have a very good grasp on tense did he.
Sure no person can sleep in the past.
However, people have sleep in the past.

You mean slept in the past? That's what he was trying to explain. Having a memory of someone sleeping or living in the past is one thing. Actually sleeping or living in the past is quite another. There's no such thing because, in reality, all we have is the present. I'm typing right now in the present. I'm not typing in the past. It's absurd when you think about it.

[davidm]

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You mean slept in the past? That's what he was trying to explain. Having a memory of someone sleeping or living in the past is one thing. Actually sleeping or living in the past is quite another. There's no such thing because, in reality, all we have is the present. I'm typing right now in the present. I'm not typing in the past. It's absurd when you think about it.

Yes, so what's his point? The past happened, it existed. There is evidence for things that happed in the past. Things that happened in the past effect the present and the future.
Who's trying to say that we're living in the past?
If this is tied to the whole instant vision thing, it doesn't matter. For one thing, on the local level (our direct surroundings) efferent vision or afferent vision doesn't matter. It doesn't change how we react to our surroundings. It doesn't matter a tinkers cuss if I see the words appear on this computer screen the instant I type them or 1 nanosecond later.
If we're talking huge distances then it does start to matter. We still are "see in the past" but we are seeing with a delay. This delay must be taken into account when dealing with HUGE distances, like sending probes (and some day people) to Mars or other planets.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you don't get to dictate the topic being discussed to the rest of us, and we will continue to discuss light and sight, the only way for you to actually "be done" with any topic in this discussion, peacegirl, is for you to stop posting.

I can ask people if they want to discuss his first discovery. It seems apparent that very few people want to participate other than the ones who are already here so maybe this is the end of the road. I certainly do not need permission to change to another topic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Yes, so what's his point? The past happened, it existed. There is evidence for things that happed in the past. Things that happened in the past effect the present and the future.
Who's trying to say that we're living in the past?
If this is tied to the whole instant vision thing, it doesn't matter. For one thing, on the local level (our direct surroundings) efferent vision or afferent vision doesn't matter. It doesn't change how we react to our surroundings. It doesn't matter a tinkers cuss if I see the words appear on this computer screen the instant I type them or 1 nanosecond later.
If we're talking huge distances then it does start to matter. We still are "see in the past" but we are seeing with a delay. This delay must be taken into account when dealing with HUGE distances, like sending probes (and some day people) to Mars or other planets.

Of course we have to deal with distances when we're sending a probe or people to Mars which involves measurements and trajectories. I know I know there is this little problem with the time/light delay. I really cannot answer to that because I don't know whether this calculation is as significant as people think. Only time will tell who was right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You're right I should have clarified that relativistic aspect of "real time." It only seems instant to us. If we had no knowledge of how light travels or how eyes work we would think that we saw in "real time" the way PG and Lessans propose.
It's funny that in the start of his book Lessans talks a lot about trying to explain spherical-earth to people who believe in flat-earth. But his theory on sight is more akin to someone proposing to modern man that the earth isn't really round like we have solidly proven and even verified from space, but is actually flat because that's how it appears to someone stuck on the ground.

No Artemis, that isn't even close. The reason he said we see in real time has nothing to do with how it appears. He observed something about the brain and eyes which caused him to conclude that we do, in fact, see in real time. This in no way means light isn't important for vision. We cannot see without light, but it's function changes as a result of this alternate model.