A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG Dragar, I already said that light bounces off of mirrors (no one is disputing this) but that does not mean, if Lessans is right, that we interpret this light and turn them into images in the brain. That is what is at issue here.

Light bounces off walls, too. So according to Lessans, we should see reflections on walls? Why don't we?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

False! Everything that works in the afferent account works in the efferent account. EVERYTHING!!!!! The only difference is that one believes sight is delayed, and the other says that sight is instant. You cannot disprove him by your examples. Sorry GdB, but you lose.

This 'only difference' is what kills the idea of efferent version. You are not able to give an account of instantaneous vision in itself. You are not able to give an account of why instantaneous vision occurs when one makes a pinhole in a piece of carton, but not when one makes a basket-ball wide hole in it. You cannot explain why a simple pinhole can contradict relativity theory, which says that no information can travel faster than light.

Your 'Everything that works in the afferent account works in the efferent account' is just an empty phrase, and you know that.

You have not answered one single question I asked you, except with empirically empty phrases and counter-attacks. You have shown to understand nothing of optics: you write about the focal point of a hole in a piece of carton.

You know efferent vision does not exist, but you lie about it. Proof me wrong by giving answers to my questions in my postings of today.

Or draw the conclusion from the fact that you are not able to. Exhaustion, counter-attacks and empty phrases do not work. These are just evading strategies.

OK, that was it for the moment: I am going away tomorrow for a week, without computer nearby. I might be able to glean in tonight (yes, middle-European timezone), but it is not guaranteed. In the meantime, I wish you much wisdom, and all the power to see the truth, even if you do not like it.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I kinda hate you GdB, because your arguments are better structured than mine.

Oh no, don't do that. I just added some rhetoric to my arguments...

Originally Posted by GdB

You are not confused: you have ill will. You know that the idea does not hold, but you do not want to lose your face.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I don't think the problem is losing face, it is losing faith, faith in Lessans and his ideas that will revolutionize the world.

You could be right, that is a part of the problem too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Light bounces off walls, too. So according to Lessans, we should see reflections on walls? Why don't we?

This is a joke; it has to be.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What a great excuse to try to negate anything that Lessans found to be true (that was based on VERY astute observation).

Of course. And scientists are amateurs, already wrong for at least 2 centuries, during they were building powerful telescopes and microscopes, and relativity is wrong, even if it is at the basis of many modern technologies and explanations of phenomena that we otherwise would not be able to understand. Your father was a genius.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just let this thread go. I'm not keeping you here.

I'll leave this thread when you answer my questions in an empirical fitting way, or admit that you were wrong. Hey, and don't forget free will!

[Florence Jellem]

Oh my, it looks like this thread is about to reach 1,700 pages. Doesn't that merit a party?

Flo will bring the whiskey, the Kraft cheese, the Wonderbread and the mayonnaise. Who's in for other stuff? Let's make a list!

[Florence Jellem]

Unfortunately, Doctor X seems to have left the house a long time ago, so there is no one to bring the NBLs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What a great excuse to try to negate anything that Lessans found to be true (that was based on VERY astute observation).

Originally Posted by GdB

Of course. And scientists are amateurs, already wrong for at least 2 centuries, during they were building powerful telescopes and microscopes, and relativity is wrong, even if it is at the basis of many modern technologies and explanations of phenomena that we otherwise would not be able to understand. Your father was a genius.

GdB, try not to let everyone's sarcasm rub off on you. I want to continue the conversation, if possible, but I can't if you are going to take on same general attitude. I never said relativity was wrong. All I said was that I disbelieve that time is a fourth dimension which is a theory and used by Davidm to discredit real time vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just let this thread go. I'm not keeping you here.

Originally Posted by GdB

I'll leave this thread when you answer my questions in an empirical fitting way, or admit that you were wrong. Hey, and don't forget free will!

Empirically, we will see exactly the same way as in the afferent account. Like I just said, nothing about optics is being disputed other than the claim that we see the image of the object in delayed time. The verdict is still out. Do you mind if we move on to the other topic? I'm not sure if you will be able to understand anything I'm trying to demonstrate if you refuse to let go of the belief in free will as defined by compatibilism.

[But]

Bump

Originally Posted by But

If the light is instantly at a piece of paper behind a lens, why shouldn't it be instantly at a photodiode behind a lens?

Don't weasel.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a joke; it has to be.

So you can't answer it?

I know you can't, because the explanation depends upon the very parts of vision you reject in favour of your dad's crazy ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a joke; it has to be.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So you can't answer it?

Reflections of what Dragar? We see walls just like we see any other object if enough light is present.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I know you can't, because the explanation depends upon the very parts of vision you reject in favour of your dad's crazy ideas.

What part of vision am I rejecting?

[davidm]

Hello, Aunt Flo.

I'd like to apologize to GdB for a couple of snarky comments I made about him, one here, and one at the Center for Inquiry in my guise as Pec of Uliar. As Aunt Flo will attest, I am jaded and cynical, and prone to thinking the worst of everyone on first encounter. GdB, however, has proved to be an Internet rarity, someone with something to say and someone worth talking to. I look forward to resuming out discussions on free will. Maybe we could start a new thread. In this thread, your deconstruction of peacegirl's dishonest idiocy, both on light and sight and free will and determinism, has been commendably succinct and utterly devastating.

I'd also like to apologize to Aunt Flo for writing a novel in which I kill her off in the first 20 pages, by having a supernatural toy poodle with orange eyes and meat-cleaver fangs bite her foot off, and then set her on fire in her fuel-efficient 1977 Toyota Corolla. Even my aunt's beloved homemade chocolate chip cookies got melted in that fateful encounter.

On the plus side, Aunt Flo, please recall that later in the novel, I resurrected you, and then married you off to the devil, who was posing as your girlhood heartthrob, Frank Sinatra, even as the devil posed as a shabby and down-at-the-heels but well-meaning bon vivant to Ivan Karamazov. Surely that must count for something. I swear to Zod I didn't write this novel to get back at you for force-feeding me JEZUS as a child, though I will reiterate that tying me up and prying my eyelids open with toothpicks on Sundays for mandatory audio-visual Bible study was really over the top. I retain the right to sue you, notwithstanding the recent mellowing of our relations. I am also sorry I was not able to bring you legal marijuana from Washington State. Unfortunately, although it is legal there, apparently it is not legal to try to smuggle the pot past the Department of Homeland Security goons at the Seattle airport. Perhaps the counselor Stephen Maturin could elaborate on this issue.

As for peacegirl…

Have you persuaded your children to read your idiot father's book yet? Oh, yes, we know, they haven't got time. But according to you, perfect strangers on the Internet are expected to read this swill! And some of us did, including me!

That's why we know what an idiot Daddy DumbAss was. As a philosopher and a scientist, he was a great aluminum-siding salesman and pool hustler.



All that remains is: Where is Spacemonkey?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said relativity was wrong.

Yes, you do. Instantaneous vision means there is information and energy going faster than light. That is impossible according relativity theory, so you must conclude it is wrong. And, btw, a while ago you provided a link that denied relativity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirically, we will see exactly the same way as in the afferent account.

So there is no empirical difference between classical, established optics?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I just said, nothing about optics is being disputed other than the claim that we see the image of the object in delayed time.

There is in optics no such thing, so the claim is wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The verdict is still out.

No, it isn't. The theory is wrong.

Answer my questions. You are evading again. Explain the mechanism of efferent vision, and explain the 'gliding scales'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you mind if we move on to the other topic? I'm not sure if you will be able to understand anything I'm trying to demonstrate if you refuse to let go of the belief in free will as defined by compatibilism.

I do not belief in free will as defined by compatibilism: I belief that the compatibilist definition of free will supports our daily praxis of assigning responsibility, and makes sense of phrases like 'could have done otherwise'. If you do not understand the difference, then you haven't even started to understand the free will discussion.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'd like to apologize to GdB for a couple of snarky comments I made about him, one here, and one at the Center for Inquiry in my guise as Pec of Uliar. As Aunt Flo will attest, I am jaded and cynical, and prone to thinking the worst of everyone on first encounter. GdB, however, has proved to be an Internet rarity, someone with something to say and someone worth talking to.

Ups. Thank you for the laurels...

Originally Posted by davidm

I look forward to resuming out discussions on free will. Maybe we could start a new thread. In this thread, your deconstruction of peacegirl's dishonest idiocy, both on light and sight and free will and determinism, has been commendably succinct and utterly devastating.

Yes. But if you do not mind I would like to do this at CFI. At least we know peacegirl cannot interfere there. It is a bit quieter there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bump

I'm not sure where this experiment, which is used to measure the speed of light (which would give a measurable separation), applies. Light travels (we know that), so it would take time for the light to reach the photodiode behind the lens. I'm not sure how this experiment would be able to prove that efferent vision is false since it's not testing the right thing in terms of whether an image of a distant object (if it met the requirements) would show up instantly before the traveling light got here. DavidM tried to disprove efferent vision by using a similar example.

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said relativity was wrong.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, you do. Instantaneous vision means there is information and energy going faster than light. That is impossible according relativity theory, so you must conclude it is wrong. And, btw, a while ago you provided a link that denied relativity.

That's not what it means. This has nothing to do with travel time, so how can you make this comparison? The article had questions about special relativity. Can we not ask questions anymore for fear of being called a lunatic? I'm not saying that most of everything science has come to know as true isn't true, but in this case there is the possibility they were mistaken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirically, we will see exactly the same way as in the afferent account.

Originally Posted by GdB

So there is no empirical difference between classical, established optics?

True. The only way we can know that we see in real time is through his demonstration in regard to the eyes, not through the observation of light and how its speed is measured.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I just said, nothing about optics is being disputed other than the claim that we see the image of the object in delayed time.

Originally Posted by GdB

There is in optics no such thing, so the claim is wrong.

That was my shorthand version. Everyone knows what I mean; you should too by now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The verdict is still out.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, it isn't. The theory is wrong.

That's your opinion, and it's okay. Lessans knew he would be vilified, and he certainly was spot on there too.

Originally Posted by GdB

Answer my questions. You are evading again. Explain the mechanism of efferent vision, and explain the 'gliding scales'.

I already did. You have to start off with the assumption that we can see in real time. If we are not interpreting the light into an image but seeing the real object, light takes on a different function. It becomes a closed system where light becomes a mirror image of the object seen. What do you mean by gliding scales?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you mind if we move on to the other topic? I'm not sure if you will be able to understand anything I'm trying to demonstrate if you refuse to let go of the belief in free will as defined by compatibilism.

Originally Posted by GdB

I do not belief in free will as defined by compatibilism: I belief that the compatibilist definition of free will supports our daily praxis of assigning responsibility, and makes sense of phrases like 'could have done otherwise'. If you do not understand the difference, then you haven't even started to understand the free will discussion.

Originally Posted by GdB

I do not belief in free will as defined by compatibilism: I belief that the compatibilist definition of free will...

Aren't you saying the same thing using different wording? I call this a play on words.

You have no conception of this book at all, and why you, as well as many "experts" on the subject have never extended the knowledge of determinism far enough to see where it leads. You only use a definition of free will in order to assign responsibility to someone's actions who choose "wrongly." Punishment came into existence out of necessity but it's not the ultimate solution. I will say for the last time that there is a better way to get the desired result. Isn't that what everyone wants? Wouldn't it be better not to have to blame and punish after the fact to get justice served for those who have been hurt? Wouldn't it be better to prevent those things that brought blame and punishment into existence? You don't even care to know how these principles work because you're so committed to your worldview. So much for investigative curiosity.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure where this experiment, which is used to measure the speed of light (which would give a measurable separation), applies. Light travels (we know that), so it would take time for the light to reach the photodiode behind the lens. I'm not sure how this experiment would be able to prove that efferent vision is false since it's not testing the right thing in terms of whether an image of a distant object (if it met the requirements) would show up instantly before the traveling light got here. DavidM tried to disprove efferent vision by using a similar example.

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As usual, you didn't answer the question. Again:

If the light is instantly at a piece of paper behind a lens, why shouldn't it be instantly at a photodiode behind a lens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Ups. Thank you for the laurels...

Yes. But if you do not mind I would like to do this at CFI. At least we know peacegirl cannot interfere there. It is a bit quieter there.

Good bye and good luck! Now please go!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

As usual, you didn't answer the question. Again:

If the light is instantly at a piece of paper behind a lens, why shouldn't it be instantly at a photodiode behind a lens?

Because there is no image to be projected, that's why. Light would not be instantly behind a piece of paper unless the lens was capturing an image (i.e., the frequency/wavelength) of an object, otherwise it would remain dark. In other words, if there was light and no image, the light would have had to travel to interact with the paper or the photodiode.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to start off with the assumption that we can see in real time.

See there? Everything works just fine provided we assume that efferent vision is true, thereby dispensing with flotsam such a proof.

show spoiler

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Flo will bring the whiskey, the Kraft cheese, the Wonderbread and the mayonnaise. Who's in for other stuff? Let's make a list!

I'll take care of the mashed potatoes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'll take care of the mashed potatoes.

I'm sure you will, but what are you going to bring for the rest of us to eat?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

GdB, however, has proved to be an Internet rarity, someone with something to say and someone worth talking to.

Most of us understand this, (Peacegirl being the only exception), but the question is can you hold up your end of the dialogue, or will you enlist the aid of aunt flo and her "on again off again" boyfriend, professor what's-his-name?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Oh my, it looks like this thread is about to reach 1,700 pages. Doesn't that merit a party?

Indeed it does, and lets start off with some music just for Janis and Seymour and their wacky ideas.

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

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there is no image to be projected, that's why. Light would not be instantly behind a piece of paper unless the lens was capturing an image (i.e., the frequency/wavelength) of an object, otherwise it would remain dark. In other words, if there was light and no image, the light would have had to travel to interact with the paper or the photodiode.

What do you mean, "there is no image"? There is always a pattern associated with a light source. Light travels as a wave with a certain shape that determines where photons land. You could draw a picture of something on the beamsplitter and it would be projected where the photodiode is.

You are weaseling again.