A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Now that you've finished ranting about nanoseconds, peacegirl, maybe you can finally answer what should be an easy question about mirrors.

Originally Posted by Dragar

The same is true for walls, not just mirrors. So why can't I see my reflection on a wall?

Remember that you told me only a few posts ago that light isn't reflected differently from a mirror as opposed to a wall. I hope you won't use some difference in how light is reflected as an explanation (particularly since, again according to you, we don't 'interpret the reflected pattern of light' anyway, so such an explanation would make no sense).

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

All you have are "astute observations" which you'll never, ever explain or cite.

To me, that's one of the lulzier parts of the entire enterprise. Lessans himself did nothing but pontificate. peacegirl assures us that what appears to be baseless pontification is actually backed up by undeniable "astute observations." When we ask "what observations?" peacegirl can't provide a single example. It all boils down to nonsense amounting to "Trust me, he made 'em" and "Geez, breh, he read Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire SEVEN TIMES so of course he knew what he was talking about."

[The Lone Ranger]

You know how some religious people get upset by the very idea that people exist who do not share their "self-evidently true" beliefs? I suspect that it's because their personal identities are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they simply can't accept that any sane and decent person could be exposed to their "self-evidently true" beliefs and not accept them.

Therefore, in the mind of the True Believer, anyone who doesn't immediately accept the rightness of their claims is either insane, or too stupid to understand, or is a bad person who doesn't want to share in the "Good News" regarding the One True Faith.


There are plenty of times when peacegirl acts exactly like a True Believer who is simply aghast that anyone could fail to be convinced by the words of the One True Profit Prophet.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has taken his discovery seriously...

No one has taken his "discovery" seriously for the very simple and sound reason that it does not merit serious consideration.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't. I was only extending the knowledge nonsense, which I have every right to do.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You know how some religious people get upset by the very idea that people exist who do not share their "self-evidently true" beliefs? I suspect that it's because their personal identities are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they simply can't accept that any sane and decent person could be exposed to their "self-evidently true" beliefs and not accept them.

Therefore, in the mind of the True Believer, anyone who doesn't immediately accept the rightness of their claims is either insane, or too stupid to understand, or is a bad person who doesn't want to share in the "Good News" regarding the One True Faith.


There are plenty of times when peacegirl acts exactly like a True Believer who is simply aghast that anyone could fail to be convinced by the words of the One True Profit Prophet.

This is not limited to religious people. I used to engage in regular debate with a poster on another board, who happened to be an atheist. In the course of one of our discussions he once made the very explicit and unconditioned claim that if you understand someone then you can't disagree with them.

Sometimes people are just so wrong that you can't do anything but disagree with them. Lessans and peacegirl don't just fall into this category, they practically define it.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course, in peacegirl's world, the only "legitimate" form of "criticism" where Lessans is concerned goes something like this: "Wow! Lessans was such a genius! Where can I learn more about his discoveries?"

Within 24 hours of her first posting links to Lessans' writings here, she was insisting that anyone who failed to be immediately convinced of Lessans' greatness and the legitimacy of his "discoveries" was either incapable of understanding his genius or was lying about having read the excerpts.

Which makes it all the more amazing that some people in this thread have bothered to engage with this idiot for four years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, just because he expresses his disagreement with you that somehow stops you from continuing to argue for your position? That makes perfect sense.

Yes, it makes perfect sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Your "requirements" are nonsense, so it's irrelevant. The object doesn't even have to exist anymore when you see it.

I'm not sure if that's true. Have they proven this?

IOW, how in the world could we register what we're seeing in that split second when the pulsed light is already on its way back?

Originally Posted by But

We don't see anything when the light is on its way back. We see it shortly after the light hits the retina. And where is the problem?

You can't prove efferent vision wrong from this experiment. We don't see anything when the light is on its way back because there's no light at the object, period.

Originally Posted by But

Do you have difficulty seeing things illuminated by a camera flash? Or a stroboscopic light? What the retina does is collect photons, and it doesn't care whether they all arrive at once.

Right, the retina gathers photons. That's what it does in the efferent account as well.

Originally Posted by But

No, the time-of-flight camera is another thing that disproves "efferent vision".

I don't think so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Any travel time, no matter how small, negates Lessans version of instant vision. So which is it? "instant vision" or are you ready to abandon that idea and come back to the real world? A nanosecond or less only applies to terrestrial objects that are being seen, once you are looking at objects off planet the time gets progressively longer, as has been demonstrated for many years.

You are failing to grasp why we see an object instantly if the object meets the requirements of efferent vision since the light would already be at the eye. There's no violation of physics because this account has nothing to do with time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A "nanosecond" is a unit of time not a unit of distance, a "light nanosecond" is the distance light travels in one nanosecond. You constantly demonstrate that you have no understanding of what you are talking about. Talking to you is Much like talking with this guy, quite amusing, but not very informative.

Gabby Johnson, Blazing Saddles rant - YouTube

You still don't understand why this account of vision works the opposite way it is believed to work. I can't get through the stubborn resistance that prevents people from even being the slightest bit curious as to why this is so, and why we would see exactly the way he described.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

So you think it is interesting to discuss with people who think the same as you? I think that is boring.

But the summary of your argument is that you do not want to discuss your ideas here with me anymore, because I won't read the book, and think that what you pasted into these fora here does not suffice to give me a justification. And then I did not even mention efferent vision.

If you do not want to discuss with me, why do you want with the others here?

I don't want anything from the people here. I'm leaving here soon and moving on to bigger and better things. Believe me, this is just the beginning, but I will not go to philosophy forums anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never said a thing about light needing to be at the retina in order to see things either. In fact she used to say light only needed to be at the object.Lessans certainly wouldn't have talked about the light taking 8 minutes to reach Earth and be used to see each other if he thought light was instantaneously located at retinas on Earth.

Because that's not what is required IF THE EYES ARE EFFERENT. The fact that he said light needs to be at the object did not mean that light didn't have to strike the retina. Light would have to be at the eye if the object was seen since we would already be within the field of view of the object. But we wouldn't be able to see each other because the requirements for sight would not have been met even though we were right next to each other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't expect people to agree with me if they don't understand what is being expressed, and the majority don't.

That is close to saying if people understand me then they agree with me. Therefore I am pretty sure that if I do not agree, you will say I did not understand the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell can discuss something they know nothing about GdB? Humor me and tell me how you can do that?

Originally Posted by GdB

I want to discuss with you, your ideas, here. I can do that without the book, if you are serious in discussing your ideas. Got it?

No, I don't get it. You are more interested in defending compatibilism than wanting to understand his discovery. You've already made up your mind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know of any true discoverer who would feel that it was adequate to give his work a quick rundown in a three sentence summary.

Originally Posted by GdB

You copied much more than 3 sentences. And I read the first chapter.

Great, so you should be able to answer some questions. Question #1: Why is man's will not free, according to Lessans' proposition?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't.

Originally Posted by GdB

Ah! Now that is an example of having no free will. You do not want to discuss with the others here, but you are doing it continuously.

No, that's just an example of choosing the lesser of two evils. My choice to be here (which is dissatisfying to me in many ways) is better than do nothing (which is more dissatisfying in comparison). I am still choosing the least undesirable choice among these two options, which is in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by GdB

Or is it...? Hmm... shit! According to you it means you have free will, because you prefer not to discuss, but you are doing it.

No, it only means that both choices are undesirable (or not to my liking), but I prefer, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to discuss the book rather than not to. Tomorrow I may feel differently. Each moment offers us a new set of alternatives from which to choose.

Originally Posted by GdB

Oh, help, this is so confusing! Can somebody help me??

I'm trying, but it won't do any good if you are already convinced he is wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are failing to grasp why we see an object instantly if the object meets the requirements of efferent vision since the light would already be at the eye. There's no violation of physics because this account has nothing to do with time.

Lessan introduced time, and the laws of physics violation,by saying efferent vision is instantaneous. Instantly is a reference to time, as is the phrase "no time at all"

Visible supernovas are not seen instantly, we know this because the neutrinos arrive around the same time it becomes visible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is man's will not free, according to Lessans' proposition?

According to Lessans, Man's will is not free because man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. But this definition is nonsense because it is self defining and meaningless, since Lessans defines every choice as choosing that which gives greater satisfaction, which is simply not true. Some choices are made without regard to that which is the most satisfying, but to simply to make a choice of some sort. Lessans proved nothing, he just proclaimed it as proof, in spite of his lack of any kind of proof at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Now that you've finished ranting about nanoseconds, peacegirl, maybe you can finally answer what should be an easy question about mirrors.

Remember that you told me only a few posts ago that light isn't reflected differently from a mirror as opposed to a wall. I hope you won't use some difference in how light is reflected as an explanation (particularly since, again according to you, we don't 'interpret the reflected pattern of light' anyway, so such an explanation would make no sense).

This is correct, according to Lessans, we see an object due to there being light at the object, and according to Peacegirl, then instantly at the retina, so what happens to the light that is reflected and travels is irrelevant to efferent vision. If Peacegirl is claiming that the light reflecting of a mirror or a wall has some effect on vision than she is negating efferent, instant vision, and acknowledging afferent delayed vision. Afferent vision is based on light traveling, and efferent vision claims that light does not travel, but is instantly from the object to the retina for vision to occur. But then the question becomes, how did the light get to the object? It seems that efferent vision is claiming two different kinds of light. One that travels to the object to illuminate it, and another that is instantly at the retina for vision to occur. I knew that light came in different colors, now it comes in different flavors?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm leaving here soon and moving on to bigger and better things. Believe me...

No, we don't believe you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't get through the stubborn resistance that prevents people from even being the slightest bit curious as to why this is so, and why we would see exactly the way he described.

You can't get through the stubborn resistance that prevents people from believing that light can be somewhere before it has had time to get there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are failing to grasp why we see an object instantly if the object meets the requirements of efferent vision...

So are you. You have no idea how this could possibly be achieved, and have never once offered any kind of explanatory mechanism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...since the light would already be at the eye.

Where did it come from and how did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no violation of physics because this account has nothing to do with time.

So why have you been blithering about nanoseconds for several weeks?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't. I was only extending the knowledge, which I have every right to do.

Sure. Your "extending knowledge" = "fabricating bullshit". You have every right to weasel, evade, and make up garbage that doesn't make sense or even help your case in any way. And we have the right to mock you for it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by erimir

Which makes it all the more amazing that some people in this thread have bothered to engage with this idiot for four years.

People get their freak on in different ways.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure. Your "extending knowledge" = "fabricating bullshit". You have every right to weasel, evade, and make up garbage that doesn't make sense or even help your case in any way. And we have the right to mock you for it.

Until he is proven right. What will you have to say then? Rhetorical question, don't answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The same is true for walls, not just mirrors. So why can't I see my reflection on a wall?

The answer, Livingston explains, rests in part on the penetration by light. A mirror is essentially a plate of glass coated with a thin film of metal, such as silver. At the atomic scale, metals are a crystal network of atoms whose outermost electrons dissociate and wander with high mobility through the network. These mobile “conduction” electrons are the source of electrical conductivity in metals, and when light attempts to penetrate a metal, they “vibrate in such a way” that an opposing electrical field is created, canceling the electric field of light and prohibiting any of its colors from entering beyond a few atomic layers. When that occurs, the light has been effectively reflected from the surface of the metal.

In addition, the smoothness of a mirror’s glass and metal coating ensure that this surface reflection is specular, says Livingston. As a result, rays of light bounce “like tennis balls,”, always maintaining an angle of reflection to the mirror’s surface, that matches in value the rays’ angle of incidence. Rays of light originating from a person’s ear, nose, and eyebrow, will “reflect with the same angle” off a smooth mirror surface and maintain their relative orientation, thus preserving the image that our eyes will perceive.

White surfaces can reflect a considerable amount of light, but without the mobile electrons to oppose the electric field of light, white surfaces allow light to penetrate up to several wavelengths. This allows them to experience multiple reflections from crystal grains and other irregularities within the structure of the surface. Some multiple-reflected light can reemerge from the material surface, but without the same orientation, as that which reflects off a mirror.

Surface roughness, Livingston says, also contributes “diffuse reflection,” causing the rays of light from different parts of a potential image to “bounce back at different angles.” Multiple and diffuse reflections scatter the reflecting rays, and all information about the image is lost. White paint or a piece of paper are classic examples of light scattering, he notes, as are clouds, the foam in your glass of beer, and snow. These latter examples are turbulent or irregular structures, containing “lots of air,” which causes “light [to] reflect off internal and external surfaces” and scatters the rays of an image.

It is striking to consider, Livingston adds, how a still pool of water may serve as a poor mirror. Yet, when the same water crystallizes into irregularly packed snow flakes, multiple and diffuse light reflection results in a white surface.

Why doesn’t a plain, white piece of paper reflect light, but a mirror does? | MIT School of Engineering

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until he is proven right. What will you have to say then?

The exact same thing I just said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rhetorical question, don't answer.

Unlike you, I don't run away from questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer, Livingston explains, rests in part on the penetration by light. A mirror is essentially a plate of glass coated with a thin film of metal, such as silver. At the atomic scale, metals are a crystal network of atoms whose outermost electrons dissociate and wander with high mobility through the network. These mobile “conduction” electrons are the source of electrical conductivity in metals, and when light attempts to penetrate a metal, they “vibrate in such a way” that an opposing electrical field is created, canceling the electric field of light and prohibiting any of its colors from entering beyond a few atomic layers. When that occurs, the light has been effectively reflected from the surface of the metal.

In addition, the smoothness of a mirror’s glass and metal coating ensure that this surface reflection is specular, says Livingston. As a result, rays of light bounce “like tennis balls,”, always maintaining an angle of reflection to the mirror’s surface, that matches in value the rays’ angle of incidence. Rays of light originating from a person’s ear, nose, and eyebrow, will “reflect with the same angle” off a smooth mirror surface and maintain their relative orientation, thus preserving the image that our eyes will perceive.

White surfaces can reflect a considerable amount of light, but without the mobile electrons to oppose the electric field of light, white surfaces allow light to penetrate up to several wavelengths. This allows them to experience multiple reflections from crystal grains and other irregularities within the structure of the surface. Some multiple-reflected light can reemerge from the material surface, but without the same orientation, as that which reflects off a mirror.

Surface roughness, Livingston says, also contributes “diffuse reflection,” causing the rays of light from different parts of a potential image to “bounce back at different angles.” Multiple and diffuse reflections scatter the reflecting rays, and all information about the image is lost. White paint or a piece of paper are classic examples of light scattering, he notes, as are clouds, the foam in your glass of beer, and snow. These latter examples are turbulent or irregular structures, containing “lots of air,” which causes “light [to] reflect off internal and external surfaces” and scatters the rays of an image.

It is striking to consider, Livingston adds, how a still pool of water may serve as a poor mirror. Yet, when the same water crystallizes into irregularly packed snow flakes, multiple and diffuse light reflection results in a white surface.

Why doesn’t a plain, white piece of paper reflect light, but a mirror does? | MIT School of Engineering

Translation: I have no fucking clue how a mirror works, so here's a cut&paste and link instead of an honest answer.