A revolution in thought - Page 1841

davidm · #**46001** 03-23-2016, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If we're going all retrospective and shit, I really admired how Vivisectus put the Great Man's undeniable precepts to work in his own life:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thanks, Stephen! It is good to be back.

Incidentally, you were 100% correct: I have been lounging around suggestively, my pale and bloated paunch sheathed in shimmering translucent robes and sexy jackets, and with my special sex-hat at a rakish angle for extra emphasis. This of course is entirely different than simply saying "I is horny!" and is completely not simply a different way of expressing a desire to see some proper rumpy-pumpy materialize in the near future.

The problem arose when we realized that neither of us had the right to ask the other person to be in the same bed for this to actually happen. You see, we buy our furniture at Ikea so the whole kitchen-table thing is way too much hassle for us. I mean it is all well and good to be free and not bound by any sort of outmoded sexual mores, but it is a 2 hour drive there and back all the same. Mind you, the inevitable argument that is generated by the frustration of putting the damn thing together does mean it will be WEEKS before we have to get another one. But that aside.

The problem was that if I asked her to go to my bed, that would put some kind of obligation on her, which is a form of advance blaming. The same applied to her. Nor could I simply initiate the sexual act in any way - she would not be able to reject me without once again sending us down the never-ending spiral of blame and hurt. Pretty soon we were reduced to stalking each other through the house, trying to find some way to casually and in a totally non-committal way initiate the ancient ritual of parking the pink plymouth in the garage of love. Thank god for Xboxes, I say, or the kids might be permanently scarred by now. At one stage I was reduced to pretending I was using an invisible hula-hoop while Mrs Sectus pretended to be distractedly searching for spare change on the floor, working backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The real trouble started when we had to work out what were favours and what were legitimate requests. If I asked my son to carry out the garbage, would that not be advance blaming him for not wanting to do it? After all he had not offered to do anything. The mounting piles of garbage did not seem to bother him much, so perhaps it was me who needed to go and do it. What about the dishes? Was it not unreasonable to ask someone to do them, when it would be just as easy for me to wash a single plate for myself if I wanted a clean plate to eat off? Who was I to judge what was right for all the other fully grown inmates of my household? They all seemed perfectly content to lie on the couch and watch TV all day, and in all fairness I could not possibly object: that would be blaming them somehow. I know they all signed the same covenant I did, but sometimes I could not help but feel that they were not taking the whole thing as seriously as I was. This was of course a clear sign it was my fault: they were only reacting to me advance blaming them by thinking that maybe it would be a good idea if they would help out in the house once in a while.

Watching TV was rapidly becoming very difficult. In order to change the channel, we had to figure out if anyone was interested in the TV show without asking. You see, if we implied that we were not interested, we would put an obligation on the other person to do something they might not want to do. This would not have been so bad if the cat had not trodden on the remote, accidentally switching to the shopping channel.

It was a good thing that my 13-year old daughter had recently fallen in love with the genitals of her life-long partner, Bubba. Being illiterate, he could not really be expected to get into the spirit of the thing, so he was able to solve most of these problems by resolutely changing the channel to the WWF all day wrestling channel. This just goes to show that such harmful, judgemental standards such as “IQ”, “Education” and “criminal record” really confuse people and make them so hurtfully judgemental. I am sure he will be back any day now to assume his responsibilities as a father, as he could not possibly desire, of his free will, to cause a harm for which none of us will blame him in he slightest. I hope he does not forget to bring our TV and car back then he does.

Good times! This was an awesome specimen from this thrad!

See how you have inspired brilliance among many people here, peacegirl? :yup:

davidm · #**46002** 03-23-2016, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At one stage I was reduced to pretending I was using an invisible hula-hoop while Mrs Sectus pretended to be distractedly searching for spare change on the floor, working backwards.

Thanks, peacegirl! We would never have had stuff like this but for you. :golfclap:

Vivisectus · #**46003** 03-23-2016, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

Noooo, he was just saying that size has nothing to do with time, which is true if efferent vision is true. If the object is large enough to be within our field of view, the wavelength/frequency will be at the retina. Optics doesn't change.

Hey? But no-one ever said perspective has anything to do with how long light takes to get anywhere? And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

How does it prove that, exactly?

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was saying, so don't read into it.

Sorry but that is clearly nonsense. He says explicitly that this proves that he is correct - a rare instance of him actually trying to prove anything at all, rather than simply promising to prove it later and then never getting back to it - but he is obviously wrong about that. There is no proof there that I can see.

Why say "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" when it does not prove that at all - even if sight WAS efferent?

ChuckF · #**46004** 03-23-2016, 01:11 PM

peacegirl, that kind of thing is why scientists will not "want to take over from here" no matter how many times the President gets sued. There is no reason to take over from here because it is obvious nonsense babble, saggy boobs and all.

peacegirl · #**46005** 03-23-2016, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To you, this is all the entertainment you need. You would keep this charade going for another 5 years if you had your say. It's better than watching prime time t.v. -- and it's free.

Now that is the truest thing you have said in years. However there things and people in my life that are more entertaining than you, and they share my incredulity at what you are posting.

You cannot leave me thedoc. Face it. You will follow me to the ends of the Earth!!! :biglaugh:

peacegirl · #**46006** 03-23-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say there was something I could do about it,

Good, because there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. :yup:

So why bring it up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I did start this thread which means that if I leave there is no thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Doesn't mean that at all. We could use this thread as a vehicle for mocking you and Lessans for years to come, if the path of greater satisfaction leads us that way.

And there wouldn't be a goddamn thing you could do about it. :yup:

That is very true, but it begs the question: Why would you follow me of all places you could go to? That's a rhetorical question, so don't answer. It will only be the same broken record of sarcasm on top of more sarcasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But hey, please, by all means, keep up the ranting, raving, foot-stomping and other expressions of impotent rage. I get a kick out of 63-year-olds acting like 3-year-olds.

To you, this is free entertainment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

How insightful.

It is very insightful. You never once took this thread seriously, so you won't get out of it what was intended. No surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would keep this charade going for another 5 years if you had your say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If you're still alive five years hence, you'll be right here squabbling with strangers about efferent vision and littering the landscape with booze-soaked all-caps tirades. You know it, I know it. :wave:

Maybe, maybe not. Only God knows where I will be, and you ain't God. :giggle:

thedoc · #**46007** 03-23-2016, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To you, this is all the entertainment you need. You would keep this charade going for another 5 years if you had your say. It's better than watching prime time t.v. -- and it's free.

Now that is the truest thing you have said in years. However there things and people in my life that are more entertaining than you, and they share my incredulity at what you are posting.

You cannot leave me thedoc. Face it. You will follow me to the ends of the Earth!!!

You're right, as long as you are posting nonsense I will post reality to counter it, or at least verify that someone is posting the truth to counter your lies.

BTW, did you see the movie, I thought it was very entertaining, and an interesting place to hide the fortune.

Spacemonkey · #**46008** 03-23-2016, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right; in the afferent account of VISION, there hasn't been time for light to reach the eye.

There hasn't been time in the efferent account either. How do your photons get from the source to the retina in zero time?

It's not zero time, but it's not 8 minutes. You say that the farther away the object is the longer it takes to reach the eye. That IS the afferent position. If you think in terms of the efferent position, distance IS NOT A FACTOR. If DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR, then seeing the Sun turned at noon on would be analogous to lighting a candle in a room. It would be virtually instant.

If it is anything less than 8 minutes then the light cannot have gotten to the retina by traveling from the object at light speed. So how do your photons at the retina get from the object to the retina in whatever sub-8-min time you think it takes?

I already explained why your candle example does not work, and you have not explained how distance is not a factor. The only way for the distance to not be a factor is if you have some alternative, other than light speed travel, for how your photons get from the object to the retina. Do you have that? We could resolve this easily if you would just answer my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump for

Bump.

peacegirl · #**46009** 03-23-2016, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say there was something I could do about it,

Good, because there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I did start this thread which means that if I leave there is no thread.

Doesn't mean that at all. We could use this thread as a vehicle for mocking you and Lessans for years to come, if the path of greater satisfaction leads us that way.

And there wouldn't be a goddamn thing you could do about it. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But hey, please, by all means, keep up the ranting, raving, foot-stomping and other expressions of impotent rage. I get a kick out of 63-year-olds acting like 3-year-olds.

To you, this is free entertainment.

How insightful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would keep this charade going for another 5 years if you had your say.

If you're still alive five years hence, you'll be right here squabbling with strangers about efferent vision and littering the landscape with booze-soaked all-caps tirades. You know it, I know it. :wave:

And you wouldn't miss an episode!

peacegirl · #**46010** 03-23-2016, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If we're going all retrospective and shit, I really admired how Vivisectus put the Great Man's undeniable precepts to work in his own life:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thanks, Stephen! It is good to be back.

Incidentally, you were 100% correct: I have been lounging around suggestively, my pale and bloated paunch sheathed in shimmering translucent robes and sexy jackets, and with my special sex-hat at a rakish angle for extra emphasis. This of course is entirely different than simply saying "I is horny!" and is completely not simply a different way of expressing a desire to see some proper rumpy-pumpy materialize in the near future.

The problem arose when we realized that neither of us had the right to ask the other person to be in the same bed for this to actually happen. You see, we buy our furniture at Ikea so the whole kitchen-table thing is way too much hassle for us. I mean it is all well and good to be free and not bound by any sort of outmoded sexual mores, but it is a 2 hour drive there and back all the same. Mind you, the inevitable argument that is generated by the frustration of putting the damn thing together does mean it will be WEEKS before we have to get another one. But that aside.

The problem was that if I asked her to go to my bed, that would put some kind of obligation on her, which is a form of advance blaming. The same applied to her. Nor could I simply initiate the sexual act in any way - she would not be able to reject me without once again sending us down the never-ending spiral of blame and hurt. Pretty soon we were reduced to stalking each other through the house, trying to find some way to casually and in a totally non-committal way initiate the ancient ritual of parking the pink plymouth in the garage of love. Thank god for Xboxes, I say, or the kids might be permanently scarred by now. At one stage I was reduced to pretending I was using an invisible hula-hoop while Mrs Sectus pretended to be distractedly searching for spare change on the floor, working backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The real trouble started when we had to work out what were favours and what were legitimate requests. If I asked my son to carry out the garbage, would that not be advance blaming him for not wanting to do it? After all he had not offered to do anything. The mounting piles of garbage did not seem to bother him much, so perhaps it was me who needed to go and do it. What about the dishes? Was it not unreasonable to ask someone to do them, when it would be just as easy for me to wash a single plate for myself if I wanted a clean plate to eat off? Who was I to judge what was right for all the other fully grown inmates of my household? They all seemed perfectly content to lie on the couch and watch TV all day, and in all fairness I could not possibly object: that would be blaming them somehow. I know they all signed the same covenant I did, but sometimes I could not help but feel that they were not taking the whole thing as seriously as I was. This was of course a clear sign it was my fault: they were only reacting to me advance blaming them by thinking that maybe it would be a good idea if they would help out in the house once in a while.

Watching TV was rapidly becoming very difficult. In order to change the channel, we had to figure out if anyone was interested in the TV show without asking. You see, if we implied that we were not interested, we would put an obligation on the other person to do something they might not want to do. This would not have been so bad if the cat had not trodden on the remote, accidentally switching to the shopping channel.

It was a good thing that my 13-year old daughter had recently fallen in love with the genitals of her life-long partner, Bubba. Being illiterate, he could not really be expected to get into the spirit of the thing, so he was able to solve most of these problems by resolutely changing the channel to the WWF all day wrestling channel. This just goes to show that such harmful, judgemental standards such as “IQ”, “Education” and “criminal record” really confuse people and make them so hurtfully judgemental. I am sure he will be back any day now to assume his responsibilities as a father, as he could not possibly desire, of his free will, to cause a harm for which none of us will blame him in he slightest. I hope he does not forget to bring our TV and car back then he does.

Good times! This was an awesome specimen from this thrad!

See how you have inspired brilliance among many people here, peacegirl? :yup:

This satire may be funny but it's a complete misinterpretation of the principles and a way to use the book as lulz. It doesn't bother me nearly as much as it use to because I recognize the source.

peacegirl · #**46011** 03-23-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

Noooo, he was just saying that size has nothing to do with time, which is true if efferent vision is true. If the object is large enough to be within our field of view, the wavelength/frequency will be at the retina. Optics doesn't change.

Hey? But no-one ever said perspective has anything to do with how long light takes to get anywhere? And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

How does it prove that, exactly?

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was saying, so don't read into it.

Sorry but that is clearly nonsense. He says explicitly that this proves that he is correct - a rare instance of him actually trying to prove anything at all, rather than simply promising to prove it later and then never getting back to it - but he is obviously wrong about that. There is no proof there that I can see.

Why say "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" when it does not prove that at all - even if sight WAS efferent?

Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "prove." "Dad, if you're listening I'm sure you would agree." :blush:

peacegirl · #**46012** 03-23-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, that kind of thing is why scientists will not "want to take over from here" no matter how many times the President gets sued. There is no reason to take over from here because it is obvious nonsense babble, saggy boobs and all.

Since you are so well versed in the book, explain his first discovery Chuck. You can't because you haven't read it. You're just joining in because it's fun to laugh at what you don't understand. You are just as ignorant as the rest of the people here.

peacegirl · #**46013** 03-23-2016, 05:08 PM

Love this!

https://www.facebook.com/physicsastr...9373422174958/

Vivisectus · #**46014** 03-23-2016, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

Noooo, he was just saying that size has nothing to do with time, which is true if efferent vision is true. If the object is large enough to be within our field of view, the wavelength/frequency will be at the retina. Optics doesn't change.

Hey? But no-one ever said perspective has anything to do with how long light takes to get anywhere? And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

How does it prove that, exactly?

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was saying, so don't read into it.

Sorry but that is clearly nonsense. He says explicitly that this proves that he is correct - a rare instance of him actually trying to prove anything at all, rather than simply promising to prove it later and then never getting back to it - but he is obviously wrong about that. There is no proof there that I can see.

Why say "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" when it does not prove that at all - even if sight WAS efferent?

Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "prove." "Dad, if you're listening I'm sure you would agree." :blush:

Wow - after five years you have finally admitted there may be a mistake in the book! How does it feel?

thedoc · #**46015** 03-23-2016, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time.

Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "prove." "Dad, if you're listening I'm sure you would agree."

Nah, he meant to use "prove" because Lessans didn't understand any of the ideas he was including in the book, so he just randomly made claims that one idea proved another unrelated idea. A little education would have saved him a lot of trouble and embarrassment. He used the phrase "proves conclusively" because it sounded to him like there could be no question about it. Pity he didn't understand any of it, he wouldn't have sounded so silly.

peacegirl · #**46016** 03-23-2016, 05:49 PM