A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed - amazing. All the people on this forum must have some sort of reason for not wanting to believe that allows them to keep themselves willfully ignorant - even after you have spent 70 pages decisively and eloquently wiping the floor with every argument they tried to drag up! Some people just don't know when they are completely trumped by an astute observation.

The reason this has been going on for so long is because people here want to show me how wrong I have been for having believed these claims were true. They are just trying to help me see the light (sorry for the pun) of day.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But never fear! Because it is mathematical, it will definitely happen anyway, and then we will see who has the last laugh! All we need to do is wait about a decade before we can see the first signs of the revolution. Lessans will be a household name, and my children will erect his statues. Incidentally, you should make a tidy sum out of the millions of copies of his books that will start selling like hotcakes as the knowledge spreads and takes hold faster and faster. How could it not?

Unfortunately, we'll probably all be dead before this knowledge is confirmed valid. Do you think he cared about being a household name? Do you think this is all about money? Sure, if I sold books and made up for all the money I put into this, I wouldn't reject it. The last figure I got, if I sell on Amazon, I will make a big $46 for each book sold. Whoopie doooo. I couldn't even buy a cup of coffee. The truth is I would love to be able to buy all organic; and maybe get some massages for my aching back. I'm really not high maintenance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So cheer up! A bright, profitable future awaits - and the quiet but satisfying pleasure of knowing how silly we will all feel for not having seen it earlier.

I would never say "I told you so", (I'm not blaming you for being in disbelief). If you could only see into the future, you would have more empathy for where we are at this moment.

[davidm]

Oh, I see, you did respond, but I couldn't tell, because yet again you mangeld the quote function.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why he said our sight had nothing to do with light except as a condition.

What does that mean? Explain what that means.

Let's get off this subject okay?

Of course you want to get off the subject because you can't even understand it! But if everyone saw everything instanteaneously, the theory of relativity would be wrong. Do you understand why it would be wrong?

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;935494]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the variable that would need to be tested is whether the features alone, with everything else being equal, would allow a dog to recognize his master. That is still an open question.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm wondering how many more controlled studies which directly demonstrate that some dogs can recognize their masters by visual cues alone will have to be done before you'll abandon this demonstrably-false statement. I'm guessing ∞ + 1.

I think there are variables in those experiements (I forgot what it's called) that could be wayward, or not recognized as being influential. I would have to give up this idea if it was positively proven that dogs can recognize their masters. If that was the case, they should be able to recognize their masters on television. I don't think my dog would be able recognize me on t.v., even though I've been with her for over 10 years.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For someone who chides others for supposedly being close-minded, you demonstrate an amazing ability to simply ignore evidence which contradicts your claims, even when that evidence is very well-supported, is directly referenced, and has been repeatedly brought to your attention.

Like I said, I am not ignoring anything. I just don't think these experiments are as reliable as everyone thinks they are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said over and over that he never disputed the knowledge scientists have so painstakingly accumulated about the structure of the eye. But that does not mean that his observations were wrong regarding how the brain works in concert with the eyes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Show me one neuron -- just one -- that can convey impulses from the brain to the retina of the eye along the optic nerve. Just one. I dare you.

I am not going to get myself in trouble. I never said neurons convey impulses from the brain to the retina. I know it appears logical that the impulses from the light are going straight to the back of the brain to be interpreted. And that is the reason you think this notion of the brain looking at the real world is in complete contradiction. His assertion (?) that a baby's brain needs stimulation from the other senses in order for the eyes to begin focussing is another way people could test this empirically, but, once again, it has to be a reliable test, not just a test to confirm what one wants it to. That's called bias.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What does that mean? Explain what that means.

Of course you want to get off the subject because you can't even understand it! But if everyone saw everything instanteaneously, the theory of relativity would be wrong. Do you understand why it would be wrong?

Why would it be wrong? Tell me, don't test me to try and make me look stupid. I know what you're trying to do. First, you butcher the book by making a big joke out of it; now you want to butcher me by making me look like a fool. Well I'm not gonna let you do it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, I am not ignoring anything. I just don't think these experiments are as reliable as everyone thinks they are.

Oh, really? Do you have any reason why you don't think they are reliable? Any reason other than, "I don't like those results."?

...it has to be a reliable test, not just a test to confirm what one wants it to. That's called bias.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would it be wrong? Tell me, don't test me to try and make me look stupid. I know what you're trying to do. First, you butcher the book by making a big joke out of it; now you want to butcher me by making me look like a fool. Well I'm not gonna let you do it.

Don't try to test you? In other words, don't ask questions whose answers will reveal your ignorance and show why Lessans' "theories" are wrong? Why, that is very convenient for you, isn't it?

The bottom line here is you admit you don't know what the theory says and why it contradicts Lessans. Nor will you brook being "tested" because that will reveal your ignorance and show that Lessans is incorrect. Your motto is, "Don't trouble me with the facts."

Of course all religious zealots avoid facts like the plague, don't they?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to get myself in trouble.

Translation: "I don't have Clue One what I'm talking about, and I don't want my ignorance exposed."

I never said neurons convey impulses from the brain to the retina.

Then what ARE you (and Lessans) saying? Speficially, given that light, according to Lessans, does not convey information to the brain (and at one point he writes that it does not even reach the optic nerve) then how is light a condition for seeing? What does that mean, according to you and Lessans?

We KNOW how light is a condition for seeing in the real world. What we are trying to establish is how it is a condition for seeing in the fantasy world of you and Lessans, where the eye is not a sense organ and nothing reaches the optic nerve.

[davidm]

This from the book:

Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development.

Where is the math, Peacegirl? Where are the equations? He is claiming that his is a mathematical truth. Then show the math!

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by davidm

This from the book:

Where is the math, Peacegirl? Where are the equations? He is claiming that his is a mathematical truth. Then show the math!

I think she said earlier that mathematical just means undeniable. If only we spoke a common language!

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

SO WHY IN THE WORLD ARE PEOPLE STILL HERE. IF YOU LEAVE, I'LL LEAVE, IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

Still cannot quote people, I see. We will add "lying" to your list of attributes.

Why should I leave first Doctor X?

Because you are the one crying about how bad your reception is and demanding others leave. We will add "hypocrite" you your list of attributes.

You FAIL again, Liar and Hypocrite

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

If only we spoke a common language!

Pfff, yeah, right. You might as well wish for a world in which you could buy a cup of coffee for $46.00 or less.

[davidm]

The author doesn’t get around to presenting his no-free-will argument until around Page 32 of this ponderous tome. Until then the reader must wade through a lot of theatrical self-pity about how no one listens to the author, even though he has made the greatest discovery in the history of the world. People won’t listen to him because he has a seventh-grade education, and because scientists are a closed, elitist community that cannot recognize new knowledge, yada yada. He takes special relish in attacking Will Durant, evidently mistakenly thinking that Durant was a major 20th century philosopher. He even got Durant on the phone once to tell him what’s what! At one point in the narrative he recounts forcing a rabbi to concede that no one can prove that we have free will, and then relates how a compatriot observed that in his interaction with the rabbi, the author was as great as Socrates! And so on.

Honestly, peacegirl, if you want the author to be taken seriously, you should edit out all this happy horseshit, and also the stuff at the end about his letters to Nixon and Carter, his lawsuit against Carter, and so on. It seems that what ideas he has could probably be distilled to about 20 pages or so. And that’s not a criticism; a great many very fine gems of philosophy have been presented in the form of relatively short essays in which the argument is very tightly and concisely presented. The author has not got such an argument, but if he had, he could do it concisely and it would be even more illuminating than burying his “discovery” in 589 pages of ponderous and self-pitying prose.

So what’s the argument? Well, first, we can’t ever prove free will because to do we’d have to go back in time and rerun, under identical circumstances, a choice that someone made and see if he would make it differently. Sure, we can’t go back in time and do that. That’s not telling us much. He also claims that free will and determinism are opposites. That’s not correct. Compatiblist free will holds that free will and determinism are both true. That actual opposite of determinism is indeterminism, and in fact the world is quantum indeterministic.

Why don’t we have free will? He presents the following as a “mathematical” certainty: All living things move away from dissatisfaction to satisfaction. Given two choices A and B, we are compelled by our very natures to choose the one that gives the greater satisfaction. This means (the author says) it is impossible to choose the less satisfactory choice, and so the more satisfactory choice is not freely chosen because it must, by our very natures, be chosen. Hence we have no free will. He concludes.

This simple
demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because
satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one
possibility at each moment of time.

I bolded the final clause. It’s demonstrably false, and so the argument collapses.

Suppose tonight I have two entertainment choices: one choice is attending a baseball game, and another choice is attending a concert. I enjoy both activities very much. How shall I choose? The author says I am compelled to choose that activity which gives the greatest satisfaction, but I don’t know ahead of time which one will give the greatest satisfaction! Perhaps he addresses this later — perhaps he will say that in cases like these, we are compelled to choose the activity that we think will give us the greatest satisfaction — but so far, he has not said this. But even if he does say this, what if I genuinely have no belief about which activity will give me the greater satisfaction? What then?

The argument now rests on a false premise: that in each situation, only one possibility at a time presents itself as the greatest satisfaction. The above counterexample shows that the premise is false.

There is more that is wrong with his free will argument, but I’ll start with that. Then we need to look at what precisely he means by “greatest satisfaction,” and what precisely he means by “compelled.” Then we have to distinguish between nomological and logical necessity. And, of course, as already indicated, the idea that because we do always choose what we (think) is best for us (if in fact we do) cannot logically yield the conclusion that we must choose this way. This illicit inference constitutes the modal fallacy.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what Lessans claim was. He claimed that the image (features) of the owner was not entering the dog's eyes and being identified.

What is the difference between the image of his facial features and the image of his clothing?

Yes, a dog can be trained to recognize (through sight) his owner's gait (which was mentioned in the book), or some other cue that could help him.

Or his gait?

They are all sight. There is no difference.

But the variable that would need to be tested is whether the features alone, with everything else being equal, would allow a dog to recognize his master.

You're clinging to the tiniest shred, refusing to even accept evidence that is placed in front of you. You are close-minded and refuse to give the evidence given by others due consideration, yet you have the gall to complain that we're not reading all 500 pages of your dad's book with an open mind.

Now apparently you're trying to propose that the eyes are only a sense organ if they allow a dog to differentiate people by facial features alone, not if they can differentiate by sight alone... Apparently you're arguing that clothing and gait being differentiated by sight alone doesn't mean anything?

It's idiotic.

That is still an open question.

That question has already been answered by the scientific study that The Lone Ranger posted.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, I am not ignoring anything. I just don't think these experiments are as reliable as everyone thinks they are.

So I am to take it, then, that you've read the studies in question, and that you can explain the flaws in the authors' methodology and reasoning?

Because I'd really like to see some justification for your refusal to accept evidence that flatly contradicts your beliefs -- justification other than that you simply don't want to accept it, that is.

[davidm]

Hey, if the evidence contradicts God Lessans, it must be wrong!

[davidm]

Below, btw, is where Lessans begins his discussion of the eye, with his normal ponderous self-congratulatory tone and expressions of resentment that he is being judged not for his ideas but for his lack of formal education. In point of fact, the ideas expressed below could not be further from reality. They are so bad they are not even wrong. They are just incoherent, unsupported assertions without a shred of evidence to back them up, and completely at odds with the way that we know light and the eye to behave. Read it, and weep!

Someone, whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting an
exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that read,
“Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a
sense organ.” He was absolutely amazed because he knew when I said
that man does not have five sense organs that I was also referring to
the eyes. When seeing this sign he couldn’t believe it, however, after
convincing himself in Canada that man only has four senses and a
pair of eyes, he became very much involved in my work upon his
return. But to show you again how the person, not the knowledge, is
the one being judged, when someone else told his cousin who is a
dentist that the eyes are not a sense organ, the reply was, “That’s
ridiculous, how can you know what is true and what is not true, you
only went to grade school,” to which he responded, “Well, you don’t
have to take my word for it. In Canada, the proof has already been
made a part of a scientific exposition.” The dentist then replied,
“Well, I haven’t seen anything to that effect in the newspapers.” This
proves conclusively that what he accepts as the truth is determined by
who tells him something is true, not by his ability to perceive relations
revealing these truths. However, I have my own proof, so let us get on
with what is necessary to open our minds to the fresh air of
undeniable knowledge. The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
Upon hearing this, my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian tone
of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”
I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive
because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if
you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping
block to show me how positive you really are?”
“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”
It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that
exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the
Someone, whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting an
exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that read,
“Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a eyes function like the other four — which they do not. When you
learn what this single misconception has done to the world of
knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without further delay, I
shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I
open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show
you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to
prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it
ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In
fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.
“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”
That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our
eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the
waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. This is somewhat
equivalent to a baby sleeping with his eyes wide open who does not
awaken when objects are placed in front of him, although a loud noise
which strikes the ear drum can easily do the job. Did you ever wonder
why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what
exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working
order?
“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”
And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof room
that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a
117
prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently
removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even
though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it. We
need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
118
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.

[davidm]

Just read what comes next, if you haven't already. I don't think I've ever read more sustained and incoherent drivel anywhere! Honestly.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”
Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”
“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”
Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.
119
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. 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 because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us. Upon hearing this
explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see
120
the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at
12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present. If the sun were to explode
while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not
8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant
stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes
away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these
objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when
enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because
the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes
longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a
thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the
same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars. To sum this up — just as we have often observed
that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a
distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been
taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the
other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it
121
made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable.

Just consider this one quote from the mess above:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards.

This brings an unprecedented (so far as I know) five eeks:

[Vivisectus]

Unfortunately, we'll probably all be dead before this knowledge is confirmed valid. Do you think he cared about being a household name? Do you think this is all about money? Sure, if I sold books and made up for all the money I put into this, I wouldn't reject it. The last figure I got, if I sell on Amazon, I will make a big $46 for each book sold. Whoopie doooo. I couldn't even buy a cup of coffee. The truth is I would love to be able to buy all organic; and maybe get some massages for my aching back. I'm really not high maintenance.

Hang on you said it would happen in the next 25 years! Is that no longer the case now? Why the change? Is the world less ready for it than you thought?

Oh and the 46 cents is Amazon making money off you for a small self-published run. If the revolution happens and viral marketing takes hold, you will get a hell of a lot more from the established publishing houses. They can actually market it properly too - speeding up the rate at which it spreads. If it really works you may be looking at all home-grown by a personal kitchen-gardener and a swedish massage specialist called Sven!

I would never say "I told you so", (I'm not blaming you for being in disbelief). If you could only see into the future, you would have more empathy for where we are at this moment.

I would not begrudge you a small dignified smirk in the slightest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Categorically false!

Originally Posted by Kael

NO U!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you will not get away with a quick synopsis. It's incorrect whether you see it or not.

Originally Posted by kael

Can you explain how my synopsis is incorrect, WITHOUT simply copy-pasting entire chapters of the book all over again? If his ideas about the eye are incorrect, that entire section falls, since his assertion is based entirely on the idea that one is not actually seeing anything from the outside world through the optic nerve, but "projecting words onto a screen of undeniable substance." If this is not, in fact, how the eye and the brain works, what follows from it is completely suspect and probably false.

I've explained his reasons for believing that the eyes are not a sense organ. He even said that this could be tested. He never expected people to take this information on faith alone. The mechanism as to how the brain is able to look at the external world in real time is unclear at this point in time, but that doesn't make his observations incorrect.

Originally Posted by kael

Tests have been done, and can be done right now, regarding this particular premise, and they have shown this particular premise to be, in the kindest possible terms, utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by kael

Where has it been shown that this is nonsense? Show me the undeniable refutations that you are referring to in your defense.

Originally Posted by kael

There is a great deal of data on how light and the eye and the visual cortex of the brain work. None of the extant data even suggests your father's idea of this process is even possible, let alone true. Much of it flatly falsifies his idea of this process.

Everything about light, the eye and the visual cortex is a logical explanation given by scientists. There is wiggle room for there to be another take on what is going on. A logical explanation does not negate the possibility of an alternate explanation. You say it's not even possible that this alternative explanation could be true. I don't agree with that.

I know it appears as utter nonsense. But that doesn't mean it is. Looks can be deceiving. Logic can be valid but unsound. What was once believed to be true can turn out to be mistaken.

Originally Posted by kael

More importantly, though, you seem to be confused about how science works. I know this has been pointed out to you, but I'll do so again. The defense is yours, and it is your burden to produce proof that holds up these ideas. Stating an idea and then demanding of others to produce evidence that upholds or refutes it (not to mention ignoring evidence then provided that refutes it, AND claiming that unless proven false it is obviously true - you claim you don't do this, but that is effectively the way you are behaving with these ideas) is most decidedly NOT how science is actually done.

I realize that, and I also realize that my emotional reactions are not helping my cause. The bottom line is whether this knowledge is true, and there has to be a way of testing to see if it is or not. This thread as well as the many others I engaged in did not do anything to further this knowledge, or reject it based on further scientific inquiry and investigation.

Originally Posted by kael

But, you don't seem to be interested in that, insisting that further testing will somehow eventually validate absurd and verifiably false notions like the brain projecting images through the eye instead of receiving information from it, and images of distant events propagating instantly instead of with a speed-of-light delay, and that no outside stimulus ever strikes the optic nerve.

I am not going to argue this anymore. The only way we will know, for sure, what is going on, and respecting Lessans' theory (if you want to call it that), is if we do more experiments. If I thought for one moment he was wrong, I would have given this up long ago, daughter or no daughter. For me to come here and look like a fool is a burden I don't want to carry.

Originally Posted by kael

If you do not wish to look like a fool it would behoove you to stop acting the part so thoroughly. Any idea that purports to be scientific should be approached with doubt and skepticism. You should think for a moment that he was wrong, because that's the only way you'll ever find out if he was.

Originally Posted by kael

It has been clear for some time that you are only interested in discussing this book and the ideas it proposes to the extent that people will agree with them, or at the very least not claim they are wrong. What the evidence suggests, what actual scientific inquiry has to say about it, is only relevant to you if it supports these ideas, and continually ignored if it does not. You are, in plainest terms, a believer, and not interested in that which does not bolster that belief in yourself or in others.

Not at all, but so much is against me. Anytime I dare to disagree with science, I am looked upon as if I'm from outer space. It is not a fair proposition. I am disadvantaged by the accepted belief that what science has accepted is categorically correct. So what does that me look like? A dam fool.

Originally Posted by kael

You are looked at like a fool when you make and defend claims of universal and undeniable truth without a shred of supporting evidence, and in the face of contradictory evidence. It is that simple.

I will say this again. Even though I am the one that is suppose to be supplying the proof, the refutations against him are far from being proof that he is wrong. You can all believe that this thread was a waste of time based on your belief that all he had were assertions. I am really not sure how to proceed. I do believe that if any of the empirical tests came back inconclusive, or that Lessans may be right, especially where the eyes are concerned, you would all have a different attitude. You would be more open to taking a second look at his first discovery, which is the most significant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Well, if it's not going to happen until the universe is ready, why does it matter that you are promoting it? Couldn't you just keep your mouth shut and it would still happen anyway?

I want to add here that I could keep my mouth shut and just let the world develop as it is. But my father's input is also part of our development. That's like saying, "Can't religion keep its mouth shut and good things would happen anyway? We're all part of making the world a better place, so why should I be singled out to keep my mouth shut? Maybe this will help:

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate this money on that date. I am donating to mankind this scientific discovery that gives man no choice as to the direction he is compelled to travel, once the principles are understood. Until that time, your help, your willingness to learn about these principles and understand them is needed. And once you understand them, you will be compelled, of your own free will, to spread the news.

[Vivisectus]

When did he say this though? Didn't he die in the 1990's?

[davidm]

From the book:

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

Holy … shit.

Wow. In the several thousand years that man has employed writing for communication, has anything dumber than this ever been written?

Hey Peacegirl, what do you think? Do you think that when the photons have covered the 93 million miles from the sun to the earth, that they are all worn out, and stop to take a rest?

So, let’s see. You’re asleep, and the world is rotating on its axis. (Wow! Lessans thinks the world rotates on its axis! I’m surprised he never challenged this elitist scientific dogma!) Meanwhile on the other side of the earth, the photons arrive from the sun. Then … what? They take a rest, of course! What do they do to kill the time? Do they hang out at the Photon Cafe and have a few beers? Do they tarry at the zoo? Do they sing Lady Gaga songs?

OK, well, whatever they do, they sit around while the earth turns and they wait to “smile” on you when you wake up. Then, when you wake up, they smile on you, Peacegirl, is that it? Because they are already present.

Oh … my … God.



Six eeks!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Translation: "I don't have Clue One what I'm talking about, and I don't want my ignorance exposed."

Then what ARE you (and Lessans) saying? Speficially, given that light, according to Lessans, does not convey information to the brain (and at one point he writes that it does not even reach the optic nerve) then how is light a condition for seeing? What does that mean, according to you and Lessans?

Originally Posted by davidm

We KNOW how light is a condition for seeing in the real world. What we are trying to establish is how it is a condition for seeing in the fantasy world of you and Lessans, where the eye is not a sense organ and nothing reaches the optic nerve.

I have thought about this a lot. Maybe light does not have to impinge on the optic nerve for the eyes to see a distant object. Maybe light from a distance can cause the pupils to dilate and allow for sight, as long as there is enough light surrounding the object. I know you will think is ludicrous, but this is the only explanation I can offer. If this is incorrect, then obviously when it comes to seeing the sun exploding instantly, Lessans would have been wrong because light had not yet reached the eye. Instead of staying open-minded, you get very nasty davidm, and I don't like talking to nasty people.

[davidm]

From the book:

If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

Seven eeks and climbing!

Hey, Peacegirl, how do you think television images are sent from point A to to point B?

Oh, and Peacegirl, about that little relativity problem: Why does the man on the ground see the flashes of light simultaenously, while the guy on the train sees them sequentially?