A revolution in thought

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where this has anything to do with the ability to see an object directly. The claim this author is making has no bearing on these controversies because it has nothing to do with whether phenomena can travel faster than the speed of light or whether the principle of interconnectedness contradicts the classical, Newtonian physics. What the author claims regarding the eyes is not even related to light except for light being a condition of sight. It has nothing to do with its speed. Why are you bringing this into the discussion, unless you think it is related somehow? The conversation is getting off the beaten track.

Without reading the whole thread, which I haven't, obviously, I was merely responding to Goliath's challenge. And yes, I was tying to bring up the fact that everything was interconnected at a deeper level, which basically renders what he's saying irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Goliath

Wow...so in PeaceGirlLand, the speed of light is infinite. I'm no scientist, but wouldn't that mean that light would have an infinite amount of relativistic energy (E=mc^2 and all that)?

Or, maybe you didn't actually say the speed of light was infinite?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I believe that the puzzle in question may be found here, on page 21.

Well the "puzzle" as described wasn't much to work out, and that his fictional math student and math professor couldn't solve it was pure fiction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The conversation is getting off the beaten track.

Not only off track, but beaten to death.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera uses the light that is reflected and absorbed by the object. The operative word is 'uses'. The object is then seen on film. Even the Lone Ranger, I believe, agrees that without the object, the camera has nothing to focus on. So how could we see Columbus discovering America from the star Rigel, if there was no object on which to focus? It doesn't even make logical sense.

Everyone agrees that not having an object to reflect the light, there will be no image. People may say that a camera is focusing on the object, but that's not actually what's happening. The camera is actually focusing the rays of light. Even if you don't believe me, pick up any book that explains how a camera works, or simply search for how a camera works.

This all makes complete, logical sense if light is the medium by which we see.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

??

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation...

Full stop. What does this mean? Details, please! WTF is a negative of the relation mean? How does the eye photograph anything? Is this Lessans' non-standard way of saying the brain creates memories of what it sees? Or are there little photographers inside our eyes? Or what?

When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.
A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and
names.[/I]

You're a liar, as The Lone Ranger pointed out. He has given you the studies that conclusively refute Lessan's claims about dogs. So if you continue to propound this nonsense, you no longer have the excuse of ignorance. It will mean you are dishonest.

A camera uses the light that is reflected and absorbed by the object. The operative word is 'uses'. The object is then seen on film.

No shit, Sherlock! Then what was this bullshit you stated earlier about how only an "outline" of the object affects the film? What did that even mean?

Obviously, if a camera is affected by reflected and source light to create an image, then this is how eyes work too and Lessans' claims about vision and light are false.

So how could we see Columbus discovering America from the star Rigel, if there was no object on which to focus? It doesn't even make logical sense.

Holy shit. Because light travels at a finite velocity c through a vaccuum. There IS an object to focus on, and the reflected light carries information about the object to Rigel. But, Rigel is hundreds of light years away. Do you know what "light year" means? Tell us.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By that response, I can see you're anger is building, so I'm going to leave this post before you get even angrier.

And there it is on full display, the phony condescension of the impregnably ignorant cultist. The Lone Ranger, who is a biologist, wrote a long essay to educate your sorry pathetic ass on how we see. Not only did you ignore that thread save for one irrelevant post, you now continue to tell lies about a subject in which The Lone Ranger has given you the source material proving that what you and Lessans say is false. And you've got the temerity to make condescending remarks like this. There is anger here, but it's anger at willful ignorance, which is so damaging. Your willful ignornace is irrelevant, because Lessans' silly nonsense means nothing and will influence no one. But you represent the kind of willful ignorance that does mean something -- like the willful ignorance of the global warming denialists, and the vast damage that their ignorance will ensure. That's what angers people: willful ignorance and blatant dishonestly, both of which you exemplify in spades.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Actually it's really all quite compelling, although I personally don't need to understand the full details about QM in order to know this dualistic notion of reality is correct. That much is the easy part. I was already fully aware of it, and made my assessment, long before I understood anything about quantum mechanics. It's just that QM provides the means to approach someone else about it if they're interested.

What "dualistic notion" of reality does QM show?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, there are plenty of indications that dogs can recognize people just from their facial features... that Mythbusters video is anecdotal, but it indicates Lessans might be wrong about dogs.

Ignoring dogs for a moment... Did you read anything The Lone Ranger wrote about birds?

As he described the study, a researcher repeatedly taking pictures of nesting bird will be attacked. However, the same researcher wearing a new mask while doing the same activity will not be attacked. If the researcher wears the same mask too many times, the birds will start attacking the researcher again.

Since the people are performing the same activities with and without the mask, why didn't the birds recognize the people by gait and movement?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove? First of all, he never talked about birds. But the reality is that birds are less able than dogs to recognize features without some other sense giving them clues. What's with you people to think this is some far out weird observation? I'm in a quandary, not that it matters to any of you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So he never had anyone to help him along and point out his errors in thinking. Any mistakes he made along the way were left as is and he simply continued to build one error on top of another. This would certainly explain how he came to his final conclusions with all the mistakes and errors. This is one of the biggest mistakes when someone tries to learn on their own, there is no-one to point out errors and correct the reasoning.

Oh my godddddddddd in heaven. Just joking, don't now tell me that I believe in a god in heaven. Oy vey! Doc, I said all along that if the premises are wrong, the conclusion is wrong, but that applies to the premises given in here as well. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. But please don't tell me we are not talking about the sexes. I will have a serious meltdown, maybe more than the nuclear explosion. Once again, DO NOT TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. I AM JOKING.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yeah, and one of his imaginary friends says: “Hey, I didn’t know you could reason and think like that; you almost sound like old Socrates himself. Boy, that was really
something to see."

This has nothing to do with his errors. This was meant to clarify what people think could possibly be his errors davidm, by the way, who, mind you, thinks he is so smart (god's gift to mankind with his brilliance), that anyone who dares disagree with him should be shackled, handcuffed and killed on the spot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This study doesn't count, because this doesn't show that chimpanzees can recognize a human face. I'm sorry you can't see the truth revealed by astute observations.

What the f*(u_k specious. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to discount Lessans just to make you feel that science is perfect and has no flaws? Isn't that what everyone is trying to do? Is this more about the conflict people have when their world doesn't add up? People need answers to live in this world, so I'm not blaming them, but that could cause a threat (no surprise) when I come here and tell them that their worldview is incorrect. What is that phenomenon called? Consonant/dissonant theory? Do you think this thread has anything to do with that? Maybe or maybe not. I will stay open minded unlike you people. Please do not respond to this post: I am asking a rhetorical question for you to think about, not answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yeah, and one of his imaginary friends says: “Hey, I didn’t know you could reason and think like that; you almost sound like old Socrates himself. Boy, that was really
something to see."

I told you that I added this one sentence from one of his first books. I thought it was hysterical, but you are obviously taking it the wrong way because you didn't know him, so you don't see the joke. It's okay if you don't, but for you to use this as a weapon against him is insane? I don't think you are insane, but you are very protective of your intelligence, as if no one can penetrate anything that you hold sacred. That is not healthy. I think you might be one of those people who are beyond anything that goes against the grain of what you have determined is TRUE, ACCORDING TO DAVIDM. I'm so sorry I missed the fact that you are god. You are stuck on your self-importance to the degree that you cannot even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. So very sad. Do you for one second consider the possibility that you may not be right in this case? Of course not, because Davidm knows how to judge what is true and what is not based on empirical evidence only. Anything that is from astute observation and reasoning cannot be true, because it's an assertion, don't you realize that, you idiot? This is getting nuttier and nuttier as time goes by, and I will not let people misconstrue Lessans' claims to absolutely destroy him, and give credit to their weak, if not totally nonsensical, premises. David is the ultimate filter of truth and lies. May I bow down to you David, god himself in human form?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove? First of all, he never talked about birds. But the reality is that birds are less able than dogs to recognize features without some other sense giving them clues.

Where the fuck did you get that idea? Pull it out of your ass?

Honestly, where do you come up with this shit? Do you consult an Ouija board? Throw yarrow stalks? Just make shit up that suits your desires? (I'm betting option 3.)

[Vivisectus]

? People need answers to live in this world, so I'm not blaming them, but that could cause a threat (no surprise) when I come here and tell them that their worldview is incorrect. What is that phenomenon called? Consonant/dissonant theory? Do you think this thread has anything to do with that? Maybe or maybe not. I will stay open minded unlike you people. Please do not respond to this post: I am asking a rhetorical question for you to think about, not answer.

This post could have done with an irony spoiler. It is in fact your world-view that does not add up, and you have been provided with the reasons why. You have been unable to deal with the objections, but nevertheless this has not changed your point of view one jot.

You have been anything but open-minded: you are convinced that Lessans is right, and remain convinced of this even in the face of hard evidence saying otherwise. Open-mindedness, in your view, is a one-way street: it always works in favor of your fathers ideas.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the f*(u_k specious. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to discount Lessans just to make you feel that science is perfect and has no flaws? Isn't that what everyone is trying to do? Is this more about the conflict people have when their world doesn't add up? People need answers to live in this world, so I'm not blaming them, but that could cause a threat (no surprise) when I come here and tell them that their worldview is incorrect.

Except for one little problem. You haven't given any evidence that peoples' "worldview is incorrect." The second problem is that all the evidence shows that when it comes to vision and light, the worldview that you reject is correct.

The problem here is your worldview. It's wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By that response, I can see you're anger is building, so I'm going to leave this post before you get even angrier.

I'm not angry, per se, I'm offended. (There's a difference.) You're lying, and I find that offensive. And I intend to keep reminding people that you're lying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove? First of all, he never talked about birds. But the reality is that birds are less able than dogs to recognize features without some other sense giving them clues. What's with you people to think this is some far out weird observation? I'm in a quandary, not that it matters to any of you.

More dishonesty on your part. It has been thoroughly documented that at least some bird species can recognize individual humans by their facial features alone. Again, you've even been given citations. Not that you'll read the studies, of course.

Oh, and just to drive home the point, most birds have virtually no sense of smell. They are probably the most sight-dependant animals on the planet. While most birds have superb vision (considerably better than ours, in fact), most of them have little or no sense of smell. Most birds have good senses of hearing, too.

So I'm curious as to how you explain the documented fact that some birds can recognize individual humans when given no sound cues to distinguish them. Do you think the birds are flying up and tasting people?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I believe that the puzzle in question may be found here, on page 21.

Wow, this "puzzle" is really crappily worded. So, we have fifteen blocks, each with the letters A through O, and there are apparently seven such sets of fifteen blocks (105 blocks total). Cool, no problem.

Okay, so now we want to partition these blocks into 35 sets of 3 blocks each ("arrange...into groups of 3"). Again, no problem.

The issue comes about when Lessans talks about "15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter." Are we arranging these blocks in a 15x7 grid? In that case, where do the groups of 3 come in? What does "never be twice with any other letter" mean?

My best guess as to what the "puzzle" is asking is this: consider a partition of the blocks into 35 sets of 3 blocks each. Now, arrange the blocks randomly into a 15x7 grid. Is it possible to have such a partition and grid arrangement such that each letter appears only once in each row and in each set of the partition?

But I'm not sure that this translation of Lessans' horrid writing is correct, since the grid and partition need have nothing to do with one another. Does he mean that the partitions have to be contiguous parts of rows, so that the first three elements of row 1 form one set in the partition, the second three consist of another set in the partition, etc?

Maybe I'm just being dense...is the statement of the above "puzzle" clear to anyone else?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you might be one of those people who are beyond anything that goes against the grain of what you have determined is TRUE, ACCORDING TO DAVIDM. I'm so sorry I missed the fact that you are god.

Pot, kettle, black. It's you who reject all evidence, reason and common sense when it comes to this topic. It's you who rejects reality, not your interlocutors. It's you and Lessans who have come up with a demonstrably wrong and cockamamie concept (not a theory; you don't have a theory) of vision and light, and reject out of hand the mountain of evidence (not assumptions!) that shows you and Lessans to be wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, I said all along that if the premises are wrong, the conclusion is wrong, but that applies to the premises given in here as well. .

I can agree with this statement, but must point out that the premises presented by others have been largly supported by evidence that has been tested. It has been your choice to ignore that proof which contradicts your fathers premises, which have no proof, evidence, or testing. His claimed "observations" are not documented and therefore not verifiable, he presents no account of these "observations" and without specific details of how the "observations" were made there is no way to replicate them, which is convient for him as now no-one can repete and disprove those "observations".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Where the fuck did you get that idea? Pull it out of your ass?

Honestly, where do you come up with this shit? Do you consult an Ouija board? Throw yarrow stalks? Just make shit up that suits your desires? (I'm betting option 3.)

david david david, you are grasping at straws, you poor thing. I am not going to allow you to think you are so intelligent that I must be wrong. We need to go back to basics. The very first basics that we need to accept is that YOU ARE NOT GOD. If you can accept that, then maybe we can have a conversation, but I believe it won't happen, because you are too stuck on yourself. It's laughable, and I hope people laugh at david too because he is a poor little boy who needs to feel omnipotent to feel good about himself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Maybe I'm just being dense...is the statement of the above "puzzle" clear to anyone else?

Quick hint, my first group was - AAA - you continue for 14 more groups the same way. the 16th group was - AOO - simply shift the 2nd rows down one. do the same for the 3rd set of groups and it works out. I took it that if a letter was in a group with another letter once, it couldn't be in a group with that letter again in the next group. I didn't try it but i think it would still work if you shifted the 2nd row by 1, and the 3rd row by 2, [example AON] and then repeted the opperation for the other sets of groups. If this isn't clear enough I'll try again in more detail. This will take care of 30 groups the last 5 are just the last set of letters ex. AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO. Hope this helps.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Not only off track, but beaten to death.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quick hint, my first group was - AAA - you continue for 14 more groups the same way. the 16th group was - AOO - simply shift the 2nd rows down one. do the same for the 3rd set of groups and it works out. I took it that if a letter was in a group with another letter once, it couldn't be in a group with that letter again in the next group. I didn't try it but i think it would still work if you shifted the 2nd row by 1, and the 3rd row by 2, [example AON] and then repeted the opperation for the other sets of groups. If this isn't clear enough I'll try again in more detail. This will take care of 30 groups the last 5 are just the last set of letters ex. AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO. Hope this helps.

I swear to god, I don't believe you are real scientists in any sense of the word. You're all in collution together and reclying the same shit all the time. So live in your own shit and stench. I refuse to be a part of it. So much for the scientific method. It's rotten and it stinks to high heaven.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove? First of all, he never talked about birds. But the reality is that birds are less able than dogs to recognize features without some other sense giving them clues. What's with you people to think this is some far out weird observation? I'm in a quandary, not that it matters to any of you.

A revolution in thought - Page 83 - Freethought Forum

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It has been empirically demonstrated, for example, that at least some bird species can recognize and distinguish between individual humans based upon facial features alone. This is of vital importance to some of my colleages. Some of my colleagues who work with colonially-nesting birds have to go and take samples every now and then. The birds don't like this, and will dive-bomb the researcher as soon as they see him or her. [They don't do this to random persons walking along the beach.] So, some researchers wear face-concealing masks to avoid getting mobbed by the birds. But each mask works only once or perhaps twice. So after every session, the researcher has to switch to a new mask in order to prevent the birds from recognizing and attacking him or her. (And remember, most birds have essentially no sense of smell. Their vision, on the other hand, is typically much better than is a human's.)

Was I being unclear? I didn't think so.