A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.” ~Lessans page 57

I can't argue with you here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, what was stated is correct, in scientific terms a theory is a statement of what we know. You are confusing the useage with other diciplines where a theory is an idea to be tested. Science is different and before you criticize it you should learn enough to understand it. Useing the phrase 'Just a Theory' in reference to science is from the stance on an uneducated ignorant person, "Don't touch, what you can't handle".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She constantly takes things out of context, like davidb, and thinks it's funny or disgusting, depending on what sentence she is screwing up.

Lessans page 138

the fact that it is impossible for a boy and girl to be attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing this individual might be considered if they know in advance that this person was born without any sexual organs which knowledge makes them aware that this anomaly of nature is incapable of giving or receiving sexual satisfaction.

Lessans page 146

Let us begin by defining the term ‘marriage’ which is nothing other than a mutual desire to indulge in sexual intercourse for the purpose of bearing a
child.

it is only this mutual desire to beget a child

Lessans page 151

the meaning of love before intercourse takes place is the possibility of sexual gratification

Lessans page 157

every couple will fall mutually in love with their first date

Lessans page 334

sexual satisfaction in varying degrees is the true meaning of love

Lessans page 391

it is revealed what love actually is… nothing more than a strong desire for sexual satisfaction

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

~Lessans page 157

Don't forget, also: According to The Great Man, everyone in the Golden Age is going to prance about scantily clad.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by yguy

What I said was not that people act against their will, but that they can be made to do what they don't want to do. That's why people have addictive behaviors.

We don't really have a will in the sense most people think of it. What we do have is an egotistical side that tries to make the world conform to its desires.

Yes, but regardless of our motivations, we are not being forced to do anything against our will. In other words, we do things that might not be good for us, or we find ways to rationalize what our behavior, but we cannot be made to do what we don't want to do.

This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true that
will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH
CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

His 'proof' that man's will is not free amounts to an argument from semantics, and a circular one at that. He was as poor a philosopher as he was a scientist and mathematician. I do not say this to vilify or denigrate him, I'm sure he was a nice enough guy when he wasn't engaging in mental wankery that is as startling in its absurdity as it is lacking in rigor.

Kael, please don't repeat what davidm said about this being a tautology. That is a weak argument and a very superficial one at that, if you carefully study his observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The word "theory," as used in the sciences, does not mean what you seem to think it does. Whatever else may be true, Lessans' ideas do not constitute a theory. They could scarcely even be called a hypothesis.

But then this, too, has been pointed out to you before ...

I said from the very beginning that this wasn't a theory or a hypothesis. I said this just to keep everyone calm. It was an astute observation regarding how the brain functions (i.e., how it is conditioned to seeing what appears true but is only a projection of our realistic imagination), which could not occur if sight was afferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written

...without giving me a chance to tell him that my informal education was far superior to his formal education

I have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any reader

[I] Yes, it is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written if it can do what it says it can do -- prevent the conditions that lead to war, crime, and hatred.

[II] Yes, he was not given a chance to stand before an audience because he did not have the formal education that they deemed necessary to make such a discovery.

[III] He does have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any reader, but only if the reader can understand his proof.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said from the very beginning that this wasn't a theory or a hypothesis. I said this just to keep everyone calm. It was an astute observation regarding how the brain functions (i.e., how it is conditioned to seeing what appears true but is only a projection of our realistic imagination), which could not occur if sight was afferent.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you joking? This is completely in character for her in this thread. She constantly takes things out of context, like davidb, and thinks it's funny or disgusting, depending on what sentence she is screwing up.

Are we reading the same thread? When several of us--I will admit I was one--were targeting you with in anticipation of the 100-page mark, LadyShea was conspicuously absent. She waited until we meanies backed off after the party. Then she again started treating your ideas and you seriously, which most everyone else had given up on as futile.

That she, the paragon of patience here, has finally decided you're not worthy of serious consideration anymore says a lot about the futility of your cause. (Not that it wasn't pretty seriously sunk before.)

Now would be a good time for you to leave. For reals.

[LadyShea]

it should be obvious that if you find yourself in disagreement then there must be something you do not understand.~Lessans page 571

One professor told the student that gave him a copy of my book to study, “Everything that this author has written is truly undeniable, but I believe he is 2000 years ahead of his time.”~Lessans page 561

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What's funny is that peacegirl herself, at least three times, has admitted this. She admits she has no mechanism to describe this miracle of sight that Lessans concocted. That kills the whole thing from a scientific standpoint right there, in addition to the fact that there are no flaws or gaps in our current understanding of sight. And so I point out again her plight:

She has a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem.

No wonder she has me on Ignore.

I just took you off of ignore for now, but if you call me any names, pull sentences out of context, or make fun of Lessans in any way, right back on ignore you will go.

[Vivisectus]

No, I'm not saying that just because you believe there were flaws, that you are a close-minded, prejudiced dogmatist, but it does make me question how carefully you read the first two chapters. Forget about sight for the moment, no one has yet been able to repeat in their own words the two-sided equation which is the core of this discovery. If you can't do that, it makes me question your refutations for very good reason.

I will get to that later, once we have dealt with the errors in the book regarding sight. I don't see how understanding the two-sided equation has anything to do with the point that the idea of afferent vision is impossible.

It doesn't matter if there is no object, just the illusion of an object. The brain is seeing efferently (using light as a necessary condition) exactly what it would see afferently (interpreting the signals in the light itself).

But you say there are no signals in the light. So does the book. The book and you state we see the object, directly, and that the light carries no information. You contradict yourself.

We would see the same exact image because of the way light is being refracted or reflected, even though that same image is not traveling in the light to the brain.

Now you are contradicting what you said before - you said that we interpret the signals in the light itself.

The brain can still get tricked by all kinds of illusions, even if it is looking at the object directly. There are still blind spots regardless of the direction we are seeing, gaps in a picture that the brain would have to fill in to see the complete image, distortions in the image itself that would cause an optical illusion, etc.

But we are talking about illusions created by nothing but light, which according to you is not what we use to get the information that we call sight. Also, you just say THAT this is so without explaining how this would work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know that your father believed it, but unlike you I feel he was capable of getting something wrong. If he was right about sight, how do we explain mirror images?

[I]A mirror image is a reflected duplication of an object that appears identical but reversed. As an optical effect it results from reflection off of substances such as a mirror or water.

Indeed. Reflection of light, that is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge accurately describes how light works and why we see a mirror image due to how light reflects and creates a duplication, but reverse. Where does this conflict at all? The brain sees the same exact thing efferently that it would see afferently because of the physical principles involved. We are not removing the wavelengths that make vision possible; we are only changing the direction through which we see those images.

[/QUOTE]

It accurately describes why we can see reflections in a mirror, yes - because light is reflected off them, which our eyes detect, turn into impulses and send to the brain. You say that the information we call sight is not in the light - and yet mirrors reflect nothing but light.

If sight worked differently, and the information is not made up of detected light, we would not see an image - we would see what is there, which is a sheet of glass. In stead, we see an image because the light reflects in a way that is almost identical to the light reflecting off an actual object.

This falsifies your idea, proving it wrong. I really don't know how much simpler and clearer I can put it. I am afraid your father was completely off the mark on this one.

We still have the major objections that 1) the idea of afferent vision is internally flawed, as it shows no way for the information to travel into the brain. 2) everyday observations such as the fact that mirrors work are not compatible with the idea. 3) it contradicts the basic laws of nature as we understand them, as information travels carried by nothing. 4) There are no observations that make us think there is something missing in our current model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The only one confused is you. Your "theory" of light is preposterous, emprically proven to be wrong; and Lessan's example of seeing the sun instantaneously when God turns it on, but not one's neighbors for eight minutes, is both physically and logically impossible.

Only -- what? -- 44 pages to party time!

That was a hypothetical scenario so that people could more easily understand what he meant by "there are no images being carried on the waves of light." Do you even understand what hypothetical means?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just took you off of ignore for now, but if you call me any names, pull sentences out of context, or make fun of Lessans in any way, right back on ignore you will go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Editor

We know, you do not know because you choose to remain ignorant.

No.

No, they would not.

It contradicts reality.

You lose again.

--Ed.

So typical. Curt answers with no explanation. Just --- we're right, you're wrong. Borrringgg.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was a hypothetical scenario so that people could more easily understand what he meant by "there are no images being carried on the waves of light." Do you even understand what hypothetical means?

Excuse me, he stated it as a fact. It was not characterized in any way as a "hypothesis." Even as a hypothesis, as I have shown, the claim is logically impossible because the source light and the reflected light are the same light, hence necessarily must be seen at the same time under any theory of seeing!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's still a theory and sometimes what looks absolutely flawless is not. His observations happen to conflict with the present model of sight, and even though he doesn't have a mapped out presentation of how the brain is able to do what it does, Lessans does offer what he believes is going on, and he has his reasons for this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again we are to accept this because your father says so, and as we have your word on it that he was a very clever fellow indeed, it must be true. Unfortunately the rest of the world has a rather more rigorous standard of plausibility, which is why his ideas are universally rejected.

That's not why his ideas are universally rejected. The reason for the rejection is that very few people even know about his discovery; only these few forums I've been on. Of course, they are going to reject him because science knows (?) for a fact that the eyes are afferent. He doesn't have a chance. These ideas haven't been thoroughly investigated for their plausibility or rationality at all. Your rigorous standard of plausibility doesn't mean that his idea is not plausible. Only time will tell through further testing, and I really am looking forward to resolving this issue once and for all.

It's not just a theory that popped out of his hat one night. Just because scientists think they have mapped out what they believe is occuring with lightwaves, the signals being converted from photoreceptors, and the brain's ability to convert these signals into images, does not make it 100% airtight. And how elegantly it is explained is a moot point.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So once again, because you feel your father was really clever, it must be true. Scientists believe in the current theory that because we have tested it extensively and found that it passed every test. Your idea, however, fails a few pretty basic ones - see the problem of images I pointed out above, which falsifies your model, and which you now seem to be ignoring completely.

I never ignored anything you've written. As far as mirror images, they all work the same. Why can't you see this? The exact same wavelengths that allow for afferent vision to see these mirror images would allow that same image to be seen in real time. Somehow you are making more of how this is accomplished than needs to be.

We can't see exactly how conscience works, can we? Can we identify an area in the brain that is in control of this process? If we can't identify where it is located, we can't map exactly what is occuring, but that doesn't mean conscience doesn't exist. Our observations, or description, as to how conscience works, has to suffice. By the same token, we may not be able to map exactly how the brain is able to focus, through the eyes, to see the external world, but that doesn't mean that the efferent model of sight is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Three points: firstly, "conscience" is a very vague label that we use to describe certain emotions and the behaviors that they result in. To regard it as more or less the same as the process of sight is ludicrous and nonsensical.

It's not nonsensical at all, but because you can't find a way to refute it you say it's nonsensical. Conscience is a vague label. Conscience is very real, and it has to be coming from the brain, but where is it? The brain itself is not fully mapped out, so how can you say that this model of sight has to be right. There are assumptions being made. From these assumptions a plausible theory takes shape, but don't tell me there's no room for an alternate theory, because there is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, I could say "We don't know how life began. Therefor, my "fairies fly in through you navel to make babies, ovum and sperm are just necessary conditions for this to happen" model of baby creation is also plausible. Just because we don't know how this works, have no reason to doubt the current theory and the fact that it contradicts all we know about how the world works doesn't mean we should not accept it." I will have the same level of support for this as you do. Both statements are patently untrue.

That is not what I'm saying and you know it. First of all, there is a reason to accept this model of sight. It changes our entire relationship to the external world and to ourselves. Secondly, just because he doesn't have a mapped out point to point diagram of how the brain can do this doesn't mean he isn't correctly explaining what is going on with the brain. That is a fallacy right there, and you keep using it. Thirdly, to give an analogy of ovum and sperm just being necessary conditions is ludicrous. We can see in a petrie dish exactly what is taking place, moment to moment, which describes a cause, and then an effect. There are no assumptions being made. When it comes to light and sight, there are assumptions that become first premises. We can't look in a petrie dish and see signals being converted by the brain into an image. Therefore, the conclusions regarding afferent sight, although logical, could be wrong. Now that someone is challenging this theory, it's hard to even imagine that he could be right because this theory has been accepted as fact.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What is this logical fallacy called again? The good ole "science doesn't know everything, therefor God exists" fallacy?

Thirdly - none of this deals with the problem that simple everyday observations contradict your model and disprove it.

No, that's not what he is doing. Some things we cannot see directly, therefore the only way we can know about something is through indirect observation. Remember, this knowledge is falsifiable. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Finally, everyday observations do not contradict or disprove this model. In fact, they will show more and more support as evidence begins to take a turn in Lessans' favor.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you see this?

Damned afferent vision, would be my guess.

* SharonDee is waiting for peacegirl to apologize for breaking our LadyShea.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but regardless of our motivations, we are not being forced to do anything against our will.

If the motivation comes from someone else, just whose will do you think is being obeyed?

In other words, we do things that might not be good for us, or we find ways to rationalize what our behavior, but we cannot be made to do what we don't want to do.

Then what purpose is there in such rationalization? If we are executing our own will, why do we lie to ourselves about why we do things?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Finally, everyday observations do not contradict or disprove this model. In fact, they will show more and more support as evidence begins to take a turn in Lessans' favor.

Every observation contradicts Lessans on vision and light. If you had bothered to do some basic homework and read The Lone Ranger's essay, you would have discovered that the very structure of the optic nerve precludes efferent seeing! The travel of light to the optic nerve and then the impulses to the brain for interpretation are observed to take place; they are mapped. Do you use glasses, peacegirl? Do you know what "corrective lenses" are? Do you know what is being "corrected" and why? Every day, every time someone goes to the eye doctor and has an eye exam, the very exam contradicts Lessans!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me, he stated it as a fact. It was not characterized in any way as a "hypothesis." Even as a hypothesis, as I have shown, the claim is logically impossible because the source light and the reflected light are the same light, hence necessarily must be seen at the same time under any theory of seeing!

Source light and reflected light are the same light, but hypothetically speaking, if God were to turn on the sun it would take 8.5 minutes for the emitted light to reach Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Damned afferent vision, would be my guess.

That was comical.

Originally Posted by SharonDee

* SharonDee is waiting for peacegirl to apologize for breaking our LadyShea.

What did I do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

it should be obvious that if you find yourself in disagreement then there must be something you do not understand.~Lessans page 571

If this was Edison speaking, you could understand why he would say this, but because Lessans' discovery has not been recognized, you can't look at him in the same light. Therefore, from your vantage point, he is enamored with his own words, which is crazyyyyy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One professor told the student that gave him a copy of my book to study, “Everything that this author has written is truly undeniable, but I believe he is 2000 years ahead of his time.”~Lessans page 561

That actually happened. He liked the book but said it was 2000 years ahead of its time. He might have been right.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What did I do?

This:

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Obviously, I can't speak for Shea but I believe she pulled that sentence out of context thinking it would be funny.

Granted, that's out of character for her in this thread so ... see what you did to LadyShea, peacegirl?!

You broke our Shea!