A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all he meant LadyShea, and I doubt if you even understand this based on your posts.

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

And so agrees 'piece-of-ass-girl', acording to her father that is the only value she has. Pity her husband, (imaginary?) is stuck with just a roll in bed, not good for anything else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

I give up. You won.

[Doctor X]

Somehow we just knew that Bimbos[Tm.--Ed.] would enter into this. . . .

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, hope you enjoy the party,

Crackle Server Error

[LadyShea]

Dehumanization is to make somebody less human by taking away his or her individuality, the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality, or his or her compassion and sensitivity towards others

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification or who is sexually attractive

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really?? If I'm the stupidest person you've ever come across, you're the most despicable person I've ever come across. So we're even. Now if you say one more word that is nasty, condescending, or patronizing, you know the consequences by now.

Consequences? You think I care if you put me on Ignore?



Peacegirl, you'll never put anyone on Ignore for very long, because what you really crave is an audience, even an audience of people unanimously proving to you that Lessans was nuts. The very audience, for you, is a validation that there must be something to his wackaloon ideas. But really, your audience is in the nature of rubber neckers at a car wreck.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes 8.5 minutes to see each other because it would be dark davidm.

No shit, Professor Einstein! It would be dark. Why would it be dark? Because the sun's light hasn't reached you yet! Ergo, you wouldn't see the sun either, everything would be dark! Remember, you yourself agreed that the source light and the reflected light were the same light! Therefore it necessarily follows that if you seen one you MUST see the other; and it necessarily follows that you CANNOT see either the source light or the reflected light alone!

That was the point. He was saying the image of the sun does not have to reach the eye if the eyes are efferent. Let this go David. You're getting obsessed with this.

HOW does this miracle happen? And how can one see the source light but not the reflected light, if, as you admit, they are the same light?

Are you seriously suggesting that if God turned on the sun at noon, everyone would immediately see a big glowing ball in the sky, surrounded everywhere else by complete and utter blackness? Lady, you are stark ravers!

I see the bed because of the light of the moon. What the hell are you trying to say???

THE WINDOWS ARE ALL CLOSED, REMEMBER? No light is coming from the outside, the room is sealed. The bed is big enough and bright enough to be seen. Now your turn off the light. Do you see the bed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dehumanization is to make somebody less human by taking away his or her individuality, the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality, or his or her compassion and sensitivity towards others

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification or who is sexually attractive

You don't understand what he means by that statement. If you had read
the book the way it supposed to be read, you would have known that this is the very opposite of dehumanization, or using a person as a sex object. Can you at least admit that you could have been wrong in your rush to judgment?

This period of dating sets the stage for much
unhappiness because it encourages the ones who are judged inferior in
value, less pretty or handsome (the ones whose desire is greater) to put
those who are judged of far greater value on a pedestal because they
have so much more to offer. These young adults compare themselves
to those who are considered superior by virtue of their good looks, and
they know they can’t compete. In their effort to be noticed, they may
become extremely vulnerable and ripe for exploitation. Boys and girls
who have been used for sexual purposes only to be left for another may
become severely depressed.

The teenagers who lose in this dangerous
game of love by having their hearts cut out with the knife of
unrequited love may never fully recover. Some have even been driven
to suicide. Another serious problem in teen relationships is that of
jealousy. It has been documented that 36% of teen relationships
involve some sort of violence. Teen romance turned deadly often
occurs when fragile emotions meet with rejection. The individual who
was hurt may be motivated to terrorize, intimidate, or even kill an exlover,
along with the person who took his place.

To complicate
matters, it is often difficult to identify the type of person that would
act out in such a manner because there isn’t always a predictable
pattern of behavior. Once a violent act occurs, the effort to keep an
estranged boyfriend (or girlfriend) at a distance by issuing a
restraining order could backfire inciting more violence than before
because now this individual, in his distorted way of thinking, has
further cause to retaliate against this perceived slap in the face. He
may also accept this as a challenge to prove that no one can stop him,
not even the law. Unfortunately, these legal injunctions often come
too late because they do not have the power to stop someone, who is
intent on doing harm, from perpetrating a vicious act if he feels
justified and is willing to pay the ultimate price of life in prison or the
death penalty.

This entire situation is prevented when our basic principle, Thou
Shall Not Blame, extends into the world of love, preventing the
causes that lead to these crimes of passion. Bear in mind that the
psychological problems stemming from childhood abuse and neglect
will be permanently removed; secondly, words that label some children
as inferior and others as superior will no longer be used in
conversational language; and thirdly, boys and girls will be prevented
from leading each other on with no intentions of marrying them.
Having to reject someone after sexual intimacy has taken place will be
a thing of the past, preventing the conditions that lead to broken
hearts.

[Kael]

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, it will still be backward and revolting thinking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, it will still be backward and revolting thinking.

No it isn't backward and revolting thinking Kael; not if you understood what he was saying. I'm tired of trying to convince everyone to read more thoroughly. The only way it would be offensive is if they took it out of context, which they did.

[Kael]

Most of us have read the full context of that section, myself included. I think it unlikely that there exists any sort of context that would make a phrase like "He will then fall in love with her sexual organs" any less revolting, but I am certain that the context of this book does not.

Once again, people are finding the work repelling and unconvincing because they have read it, not because they haven't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Most of us have read the full context of that section, myself included. I think it unlikely that there exists any sort of context that would make a phrase like "He will then fall in love with her sexual organs" any less revolting, but I am certain that the context of this book does not.

Once again, people are finding the work repelling and unconvincing because they have read it, not because they haven't.

If I had opened the book to that one sentence, I would have been revolted. That's why he urged people to read the book with a fine tooth comb, otherwise they were going to misinterpret the meaning of many of his statements. I can't force people to read this major work the way it was meant to be read. It's out of my hands. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am getting kind of sick of hearing this guy described as humble, by the way:

These, I remind you all, are the words of a humble man. He meets a man for the first time, and already he knows that his own education is far superior, that he knows more and knows better. And yet it is the professor that is accused of not waiting to find out what the other mans qualifications are – he never even let him explain how much smarter and better educated he was! This is considered an affront.

But why is Lessans there? He is there to have his ideas tested by the leading scientists of the day, is he not? Then how come the paragraph runs on like this:

The truth is out before we have even begun. He is not there to have his ideas tested. He is there to have them celebrated. He is not even there to have them confirmed, as he is already convinced his work is above all correction. Anyone who disagrees must simply be wrong, and a blind follower of prejudice and authority.

we then get some more of these little gems of unassumingness:

.

Hang on – we are not to apply ourselves and our ideas as standards of what is true and false? Then whose? By whose standards are we to decide when an idea is like a mathematical relation, and when it is merely applying ones subjective standards? It is, of course, Seymours. We are basically being told that we are not as smart as him, but that if we just accept what he says as undeniable truth, he will enlighten us.

Note the safety catch – the whole book is laced with these. There is no way that Seymour can be wrong – and yet he has faced a lot of dissent. In fact he saw so much that he ended his life known more for his skills at the pool-table than for his writing. Since Seymour cannot be wrong, something else must be going on: people are cheating at his chess games and making up their own rules. It cannot possibly be he made an oversight of any kind.

This plaintive winging about a world that completely fails to hand him the Nobel price and hail him as the saviour of mankind goes on and on throughout the book. A dozen pages are devoted for an especially bitter complaint about how close-minded everyone is, and why it is that no-one agrees with him – and this is before he really gets started.

One wonders what kind of undeniable discovery needs page after page of explanation as to why absolutely everyone has rejected it, despite having been shown to large numbers of people.

To brook no opposition is to not allow it, or tolerate it. This does not mean that opposition cannot be justified! I doubt he realized it, but the nature of Seymour’s thoughts comes out in his language. What Seymour says is undeniable. It carries the proof of its own veracity and it cannot be gainsaid. We are to take his word for it that this is so.

He does not have to stoop to mere proof, mere evidence. He can just say that it is so and that it cannot be denied, and leave it at that. Only total agreement can be correct - if you disagree, you just do not understand, and you are probably doing it because of petty motives.

This man was so totally convinced that he was a genius that he really thought no-one could teach him anything, that no-one could correct him, and that he had analysed the complete human condition, without error.

This never happened – the revolution is about 50 years overdue. But again, we are told, this is because everyone who matters in the world is biased, too invested in their prejudices and, frankly, not smart enough to realize how world-shakingly awesome these ideas are.

And this is just the introduction. If this was him being humble, I dread to think what he would be like in an arrogant mood.

All I can say in response to this lengthy diatribe against him is that you aren't trying to understand whether his observations and reasoning are valid; you are trying to attack his credibility. I refuse to defend him, therefore think what you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would have done anything to get his foot in the door of a well known institution, or a conventional publisher, but unfortunately that was not to be. He might have been better off, I'm not denying that, but he didn't get the opportunity. You're acting like he didn't try these things. You aren't giving him credit at all for the years he spent in careful analysis and observation. You're dismissing it like it's nothing. You still haven't explained what the two-sided equation is in your own words.

Originally Posted by Specious_reasons

That silly Harvard educated professor! He couldn't see that Lessans' education was far superior than his own. No arrogance in that statement at all. If that conversation
is to be believed, he was not reaching out to the academic world, he was confronting it. Why would the professor bother to help Lessans if all that Lessans wants is to score rhetorical points against him?

He confronted them because they rejected him before he even had a chance to demonstrate what he had uncovered. That is why he felt it necessary to write the introduction the way he did. He was a frustrated man, he was not an arrogant man.

Because this book dares to oppose the three
forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion
and education — the most dangerous thinking of all; the kind that
really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed but because of
some fallacious standard presumes it does, I have found it necessary
to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope
that I can break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and
reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated
relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic
explosion destroys millions of lives.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

IN all honesty, I'd forgotten what the chapter 2 said. I had to go back and re-read it. The 2 sided equation is: You can't be blamed for your actions, because your will isn't free, but you you can't be forced to act. You will never want to hurt me because you have no blame and no justifications to motivate you. The "movement towards greater satisfaction" is always to avoid hurting others. Tell me how I have it all wrong now.

You're right, it's wrong; but your attitude is so confrontative and sarcastic that anything I would say that could help you, you would resent. I can feel the hatred, and as long as there is this much animosity, nothing I say will change anyone's mind. They believe this book is trash, and their minds are made up.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it's wrong; but your attitude is so confrontative and sarcastic that anything I would say that could help you, you would resent. I can feel the hatred, and as long as there is this much animosity, nothing I say will change anyone's mind. They believe this book is trash, and their minds are made up.

It would help if Lessans could come up with something that was in any way concise and readable. Even if you think I'm wrong, I at least had the honesty to re-read this chapter and express it in my own words, which is something you distinctly avoid whenever possible. Yeah, I'm mightily pissed that I bothered to re-read it. I knew I'd get it "wrong" in your eyes before I even started. I did it to move the conversation onward. Feel free to move on.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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. They are two separate discoveries. His discovery about the senses is extremely important, as it shows us that no one is more intrisically valuable than another, which is not reflected in the way society treats some people, and not others.

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).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

This is where everybody is getting confused. There are wavelengths in the light, so when the brain sees, through the eyes, it is using those same wavelengths to see the object or image. There are no signals carrying the information in the wavelength to the brain.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

I am not contradicting myself. Where did I say that we interpret the signals in the light itself, unless it was the wrong person tagged?

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

If light is all there is that we are seeing, and it is refracted or reflected off of different mediums such as raindrops, or glass, or water, we are able to see different images that the light is producing. This does not conflict with efferent vision.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. Reflection of light, that is.

We can see light efferently without there having to be an object. We are seeing the light itself as an image. It is the image we are seeing, not interpreting in the brain.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

The way light bends can form an image, which can be seen efferently because the brain, through the eyes, are using those wavelengths to see the image. We can also see the sun because of the light being emitted, but there is no object other than plasma.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

That's exactly right. Regardless of whether there is an actual object, or if it's just a reflection with no object, we are seeing the image efferently due to the wavelengths, but it's the direction we see these images that matter, and we can still see the images efferently. When I say information is not carried, I mean that the information apart from the actual image or object will not show up in the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

None of the phenomena you mentioned proves that efferent vision is impossible. We can see all of these phenomena, through the eyes, efferently because the OBJECT OR IMAGE, is within our visual field.

[davidm]

Just 38 more pages.

A formal PARTEH! announcement is coming soon.

[Vivisectus]

All I can say in response to this lengthy diatribe against him is that you aren't trying to understand whether his observations and reasoning are valid; you are trying to attack his credibility. I refuse to defend him, therefore think what you want.

I have no intentions of attacking his credibility - such as it is. I am merely saying that I am getting tired of hearing him described as humble. His everyday demeanor may have been, but his writing was anything but. It is, on fact, enormously condescending and arrogant.

Then I did this amazing thing that you should try sometime - I showed clearly and concisely WHY I thought that. In other words, I backed it up.

[davidm]

Hey, Peacegirl, here is a little experiment for you to conduct.

1. Get up before dawn.

2. Look at the eastern horizon.

3. Watch the sun come up.

THE LESSANS MODEL PREDICTS: We will see nothing at all -- everything around us will be completely black -- except the rising sun in the sky. Then, eight and a half minutes after we see the sun in the sky, the light will arrive and we will see the land, the trees, the boids, the goils, our neighbors, whatever.

WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE: You tell me.

Oh, well! Simple observation disproves the "astute observations" of the "astute observer."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Vivisectus]

This is where everybody is getting confused. There are wavelengths in the light, so when the brain sees, through the eyes, it is using those same wavelengths to see the object or image. There are no signals carrying the information in the wavelength to the brain.

That - once again - makes no sense at all. You don't have the foggiest idea what a wavelength is do you? Also, if we use the wavelenghts in light to see, then we are still limited by the speed of light and instant observation does not work.

Just using big words you do not really understand does not a point make.

I am not contradicting myself. Where did I say that we interpret the signals in the light itself, unless it was the wrong person tagged?

Go back a post or two.

If light is all there is that we are seeing, and it is refracted or reflected off of different mediums such as raindrops, or glass, or water, we are able to see different images that the light is producing. This does not conflict with efferent vision.

You dont know what medium means either, I notice. And it does rather conflist with efferent vision, as the information is then travelling in the light.

We can see light efferently without there having to be an object. We are seeing the light itself as an image. It is the image we are seeing, not interpreting in the brain.

Indeed - we see the image, which is made up of nothing but light. You just admitted that efferent vision does not work. You just don't realize it. Because there IS no object, and the light itself is not used in your model to make images. Unless images are made up of light, and it is light that is interpreted, they could not exist.

Saying "wavelenght" more or less randomly is not going to make that go away.

The way light bends can form an image, which can be seen efferently because the brain, through the eyes, are using those wavelengths to see the image. We can also see the sun because of the light being emitted, but there is no object other than plasma.

LOL you just did it again. You just admitted that there is no direct observation, and you still don't realize it. AND you used the word "wavelength" at random again. Amazing. I am going to start using the word Bozon randomly at you from now on and pretend I have actually said something.

That's exactly right. Regardless of whether there is an actual object, or if it's just a reflection with no object, we are seeing the image efferently due to the wavelengths, but it's the direction we see these images that matter, and we can still see the images efferently. When I say information is not carried, I mean that the information apart from the actual image or object will not show up in the brain.

HAHAHA and again!!! This is not true. We see it afferently, due to the Bozons travelling in the direct observation. LOL!

And then you make it even better - information except for the actual image or object will not show up in the brain. What other information did you have in mind? The information IS the image that our brain presents us with!

This just goes to show - a little stupidity goes a looooong way. Amazing.

I disagree.

I can see that! And nothing will ever, ever change that.

None of the phenomena you mentioned proves that efferent vision is impossible. We can see all of these phenomena, through the eyes, efferently because the OBJECT OR IMAGE, is within our visual field.

[/QUOTE]

An image is nothing but a simulated object made up out of light. Since this light creates an image in our brains, but does not really exist, the idea of direct observation (let alone efferent vision, which goes a step further) and the notion that sight information is not in light are all conclusively disproved.

Just because you don't want to believe it and chose to hide in gibberish doesn't change this one bit.

I am a bit insulted though that you did not come up with better gibberish. The fact that you brought it up means that you expect me to be dumb enough not to spot that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I feel a little hurt by that.

[Vivisectus]

Anyway, how is everyone? Do we need dutch party-favors for the party?

[Vivisectus]

Also, if the book is right, does that mean that if I amputated and animated my penis, my wife would leave me for it?

[Vivisectus]

If so I want everyone to know I never trusted that one-eyed little fucker. Never trust anyone who winks when they want to get their way.