A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The font online is much lighter than the actual book. I tried a darker font originally using a smaller font size. I thought it was too hard on the eyes, even though it was about 40 pages less. Then I went up a font size which made it easier to read, but more pages. You can't go by what you see online.

It's the shape of the letters, not the size. The really tall uprights on the letters b and d for example.

I tried to replace IBM with financial tracking system, but it doesn't work in many of the sentences that require something more specific. I think I better leave well enough alone. I told people that he lived in the 20th century. Shouldn't that be enough? Also, he used the term International Bureau of Internal Revenue. Wasn't that what you suggested?

You mean like IBM Id Card and IBM office? Use Lessans "Internatal Bureau of Internal Revenue" abbreviated as IBIR

Your IBIR Office or IBIR ID card

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, it's all about your first premise and how you define seeing. This has nothing to do with denying that the prapogation of light transmits information. That's what is really being disputed, not the fact that efferent sight is acquiring information faster than the speed of light. It's like putting apples and hot dogs in the same food category.

I am not saying anything about light, you are purposefully twisting things to suit you.

Information is acquired by the eyes and gets to the brain regardless if sight is efferent or afferent and you refuse to even concede this most basic, undeniable fact.

You gave the example of a simple sea creature with no brain acquiring information. How in the world can anything acquire information without a brain? As I said earlier, the creature might be having a reflexive reaction that was created to help protect him, but you can't say that he acquired information.

Information is nothing but data. How that information is used once acquired varies wildly, but no brain is required.

Lots of things without brains acquire information. I am inputting information as I type and the computer does stuff with that information. The computer has no brain. Cameras capture information about the object they are photographing without a brain. All kinds of machines and sensors acquire information without brains. Hell peacegirl a cup in the rain acquires information, that info being "how much rain fell"

An animal with no brain must acquire information about it's surroundings to eat and to move and to survive. Temperature is information. Pressure is information. Chemicals are information. Electrical currents are information. Movement is information. The presence or absence of light is information.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said earlier, the creature might be having a reflexive reaction that was there to help protect him survive, but you can't say that the protective changes that occurred (which were probably an evolutionary reaction) had anything to do with his ability to acquire information.

A brain is not a necessity for acquisition of information. Nor is it necessary that the entity acquiring the information has any appreciation whatsoever regarding the significance of that information. You're confusing the terms "information" and "understanding." They do not mean the same thing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not a strawman in the way you're describing. He was showing how other people think, not what is true.
<snip>
He was trying to show that this line of reasoning may preclude people from reading the book because they may assume that being positive automatically translates to being "wrong", because other people have been positive and wrong also.

I seriously doubt that there is, or ever has been, a single human being on the face of the planet who has ever thought that someone must be wrong because they are positive that they are right. That is just not the way people think and that is why the argument against that notion is an argument against a strawman.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did the best he could. That you don't follow his reasoning does not negate its accuracy.

This is not about the quality of his reasoning. This is about the application of a so called "mathematical" standard. A standard which is, for all intents and purposes, invisible. Invisible because it is never shared with reader. A standard is a tool that is used for measuring something. In order for a standard to be useful to more than one person it must be shared with others so that they can confirm that it is accurate and useful for making measurements. Lessans, as near as I can ascertain, never shares the standard that he is using. As a consquence, we, the readers, have to take him at his word that he is using a standard that is accurate and useful. Why should we be willing to do that? The truth is that he did not do his best, because doing his best would have included showing his work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wouldn't take much to convince me that Lessans was wrong about something that he was positive about, because this happened on occasion.

That is nice, but not very helpful. "Not much" is not a responsive answer to the question, "what criteria would you use".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why you keep harping on this. I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST ANGAKUK!

I am pretty certain that I never said you were, so why are you shouting at me? I am not harping on anything. I am simply, and I think quite reasonably, asking you to tell us what criteria you would use to determine whether or not Lessans was mistaken. What would it take, not how much would it take.

[Vivisectus]

It is very simple, really. If the observer on Rigel saw me holding up a sign saying "What is 2+2?", and instant sight worked, this observer would instantly acquire the information that I am asking him that question via a sign.

Information originating here on earth - that there is a man holding up a sign which says "what is 2+2" - is now on Rigel, instantly. It was not there before.

Funnily enough, since Rigel is probably moving relative to us at about 250 miles a second, this means that we could get answers to questions we asked the Rigellians before we asked the question

This has been explained quite a few times. Your father seems to have been completely unaware of the implications of his idea - there is not a single mention of the bizarre results you get when you apply his ideas to special relativity - a theory, incidentally, that makes predictions that are borne out by empirical tests.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, it's all about your definition of "information." I am not disputing that the propogation of light transmits information from point A to point B, and that we see the results of that transmission. But efferent sight has nothing to do with acquiring information faster than the speed of light. It doesn't even fit because nothing is traveling. Physics states that there is nothing that can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Comparing these two things is like putting apples and hot dogs in the same food category.

Boundless brainlessness.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is very simple, really. If the observer on Rigel saw me holding up a sign saying "What is 2+2?", and instant sight worked, this observer would instantly acquire the information that I am asking him that question via a sign.

Information originating here on earth - that there is a man holding up a sign which says "what is 2+2" - is now on Rigel, instantly. It was not there before.

Funnily enough, since Rigel is probably moving relative to us at about 250 miles a second, this means that we could get answers to questions we asked the Rigellians before we asked the question

This has been explained quite a few times. Your father seems to have been completely unaware of the implications of his idea - there is not a single mention of the bizarre results you get when you apply his ideas to special relativity - a theory, incidentally, that makes predictions that are borne out by empirical tests.

How many times are people going to tell her this? She doesn't give a shit! This obvious example of yours that wholly destroys Lessans' claim is dismissed thus:

"I told you there is no conflict between Daddy's Ideas and special relativity! Now STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Crumb

I think someone is ripping you off.

Look at the book, and this thread, what would you expect?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You let the cat out of the bag. I'm from outer space; hence my father's 7th book. An Urgent Message From a Visitor to Your Planet.

That must be why your thought process has no corrolation to human thinking. That must be why you believe the book. That must be why the book is writen the way it is. In short, it simply doesn't apply to human beings, What species of alliens did he study?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The font online is much lighter than the actual book. I tried a darker font originally using a smaller font size. I thought it was too hard on the eyes, even though it was about 40 pages less. Then I went up a font size which made it easier to read, but more pages. You can't go by what you see online.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's the shape of the letters, not the size. The really tall uprights on the letters b and d for example.

I've tried different fonts, and this one seemed very clear. It's called BerhardMod BT. I'm not going to fool with it anymore. But thanks for the suggestion.

I tried to replace IBM with financial tracking system, but it doesn't work in many of the sentences that require something more specific. I think I better leave well enough alone. I told people that he lived in the 20th century. Shouldn't that be enough? Also, he used the term International Bureau of Internal Revenue. Wasn't that what you suggested?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mean like IBM Id Card and IBM office?

Yes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Use Lessans "Internatal Bureau of Internal Revenue" abbreviated as IBIR.

Your IBIR Office or IBIR ID card

Why should I abbreviate it? Because people don't like the sound of Internal Revenue Office?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said earlier, the creature might be having a reflexive reaction that was there to help protect him survive, but you can't say that the protective changes that occurred (which were probably an evolutionary reaction) had anything to do with his ability to acquire information.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A brain is not a necessity for acquisition of information. Nor is it necessary that the entity acquiring the information has any appreciation whatsoever regarding the significance of that information. You're confusing the terms "information" and "understanding." They do not mean the same thing.

Once again, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. If you believe that efferent sight violates the laws of physics, then you will strongly disagree with me. But I have a problem with your definition, therefore, we're not going to agree. I respect your right to disagree.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. If you believe that efferent sight violates the laws of physics, then you will strongly disagree with me. But I have a problem with your definition, therefore, we're not going to agree. I respect your right to disagree.

Once again, you don't get to determine what the definition of "information" is in either Information Theory or Special Relativity.

If you have a problem with the theory and the fact that it is incompatible with your model of sight, take it up with Einstein.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

Why should I abbreviate it? Because people don't like the sound of Internal Revenue Office?

For the same reason people abbreviate things in general; because it would be redundant and cumbersome to always use International Bureau of Internal Revenue in every instance.

Why did Lessans use IBM instead of International Business Machines? Why do people call it the IRS instead of Internal Revenue Service. Why use AT&T instead of American Telephone and Telegraph? It's just easier. If you want to call it the International Bureau of Internal Revenue identification card go for it.

[Doctor X]

She clings to efferent sight the way a Young Earth Creationist clings to an ark on Mt. Ararat.







Badly. . . .

--J.D.

[thedoc]

"Decline and Fall of All Evil", I think the most basic question is Do we want to eliminate all evil from the world? Apart from the problem of unemployment and loss of jobs, Do we, or Do we not, want to remove evil from the world?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is a truthful, scientifically proven, linguistically sound, and undeniable FACT that the act of seeing is the act of acquiring information...yet you happily and repeatedly deny that fact peacegirl.

I am afraid that certainly makes you appear to be a fundamentalist.

LadyShea, it's all about your first premise and how you define seeing. This has nothing to do with denying that the propogation of light transmits information. That's what is really being disputed, not the fact that efferent sight is acquiring information faster than the speed of light. It's like putting apples and hot dogs in the same food category.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not saying anything about light, you are purposefully twisting things to suit you.

No, that is what the argument has been about. Whether seeing efferently violates the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Information is acquired by the eyes and gets to the brain regardless if sight is efferent or afferent and you refuse to even concede this most basic, undeniable fact.

If you define information acquisition different from understanding that information, fine. But I don't agree that efferent vision defies the laws of physics. Sorry.

You gave the example of a simple sea creature with no brain acquiring information. How in the world can anything acquire information without a brain? As I said earlier, the creature might be having a reflexive reaction that was created to help protect him, but you can't say that he acquired information.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Information is nothing but data. How that information is used once acquired varies wildly, but no brain is required.

If no brain is required to acquire information, and you're using this to defend afferent vision, how is that possible? To see afferently, don't you need a brain? We aren't even talking about afferent or efferent anymore since a sea creature with no brain would not be able to interpret any images, or see any images.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lots of things without brains acquire information. I am inputting information as I type and the computer does stuff with that information. The computer has no brain. Cameras capture information about the object they are photographing without a brain. All kinds of machines and sensors acquire information without brains. Hell peacegirl a cup in the rain acquires information, that info being "how much rain fell".

That may be true, but these examples don't have anything to do with the purpose of this discussion, which is whether we have efferent or afferent vision. A computer has no brain and therefore it can't see either way. Cameras have no brain so they can't be used to support afferent vision. Machines can't be used to support afferent vision. And a cup with rain drops in it can't be used to support afferent vision. How off track can we get?

Originally Posted by LadySea

An animal with no brain must acquire information about it's surroundings to eat and to move and to survive. Temperature is information. Pressure is information. Chemicals are information. Electrical currents are information. Movement is information. The presence or absence of light is information.

But none of these examples have anything to do with our discussion on afferent or efferent vision. Animals with no brain cannot see, so what's the point of these examples except to show that acquiring "information" is different from "understanding" information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"Decline and Fall of All Evil", I think the most basic question is Do we want to eliminate all evil from the world? Apart from the problem of unemployment and loss of jobs, Do we, or Do we not, want to remove evil from the world?

You have a choice doc. You can continue living in this world where there is war, crime, poverty, preventable accidents, etc., or you can live in the new world where these things won't occur. It's totally up to you.

[ChuckF]

It does not matter what font the book is in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For the same reason people abbreviate things in general; because it would be redundant and cumbersome to always use International Bureau of Internal Revenue in every instance.

Why did Lessans use IBM instead of International Business Machines? Why do people call it the IRS instead of Internal Revenue Service. Why use AT&T instead of American Telephone and Telegraph? It's just easier. If you want to call it the International Bureau of Internal Revenue identification card go for it.

I get what you're saying. I didn't notice where it was cumbersome. I'll need to skim it again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

It does not matter what font the book is in.

I know, because you don't think the book has any value, so this is the least thing to be thinking about. Am I right? I can predict people's answers before they answer them.

[ChuckF]

Yes, "predict."

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"Decline and Fall of All Evil", I think the most basic question is Do we want to eliminate all evil from the world? Apart from the problem of unemployment and loss of jobs, Do we, or Do we not, want to remove evil from the world?

To the extent that we don't become this evil ourselves, yes. But, this is part of the challenge.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

To the extent that we don't become this evil ourselves, yes. But, this is part of the challenge.

Sorry but I must disagree, Evil is strictly a term that relates to Humans.
If you eliminate 'Evil' you eliminate humanity and human consciousness, we are reduced to animals acting on instinct and physical needs only. Evil has no meaning in nature, except where man has intervened. Only Humans are aware that some things are good and some bad, Only humans are aware of evil.

[thedoc]

The only challenge is to understand life as it is and embrace it and live. To deny that evil is part of life is to retreat from life and to die, if not physically, then spiritually.